Standing Up When It's Too Late
Submitted by JR Nyquist on Fri, 20 Aug 2010
There is a letter by Marcus Tullius Cicero, dated 18 December 50 B.C. This letter was written to his friend Atticus on the eve of the Roman Civil War. He wrote as follows: "The political situation alarms me deeply, and so far I have found scarcely anybody who is not for giving Caesar what he demands rather than fighting it out." To explain the situation in brief, G. Julius Caesar had demanded the right to circumvent the Roman constitution, to break laws with impunity, to extend his command over a large army by using that army to threaten the Senate of Rome. "And why should we start standing up to him now?" asked Cicero. The next day he wrote to Atticus: "We should have stood up to him [Caesar] when he was weak, and that would have been easy. Now we have to deal with eleven legions...." Though he hated the idea of civil war, the only course, said Cicero, was to follow "the honest men or whoever may be called such, even if they plunge."
And who were these "honest men"? "I don't know of any," wrote Cicero in the same letter. "There are honest individuals, but [there are no honest groups]." Then he asked rhetorically if the Senate was honest, or the tax farmers, or the capitalists. None were frightened of living under an autocracy, he lamented. The capitalists, especially, "never have objected to that, so long as they were left in peace." But civil war occurred nonetheless, because people are not free to be dishonest forever. They must admit to certain responsibilities, and oppose the advance of evil. The previous inclination to look away, to do nothing, to shrug off responsibility, proves in the end to be no more than a delaying tactic. They attempted to put off calamity, Cicero suggested, and made it all the more calamitous. That is all.
Why did the Roman Senate suddenly stand up to Caesar? What triggered their resistance? As with all free people, they began with policies of procrastination and appeasement. They hoped that the problem (i.e., Caesar) would go away. In the end, however, they discovered their mistake. Everyone still hoped for peace, though none believed it was possible. Everyone wanted to avoid war, but nobody saw a way out. Pompey stood before the Senate and gave voice to what everyone thought. "If we give Caesar the consulship, it will mean the subversion of the constitution." In other words, it would mean the end of Rome, the end of the republic, the destruction of their country.
In a fitting preface to John Dickinson's Death of a Republic, George L. Haskins wrote, "that the history of Rome is ... the history of the world, that, as all roads lead to Rome, so all history ends or begins with Rome." Why do free people fall into complacency? Why are threats ignored until the eleventh hour?
"Surely," wrote Cicero at the end of Caesar's dictatorship, "our present sufferings are all too well deserved. For had we not allowed outrages to go unpunished on all sides, it would never have been possible for a single individual to seize tyrannical power." Caesar's cause was not right, but evil, Cicero explained. "Mere confiscations of the property of individual citizens were far from enough to satisfy him. Whole provinces and countries succumbed to his onslaught, in one comprehensive universal catastrophe.." As for the city of Rome, Cicero lamented, "nothing is left -- only the lifeless walls of houses. And even they look afraid that some further terrifying attack may be imminent. The real Rome is gone forever."
Republics are slow to defend themselves against enemies that advance, like Caesar, under camouflage. But make no mistake, republics always defend. Groups and categories of men may not be honest or brave, but when they are finally confronted with the truth -- as individuals -- they see no other course. They stand up and fight. We should not be surprised, therefore, that Caesar was struck down in the Senate and killed by thrusting daggers.
"The Death of Julius Caesar," by Vincenzo Camuccini, 1798
It is all too true, of course. "We should have stood up to him when he was weak," Cicero lamented. The problem with republican government is its tardiness; or rather, tardiness in the face of danger. As Machiavelli wrote,
The institutions normally used by republics are slow in functioning. No assembly or magistrate can do everything alone. In many cases, they have to consult with one another, and to reconcile their diverse views takes time. Where there is a question of remedying a situation that will not brook delay, such a procedure is dangerous.
Machiavelli concluded, therefore, "that republics in imminent danger, having no recourse to dictatorship ... will always be ruined when some grave misfortune befalls them." This is the weakness of republican government. Here is the ground on which it dies. An obvious threat, like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor is not the greatest danger. It is the subtle, camouflaged threat, that creeps up from behind. It is this camouflage that gives reluctant men a way out. "We need not fight. We need not make a fuss. There is nothing to fear."
When this is the prevailing view, people who understand a given threat may ask: "What is to be done?"
As long as we are isolated individuals, there is nothing to do. The individual may be honest with himself, but groups are not honest. What prevails overall is an optimistic dismissal. "The threat isn't real." This is how Hitler got so far. This is how Communism took over so many countries, and continues today under camouflage. There is nothing the individual can do that will sway the crowd. And as we are a republic, our political system operates according to the psychology of a crowd. The majority are caught up in the fads and media trends of the moment. Cynical and empty publicity characterizes much of our public discourse.
Are the Russians and Chinese arming themselves against us? Is Venezuela becoming a military bulwark for Communism in Latin America? Is Mexico being destabilized by the Russian mafia (via the Mexican mafia)? Has Canada been infiltrated by Chinese intelligence allied with Chinese organized crime? Are socialist revolutionaries inside the U.S. government subverting the nation's nuclear deterrent, foreign policy, and border security?
The crowd says "no" because that is what they want to believe. But one day the country will awaken. Then, and only then, Americans will stop going along as if nothing serious hangs over them. Will it be too late? Perhaps it will be too late to save the republic. But it will not be too late to save the country.
JR Nyquist
jrnyquist @ aol.com http://www.jrnyquist.com
Other Articles by JR Nyquist
•Clouds In My Coffee
•The Peace Fairy
•No Country for Silly Men
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Peace Fairy vs WAR or We Want Commonsense
The Peace Fairy
Submitted by JR Nyquist on Fri, 24 Sep 2010
War is bad, and everybody wants peace. Well, almost everybody. There are, we must admit, people who want to wipe out their neighbors, dominate the planet, or take possession of high-end real estate. But setting these exceptions aside, most of us would like to believe that no serious wars will occur in the foreseeable future; for as all children know, there is a Peace Fairy, who inspires many high officials of the U.S. government.
The Peace Fairy is a cousin of the Tooth Fairy. He attaches to people of childish political disposition who entertain utopian notions. The British essayist and biographer, Thomas Carlyle, referred to such people in a book titled Characteristics. He said that their "generous Affections have become well-nigh paralytic," being subject to "the reign of Sentimentality." They are also quite arrogant, believing themselves morally superior. According to Carlyle, "the luxury of doing good; charity, love, self-forgetfulness, devotedness and all manner of godlike magnanimity -- are everywhere insisted on, and pressingly inculcated in speech and writing, in prose and verse...."
Thursday morning President Barack Obama spoke before the United Nations. His listeners got to see his "generous Affections" under "the reign of Sentimentality." The President's faith in the Peace Fairy was almost as touching as his concern for the global economy. We are told that Obama's primary focus is to rescue the global economy from "potential catastrophe." This can be done by spending enormous sums of money which must be borrowed (see also, the Money Fairy). Since Obama blames Wall Street for the global recession, the best solution is for the U.S. president to make good on other people's losses, even taking responsibility for Third World countries. As crazy as it sounds, that is what Obama believes. How one man can assume such responsibility is unclear. But the President's god-like pose with regard to the global economic crisis is nothing when compared to his "charity, love, self-forgetfulness, devotedness and all manner of god-like magnanimity" in the cause of world peace.
The President's speech touched on the idea of "a world without nuclear weapons." He spoke of joining with Russia to "sign the most comprehensive arms control agreement in decades." He further boasted, "We have reduced the role of nuclear weapons in our security strategy." If only the Iranians and the Chinese would take a similar path. But no matter, President Obama believes in the Peace Fairy:."As part of our efforts on non-proliferation [of nuclear weapons]," he explained, "I offered the Islamic Republic of Iran an extended hand last year...." As if in response, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking from the same podium a short while after President Obama, suggested that "some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the [9/11] attack." Ahmadinejad further suggested the attacks were orchestrated to reverse a "declining American economy and ... to save the Zionist regime." The U.S. delegation walked out of the hall during Ahmadinejad's speech, along with representatives from Britain, Sweden, Australia, Belgium, Uruguay and Spain." President Obama had already left the United Nations by this time, but later reacted with surprise at the Iranian's "outrageous and offensive" comments. This, of course, is one of the men that Obama wants to make peace with.
According to President Obama, Iran has "failed" to demonstrate peaceful intentions with regard to its nuclear program. So how is this problem going to be resolved? The door remains open for diplomacy, says President Obama, "but the Iranian government must demonstrate a clear and credible commitment, and confirm to the world the peaceful intent of its nuclear program." But the Iranian government is never going to do this, and the President should have no illusions. Even so, he believes in the Peace Fairy; and rather than effectively reducing the nuclear arsenals of others, the President is determined to reduce America's nuclear arsenal (for he has all but admitted that the Russians are going to cheat on the new treaty). It is ridiculous beyond words to have this statesman-child, standing before the United Nations, lecturing representatives from dozens of criminal regimes on the politically correct path to peace. That dreamt of utopia, that magical land where everything wrong has suddenly been "righted," where the hen cuddles with the weasel and the lion lies down with the lamb, is not attainable. It does not exist. To expect the violent psychopaths of yesteryear to transform themselves into peacemakers is a sign of political immaturity. Here, in the supposed Age of Science, our politics has degenerated to a form of pandering in which the panderer no longer recognizes the falsity of his own empty promises, but believes that his own good intentions are all-in-all sufficient. Here, in this dreamt up utopia, there is no struggle for food, no animosity of man against man, no bigotry or religious fanaticism. Victory for all mankind is automatically guaranteed by "the forces of history," or the "dialectics of matter," or by the "science of socialism."
As a true believer, the President spoke of his pledge "to support the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security...." Obama said it was cynical to imagine that Jews and Arabs are too distrustful and too divided internally to forge a lasting peace. According to the President, "Some say ... peace is simply not possible."But, he says, peace must be possible. To the contrary, history teaches that there will be no peace. Common sense tells us the same thing. The Arabs are not reconciled to Israel's existence, even now. As Yaacov Lozowick observed in his book, Right to Exist:
All the Arabic readers I have tell me unanimously that while some Palestinians grudgingly accept that Israel may be here to stay, none of them acknowledge the right of the Jews to be here. Hence, should Israel ever lose her overwhelming military and economic superiority, her very existence will come into question. The late Faisal Husseini ... repeatedly said -- in Arabic -- that making peace with Israel would be merely a stage in the conflict, which would continue by other means.
How can there be an agreement when the Arab side refuses to acknowledge the right of a Jewish nation-state to exist? The Arabs have refused to make peace, noted Lozowick, because of their belief that Judaism is a religion, not a nationality, and therefore the Jews do not need or deserve their own state. On this central point, the most avid peace-makers on the both sides cannot agree. According to Lozowick, "there is nothing left to strive for." President Obama's striving, therefore, is due to his belief in the Treaty Fairy. If Obama leaves good intentions under his pillow the Peace Fairy will deliver up a treaty, signed by the region's chief warmongers and killers. The same type of agreement is supposed to protect us, as well, from a future nuclear war, by removing all nuclear weapons from the earth. It is as if the entire history of mankind, heretofore, was unknown; as if we have learned nothing about ourselves as a species; namely, that mankind easily becomes intoxicated by hatred, which leads to open warfare.
The father of history, a Greek writer named Herodotus, gave us a chronicle of serial murders, massacres and wars. And little has changed since the fifth and sixth centuries B.C. The political despots of antiquity were no different than the despots of today: bloody, cruel, and treacherous. Hitler and Pol Pot were not aberrations. They were part of a long line of killers stretching back to Cyrus the Great. Most Middle East leaders today are no different than those described by Herodotus. But here is an admission that President Obama would dismiss as "cynical." The tragic view of the world, which is the adult view, has no place in the childish mind of a utopian dreamer.
History is merely an account of the way people actually behave. It is not a tale for children. It is strictly for adults. Consider three historical samples: (1) The Roman dictator Sulla, in the act of reinstating the Roman Republic, stacked a large number of decapitated heads on his porch; (2) Julius Caesar cut off the hands of thousands who took up arms against him in Gaul; (3) President Harry S. Truman dropped two atomic bombs on innocent women and children in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Does the reader imagine that we are done with war because we are somehow better than the people living in the age of Sulla or Caesar, or Harry S. Truman? The concern that I have tried to communicate, again and again, has to do with the realization of who man is and what kind of weapons he now has at his disposal. As for massacring innocents, the Americans are not the worst of modern offenders; certainly not worse than the Russians or Chinese. And that is reason for concern as well, if you noticed the ongoing modernization of Russian and Chinese nuclear forces (while U.S. forces are in decline). The best solution, under the circumstances, is to maintain the balance of power (i.e., the nuclear balance). But we have lost interest in doing this, so that our survival is no longer assured. When Russia and China realize they can wage nuclear war against the United States without fear of retaliation, then America will cease to exist. The disappearance of America from history is difficult for Americans to imagine, but it is undoubtedly the direction in which we are headed. The children among us deny all of this. Theirs is a politics of denial. And it seems that these children are now in charge, making policy.
America has become a political Disneyland where fantasy has completely taken the place of reality in terms of (1) deficit spending; (2) "free trade"; (3) government protection for bad investments; (4) open borders; (5) arms control policy (6) the raising of children; (7) the collapse of public education; (8) immigration policy; (9) and tax policy. Even more ominous, we find in our midst a rising tide of misfits, defectives, and slackers. The appearance of such people has been made possible by a massive capitalist machine, which has blessed us with an overabundance of goods and services. Now the machine is blamed by our own president, who seeks universal peace and an economic fix for every country on earth. And he blames Wall Street, the heart of the capitalist machine, for damaging the global economy. Therefore, as he reaches for his utopia, he will cook the goose that lays the golden eggs. Imagine then what will become of this aforementioned mass of unsustainable humanity that has grown up around us.
Perhaps the Free Food Fairy will save us, along with the Money Fairy and the Freebie Fairy.
Thomas Carlyle says of our utopian dreamer, "The barrenest of all mortals is the Sentimentalist. Granting even that he were sincere, and did not wilfully deceive us ... what good is in him? Does he not lie there as a perpetual lesson of despair?"
JR Nyquist
jrnyquist @ aol.com http://www.jrnyquist.com
Other Articles by JR Nyquist
•Clouds In My Coffee
•Standing Up When It's Too Late
•No Country for Silly Men
Submitted by JR Nyquist on Fri, 24 Sep 2010
War is bad, and everybody wants peace. Well, almost everybody. There are, we must admit, people who want to wipe out their neighbors, dominate the planet, or take possession of high-end real estate. But setting these exceptions aside, most of us would like to believe that no serious wars will occur in the foreseeable future; for as all children know, there is a Peace Fairy, who inspires many high officials of the U.S. government.
The Peace Fairy is a cousin of the Tooth Fairy. He attaches to people of childish political disposition who entertain utopian notions. The British essayist and biographer, Thomas Carlyle, referred to such people in a book titled Characteristics. He said that their "generous Affections have become well-nigh paralytic," being subject to "the reign of Sentimentality." They are also quite arrogant, believing themselves morally superior. According to Carlyle, "the luxury of doing good; charity, love, self-forgetfulness, devotedness and all manner of godlike magnanimity -- are everywhere insisted on, and pressingly inculcated in speech and writing, in prose and verse...."
Thursday morning President Barack Obama spoke before the United Nations. His listeners got to see his "generous Affections" under "the reign of Sentimentality." The President's faith in the Peace Fairy was almost as touching as his concern for the global economy. We are told that Obama's primary focus is to rescue the global economy from "potential catastrophe." This can be done by spending enormous sums of money which must be borrowed (see also, the Money Fairy). Since Obama blames Wall Street for the global recession, the best solution is for the U.S. president to make good on other people's losses, even taking responsibility for Third World countries. As crazy as it sounds, that is what Obama believes. How one man can assume such responsibility is unclear. But the President's god-like pose with regard to the global economic crisis is nothing when compared to his "charity, love, self-forgetfulness, devotedness and all manner of god-like magnanimity" in the cause of world peace.
The President's speech touched on the idea of "a world without nuclear weapons." He spoke of joining with Russia to "sign the most comprehensive arms control agreement in decades." He further boasted, "We have reduced the role of nuclear weapons in our security strategy." If only the Iranians and the Chinese would take a similar path. But no matter, President Obama believes in the Peace Fairy:."As part of our efforts on non-proliferation [of nuclear weapons]," he explained, "I offered the Islamic Republic of Iran an extended hand last year...." As if in response, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking from the same podium a short while after President Obama, suggested that "some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the [9/11] attack." Ahmadinejad further suggested the attacks were orchestrated to reverse a "declining American economy and ... to save the Zionist regime." The U.S. delegation walked out of the hall during Ahmadinejad's speech, along with representatives from Britain, Sweden, Australia, Belgium, Uruguay and Spain." President Obama had already left the United Nations by this time, but later reacted with surprise at the Iranian's "outrageous and offensive" comments. This, of course, is one of the men that Obama wants to make peace with.
According to President Obama, Iran has "failed" to demonstrate peaceful intentions with regard to its nuclear program. So how is this problem going to be resolved? The door remains open for diplomacy, says President Obama, "but the Iranian government must demonstrate a clear and credible commitment, and confirm to the world the peaceful intent of its nuclear program." But the Iranian government is never going to do this, and the President should have no illusions. Even so, he believes in the Peace Fairy; and rather than effectively reducing the nuclear arsenals of others, the President is determined to reduce America's nuclear arsenal (for he has all but admitted that the Russians are going to cheat on the new treaty). It is ridiculous beyond words to have this statesman-child, standing before the United Nations, lecturing representatives from dozens of criminal regimes on the politically correct path to peace. That dreamt of utopia, that magical land where everything wrong has suddenly been "righted," where the hen cuddles with the weasel and the lion lies down with the lamb, is not attainable. It does not exist. To expect the violent psychopaths of yesteryear to transform themselves into peacemakers is a sign of political immaturity. Here, in the supposed Age of Science, our politics has degenerated to a form of pandering in which the panderer no longer recognizes the falsity of his own empty promises, but believes that his own good intentions are all-in-all sufficient. Here, in this dreamt up utopia, there is no struggle for food, no animosity of man against man, no bigotry or religious fanaticism. Victory for all mankind is automatically guaranteed by "the forces of history," or the "dialectics of matter," or by the "science of socialism."
As a true believer, the President spoke of his pledge "to support the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security...." Obama said it was cynical to imagine that Jews and Arabs are too distrustful and too divided internally to forge a lasting peace. According to the President, "Some say ... peace is simply not possible."But, he says, peace must be possible. To the contrary, history teaches that there will be no peace. Common sense tells us the same thing. The Arabs are not reconciled to Israel's existence, even now. As Yaacov Lozowick observed in his book, Right to Exist:
All the Arabic readers I have tell me unanimously that while some Palestinians grudgingly accept that Israel may be here to stay, none of them acknowledge the right of the Jews to be here. Hence, should Israel ever lose her overwhelming military and economic superiority, her very existence will come into question. The late Faisal Husseini ... repeatedly said -- in Arabic -- that making peace with Israel would be merely a stage in the conflict, which would continue by other means.
How can there be an agreement when the Arab side refuses to acknowledge the right of a Jewish nation-state to exist? The Arabs have refused to make peace, noted Lozowick, because of their belief that Judaism is a religion, not a nationality, and therefore the Jews do not need or deserve their own state. On this central point, the most avid peace-makers on the both sides cannot agree. According to Lozowick, "there is nothing left to strive for." President Obama's striving, therefore, is due to his belief in the Treaty Fairy. If Obama leaves good intentions under his pillow the Peace Fairy will deliver up a treaty, signed by the region's chief warmongers and killers. The same type of agreement is supposed to protect us, as well, from a future nuclear war, by removing all nuclear weapons from the earth. It is as if the entire history of mankind, heretofore, was unknown; as if we have learned nothing about ourselves as a species; namely, that mankind easily becomes intoxicated by hatred, which leads to open warfare.
The father of history, a Greek writer named Herodotus, gave us a chronicle of serial murders, massacres and wars. And little has changed since the fifth and sixth centuries B.C. The political despots of antiquity were no different than the despots of today: bloody, cruel, and treacherous. Hitler and Pol Pot were not aberrations. They were part of a long line of killers stretching back to Cyrus the Great. Most Middle East leaders today are no different than those described by Herodotus. But here is an admission that President Obama would dismiss as "cynical." The tragic view of the world, which is the adult view, has no place in the childish mind of a utopian dreamer.
History is merely an account of the way people actually behave. It is not a tale for children. It is strictly for adults. Consider three historical samples: (1) The Roman dictator Sulla, in the act of reinstating the Roman Republic, stacked a large number of decapitated heads on his porch; (2) Julius Caesar cut off the hands of thousands who took up arms against him in Gaul; (3) President Harry S. Truman dropped two atomic bombs on innocent women and children in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Does the reader imagine that we are done with war because we are somehow better than the people living in the age of Sulla or Caesar, or Harry S. Truman? The concern that I have tried to communicate, again and again, has to do with the realization of who man is and what kind of weapons he now has at his disposal. As for massacring innocents, the Americans are not the worst of modern offenders; certainly not worse than the Russians or Chinese. And that is reason for concern as well, if you noticed the ongoing modernization of Russian and Chinese nuclear forces (while U.S. forces are in decline). The best solution, under the circumstances, is to maintain the balance of power (i.e., the nuclear balance). But we have lost interest in doing this, so that our survival is no longer assured. When Russia and China realize they can wage nuclear war against the United States without fear of retaliation, then America will cease to exist. The disappearance of America from history is difficult for Americans to imagine, but it is undoubtedly the direction in which we are headed. The children among us deny all of this. Theirs is a politics of denial. And it seems that these children are now in charge, making policy.
America has become a political Disneyland where fantasy has completely taken the place of reality in terms of (1) deficit spending; (2) "free trade"; (3) government protection for bad investments; (4) open borders; (5) arms control policy (6) the raising of children; (7) the collapse of public education; (8) immigration policy; (9) and tax policy. Even more ominous, we find in our midst a rising tide of misfits, defectives, and slackers. The appearance of such people has been made possible by a massive capitalist machine, which has blessed us with an overabundance of goods and services. Now the machine is blamed by our own president, who seeks universal peace and an economic fix for every country on earth. And he blames Wall Street, the heart of the capitalist machine, for damaging the global economy. Therefore, as he reaches for his utopia, he will cook the goose that lays the golden eggs. Imagine then what will become of this aforementioned mass of unsustainable humanity that has grown up around us.
Perhaps the Free Food Fairy will save us, along with the Money Fairy and the Freebie Fairy.
Thomas Carlyle says of our utopian dreamer, "The barrenest of all mortals is the Sentimentalist. Granting even that he were sincere, and did not wilfully deceive us ... what good is in him? Does he not lie there as a perpetual lesson of despair?"
JR Nyquist
jrnyquist @ aol.com http://www.jrnyquist.com
Other Articles by JR Nyquist
•Clouds In My Coffee
•Standing Up When It's Too Late
•No Country for Silly Men
Monday, October 11, 2010
Clouds in My Coffee, Fear to Fear
Clouds In My Coffee
Submitted by JR Nyquist on Fri, 1 Oct 2010
The leading hit song in 1973 was Carly Simon's You're So Vain. It's about disappointed love, and contains the following line at the heart of the song: "I had some dreams, they were clouds in my coffee...." Last month the Center for Security Policy presented the political equivalent of Simon's song to the national security establishment, titled Shariah, the Threat to America; An Exercise in Competitive Analysis, report of Team 'B' II, which touches many a cloud in our national coffee.
The Team B Report doesn't walk into the party as if onto a yacht, with its hat strategically dipped below one eye; and there isn't an apricot scarf. In fact, there's no concern for fashion of any kind. The vanities of political correctness, multiculturalism, and the lingua franca of self-abnegating tolerance do not appear. We are in a war for our existence, says Team B. We are fighting a subversive and well-organized subset of Muslims. "In keeping with Article VI of the Constitution, [we need to] extend bans currently in effect that bar members of hate groups ... from holding positions of trust in [government]."
But the national security establishment couldn't possibly agree with this. For them, it is unacceptable to identify America's enemies or to deny Muslims coveted posts. Opinion leaders like journalist Fareed Zakaria, as well as President Barack Obama, would rather talk about tolerance and inclusion. After all, if we don't embrace Muslims we will offend them. In that event, the next terrorist attack really will be our fault. And besides, a xenophobic display would damage our position overseas. Here is the main and immediate objection to Team B. As Zakaria explained in The Post-American World: America lacks legitimacy, unlike the rock singer Bono who excels because he is able to "capture the intellectual and moral high ground."
Instead of bogus national power based on military capabilities, we can found our security on the moral high ground, on vanity. Who needs to think of enemies, or the kind of vigilance required in preparing for war? We can do what Denmark, Luxembourg and the Baltic States did in 1940. And to do this all-the-better, we must follow Zakaria's suggestions. We must avoid publicly naming our enemies since this will only serve to unite them into a more compact mass. "Stop cowering in fear," warned Zakaria. Fear is the enemy. There is nothing to fear but fear itself, said FDR. There is nothing to fear because, as President Barack Obama recently told Bob Woodward, "We can absorb [another] terrorist attack...." If thousands die, if skyscrapers fall, if the Pentagon burns -- absorb it! Get over it! Grow up! America's strength is found in its tolerance, not in its ability to strike back.
But before Zakaria and Obama can fly off to Nova Scotia for a total eclipse of the sun, we should consider Team B's comeback. First, the issue at hand is not a matter of a few thousand dead or a few tumbled skyscrapers. It is a matter of life and death for an entire nation; because the United States is in a struggle for its existence. The enemy adheres to an "all encompassing Islamic political-military-legal doctrine known as shariah" which aims at global Islamic supremacy. Of course, a large number of Muslims don't follow the directives of shariah. On the other hand, a large number agree that they ought to. This nuance shouldn't be passed over in silence. Furthermore, as Muslims flood into the United States to live and work, we find ourselves unable to distinguish the moderates from the radicals. According to Team B: "the most difficult attack to defend against is the one that comes from inside the defensive perimeter...." The Report continues, "That is the situation of America today. We have an enemy inside our perimeter." Millions of Muslims live and work in America today. Which of these are enemies, and which are friends? The President says it doesn't matter because we can absorb an attack. Zakaria says it doesn't matter, because our best defense is to let everyone in (and include everyone). But is this really a defense? Or is it clouds in our coffee?
Defectors from the Muslim Brotherhood have already attempted to warn the American people that the Brotherhood seeks to destroy the United States Constitution and replace it with shariah. "These brave men," says the Team B report, "are helping to define the enemy." But the American establishment doesn't want to listen. They do not want definitions. They want inclusion, tolerance, and a blurring of every line of demarcation. They don't want to identify Islam with the cause of the enemy. They don't want to address the issue of forced marriages, honor killings, female genital mutilation, polygamy and domestic abuse. The Team B report says, "Evidence of the extent to which shariah is being insinuated into the fabric of American society abounds, if one is willing to see it."
Does Team B exaggerate the Islamic threat? If you read the Report you'll find that it discusses long-term Islamic subversion, stretching to the end of the present century. The main issues are cultural rather than military. The Report discusses our "national lack of moral certitude." It suggests that a failure to side with one's own society, customs and folkways is tantamount to taking the "other" side in a long-term struggle over values (theirs versus ours). Diversity, under these circumstances, is not automatically good. "Under sway of the multicultural credo, notions of the superiority of Western culture are heretical, an imminent threat to the leveling arrangement that makes the European Union's so-called 'meeting of different civilizations' possible."
But are such things truly possible? In real life, as opposed to childish dreams about life, you have to stand up for yourself. This doesn't mean that you have to be a bully. It means that if you aren't for yourself, then who is? In place of this sort of advice, our president gives the counsel of vanity, attempting to win approval overseas. Should we reconcile ourselves to absorbing a massive terrorist assault for the sake of maintaining what Zakaria calls "legitimacy" (which otherwise belongs to rock stars, and to Luxembourg)? Is national survival and persistence our goal, or do we crave international applause? Should America take a rock star as its model? Or should we sing the words set down by Carly Simon?
JR Nyquist
jrnyquist @ aol.com http://www.jrnyquist.com
Other Articles by JR Nyquist
•The Peace Fairy
•Standing Up When It's Too Late
•No Country for Silly Men
Submitted by JR Nyquist on Fri, 1 Oct 2010
The leading hit song in 1973 was Carly Simon's You're So Vain. It's about disappointed love, and contains the following line at the heart of the song: "I had some dreams, they were clouds in my coffee...." Last month the Center for Security Policy presented the political equivalent of Simon's song to the national security establishment, titled Shariah, the Threat to America; An Exercise in Competitive Analysis, report of Team 'B' II, which touches many a cloud in our national coffee.
The Team B Report doesn't walk into the party as if onto a yacht, with its hat strategically dipped below one eye; and there isn't an apricot scarf. In fact, there's no concern for fashion of any kind. The vanities of political correctness, multiculturalism, and the lingua franca of self-abnegating tolerance do not appear. We are in a war for our existence, says Team B. We are fighting a subversive and well-organized subset of Muslims. "In keeping with Article VI of the Constitution, [we need to] extend bans currently in effect that bar members of hate groups ... from holding positions of trust in [government]."
But the national security establishment couldn't possibly agree with this. For them, it is unacceptable to identify America's enemies or to deny Muslims coveted posts. Opinion leaders like journalist Fareed Zakaria, as well as President Barack Obama, would rather talk about tolerance and inclusion. After all, if we don't embrace Muslims we will offend them. In that event, the next terrorist attack really will be our fault. And besides, a xenophobic display would damage our position overseas. Here is the main and immediate objection to Team B. As Zakaria explained in The Post-American World: America lacks legitimacy, unlike the rock singer Bono who excels because he is able to "capture the intellectual and moral high ground."
Instead of bogus national power based on military capabilities, we can found our security on the moral high ground, on vanity. Who needs to think of enemies, or the kind of vigilance required in preparing for war? We can do what Denmark, Luxembourg and the Baltic States did in 1940. And to do this all-the-better, we must follow Zakaria's suggestions. We must avoid publicly naming our enemies since this will only serve to unite them into a more compact mass. "Stop cowering in fear," warned Zakaria. Fear is the enemy. There is nothing to fear but fear itself, said FDR. There is nothing to fear because, as President Barack Obama recently told Bob Woodward, "We can absorb [another] terrorist attack...." If thousands die, if skyscrapers fall, if the Pentagon burns -- absorb it! Get over it! Grow up! America's strength is found in its tolerance, not in its ability to strike back.
But before Zakaria and Obama can fly off to Nova Scotia for a total eclipse of the sun, we should consider Team B's comeback. First, the issue at hand is not a matter of a few thousand dead or a few tumbled skyscrapers. It is a matter of life and death for an entire nation; because the United States is in a struggle for its existence. The enemy adheres to an "all encompassing Islamic political-military-legal doctrine known as shariah" which aims at global Islamic supremacy. Of course, a large number of Muslims don't follow the directives of shariah. On the other hand, a large number agree that they ought to. This nuance shouldn't be passed over in silence. Furthermore, as Muslims flood into the United States to live and work, we find ourselves unable to distinguish the moderates from the radicals. According to Team B: "the most difficult attack to defend against is the one that comes from inside the defensive perimeter...." The Report continues, "That is the situation of America today. We have an enemy inside our perimeter." Millions of Muslims live and work in America today. Which of these are enemies, and which are friends? The President says it doesn't matter because we can absorb an attack. Zakaria says it doesn't matter, because our best defense is to let everyone in (and include everyone). But is this really a defense? Or is it clouds in our coffee?
Defectors from the Muslim Brotherhood have already attempted to warn the American people that the Brotherhood seeks to destroy the United States Constitution and replace it with shariah. "These brave men," says the Team B report, "are helping to define the enemy." But the American establishment doesn't want to listen. They do not want definitions. They want inclusion, tolerance, and a blurring of every line of demarcation. They don't want to identify Islam with the cause of the enemy. They don't want to address the issue of forced marriages, honor killings, female genital mutilation, polygamy and domestic abuse. The Team B report says, "Evidence of the extent to which shariah is being insinuated into the fabric of American society abounds, if one is willing to see it."
Does Team B exaggerate the Islamic threat? If you read the Report you'll find that it discusses long-term Islamic subversion, stretching to the end of the present century. The main issues are cultural rather than military. The Report discusses our "national lack of moral certitude." It suggests that a failure to side with one's own society, customs and folkways is tantamount to taking the "other" side in a long-term struggle over values (theirs versus ours). Diversity, under these circumstances, is not automatically good. "Under sway of the multicultural credo, notions of the superiority of Western culture are heretical, an imminent threat to the leveling arrangement that makes the European Union's so-called 'meeting of different civilizations' possible."
But are such things truly possible? In real life, as opposed to childish dreams about life, you have to stand up for yourself. This doesn't mean that you have to be a bully. It means that if you aren't for yourself, then who is? In place of this sort of advice, our president gives the counsel of vanity, attempting to win approval overseas. Should we reconcile ourselves to absorbing a massive terrorist assault for the sake of maintaining what Zakaria calls "legitimacy" (which otherwise belongs to rock stars, and to Luxembourg)? Is national survival and persistence our goal, or do we crave international applause? Should America take a rock star as its model? Or should we sing the words set down by Carly Simon?
JR Nyquist
jrnyquist @ aol.com http://www.jrnyquist.com
Other Articles by JR Nyquist
•The Peace Fairy
•Standing Up When It's Too Late
•No Country for Silly Men
Sunday, October 10, 2010
freedom of speech or ? ?
Pamela Geller: In Her Own Words Published: October 8, 2010
I feel as if I am doing something that must be done. I’m making an important contribution in the information battle space, because that’s where we are now. You know, it really is a war of ideas and it’s important. That’s why the free-speech issue for me is everything. It’s the line in the sand; it is the difference between peace and war, because with freedom of speech, peaceful men can effect change. Without freedom of speech, peaceful men have no choice but to resort to violence. You have no alternative. Freedom of speech is the line in the sand.
And that’s why when I see the press, I see this self-imposed Shariah. And it’s Shariah: do not defame Islam, do not insult Islam.
I feel as if I am doing something that must be done. I’m making an important contribution in the information battle space, because that’s where we are now. You know, it really is a war of ideas and it’s important. That’s why the free-speech issue for me is everything. It’s the line in the sand; it is the difference between peace and war, because with freedom of speech, peaceful men can effect change. Without freedom of speech, peaceful men have no choice but to resort to violence. You have no alternative. Freedom of speech is the line in the sand.
And that’s why when I see the press, I see this self-imposed Shariah. And it’s Shariah: do not defame Islam, do not insult Islam.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
origin of paul henry's dipshit
double d (40) Says:
October 9th, 2010 at 8:43 am
this from my mate in India last week before all this rubbish began.
WHO IS JACK SCHITT?
For some time many of us have wondered just who is Jack Schitt? We’ve all probably said at some point “I don’t give a Jack Schitt” without knowing the origin of the saying. Well, you do now!!
We find ourselves at a loss when someone says, ‘You don’t know Jack Schitt’!
Well, thanks to my genealogy efforts, you can now respond in an intellectual way.
Jack Schitt is the only son of Awe Schitt. Awe Schitt, the fertilizer magnate, who married O. Schitt, the owner of Needeep N. Schitt, Inc. They had one son, Jack.
In turn, Jack Schitt married Noe Schitt. The deeply religious couple produced six children: Holie Schitt, Giva Schitt, Fulla Schitt, Bull Schitt, and the twins Deep Schitt and Dip Schitt.
Against her parents’ objections, Deep Schitt married Dumb Schitt, a high school dropout.
After being married 15 years, Jack and Noe Schitt divorced.
Noe Schitt later married Ted Sherlock, and because her kids were living with them, she wanted to keep her previous name. She was then known as Noe Schitt Sherlock.
Meanwhile, Dip Schitt married Loda Schitt, and they produced a son with a rather nervous disposition named Chicken Schitt. Two of the other six children, Fulla Schitt and Giva Schitt, were inseparable throughout childhood and subsequently married the Happens brothers in a dual ceremony.
The wedding announcement in the ne wspaper announced the Schitt-Happens nuptials. The Schitt-Happens children were Dawg, Byrd, and Horse.
Bull Schitt, the prodigal son, left home to tour the world.
He recently returned from Italy with his new Italian bride, Pisa Schitt.
Now when someone says, ‘You don’t know Jack Schitt’, you can correct them.
Sincerely,
Crock O. Schitt
Viking2 (2,719) Says:
October 9th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Not withstanding the Dikshit comments the this whole beat up about Henry has become slanted way beyond the truth.
The October 1 piece was followed on Monday by Henry saying Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand – who was born and raised in Auckland – did not “look or sound like a New Zealander”.
Now having watched TVNZ replay this clip on the news again last night it is clear that he (Henry) did not say that at all.
He asked Key “was the GG a NZer. Key replies and then Henry asked would the next GG be a person who looked and sounded like a NZer”
There was no slur against the present GG merely a fair question about his citizenship. A fair question that many would not know the answer to. It also seems that many Kiwi’s couldn’t have named the GG anyway. (about normal for Kiwi’s)
backster (720) Says:
October 9th, 2010 at 10:29 am
DOUBLE D……somewhere in your genealogy you missed out the birth of a illegitimate child call Dik.
Griff (7,939 comments) says:
November 12th, 2014 at 9:19 pm
October 9th, 2010 at 8:43 am
this from my mate in India last week before all this rubbish began.
WHO IS JACK SCHITT?
For some time many of us have wondered just who is Jack Schitt? We’ve all probably said at some point “I don’t give a Jack Schitt” without knowing the origin of the saying. Well, you do now!!
We find ourselves at a loss when someone says, ‘You don’t know Jack Schitt’!
Well, thanks to my genealogy efforts, you can now respond in an intellectual way.
Jack Schitt is the only son of Awe Schitt. Awe Schitt, the fertilizer magnate, who married O. Schitt, the owner of Needeep N. Schitt, Inc. They had one son, Jack.
In turn, Jack Schitt married Noe Schitt. The deeply religious couple produced six children: Holie Schitt, Giva Schitt, Fulla Schitt, Bull Schitt, and the twins Deep Schitt and Dip Schitt.
Against her parents’ objections, Deep Schitt married Dumb Schitt, a high school dropout.
After being married 15 years, Jack and Noe Schitt divorced.
Noe Schitt later married Ted Sherlock, and because her kids were living with them, she wanted to keep her previous name. She was then known as Noe Schitt Sherlock.
Meanwhile, Dip Schitt married Loda Schitt, and they produced a son with a rather nervous disposition named Chicken Schitt. Two of the other six children, Fulla Schitt and Giva Schitt, were inseparable throughout childhood and subsequently married the Happens brothers in a dual ceremony.
The wedding announcement in the ne wspaper announced the Schitt-Happens nuptials. The Schitt-Happens children were Dawg, Byrd, and Horse.
Bull Schitt, the prodigal son, left home to tour the world.
He recently returned from Italy with his new Italian bride, Pisa Schitt.
Now when someone says, ‘You don’t know Jack Schitt’, you can correct them.
Sincerely,
Crock O. Schitt
Viking2 (2,719) Says:
October 9th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Not withstanding the Dikshit comments the this whole beat up about Henry has become slanted way beyond the truth.
The October 1 piece was followed on Monday by Henry saying Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand – who was born and raised in Auckland – did not “look or sound like a New Zealander”.
Now having watched TVNZ replay this clip on the news again last night it is clear that he (Henry) did not say that at all.
He asked Key “was the GG a NZer. Key replies and then Henry asked would the next GG be a person who looked and sounded like a NZer”
There was no slur against the present GG merely a fair question about his citizenship. A fair question that many would not know the answer to. It also seems that many Kiwi’s couldn’t have named the GG anyway. (about normal for Kiwi’s)
backster (720) Says:
October 9th, 2010 at 10:29 am
DOUBLE D……somewhere in your genealogy you missed out the birth of a illegitimate child call Dik.
Griff (7,939 comments) says:
November 12th, 2014 at 9:19 pm
I think my wife is a part time Muslim…
Once a month she is offended by everything!
Religious Shit Taoism Shit happens. Buddhism If shit happens, it’s not really shit. Islam If shit happens, it’s the will of Allah. Protestantism Shit happens because you don’t work hard enough. Judaism Why does this shit always happen to us? Hinduism This shit happened before. Catholicism Shit happens because you’re bad. Hare Krishna Shit happens rama rama. T.V. Evangelism Send more shit. Atheism No shit. Jehova’s Witness Knock knock, shit happens. Hedonism There’s nothing like a good shit happening. Christian Science Shit happens in your mind. Agnosticism Maybe shit happens, maybe it doesn’t. Rastafarianism Let’s smoke this shit. Existentialism What is shit anyway? Stoicism This shit doesn’t bother me.
If you do not shit you will die.
-------------------------
-------------------------
“Shit” may just be the most powerful word in the English language. You can be shit faced, shit out of luck, or have shit for brains. With a little effort, you can get your shit together, find a place for your shit or decide to shit or get off the pot. You can smoke shit, buy shit, sell shit, lose shit, find shit, forget shit, and tell others to eat shit and die. Some people know their shit while others can’t tell shit. There are lucky shits, dumb shits, crazy shits, and sweet shits. There is bull shit, horse shit and chicken shit. There is good shit and bad shit. You can throw shit, sling shit, catch shit, or duck when shit hits the fan. You can give a shit or serve shit on a shingle. You can find yourself in deep shit or be happier than a pig in shit. Some days are colder than shit, some days are hotter than shit, and some days are just plain shitty. Some music sounds like shit, things can look like shit, and there are times when you feel like shit. You can have too much shit, not enough shit, the right shit, the wrong shit or a lot of weird shit. You can carry shit, have a mountain of shit, or find yourself up shit creek without a paddle. Sometimes everything you touch turns to shit and other times you swim in a sea of shit and come out smelling like a rose. When you stop to consider all the facts, it’s the basic building block of creation.
And then there is Holyshit
--------------
“Shit” may just be the most powerful word in the English language.
What the fuck? No fucking way.
---------------
Jack Shit is a near cousin of Fuck All
----------------------
Hacking Votes
Hacked Voting System Stored Accessible Password, Encryption Key
By Kim Zetter October 6, 2010 | 1:55 pm | Categories: Breaches, Cybersecurity, E-Voting, Elections An internet-based voting system that was hacked last week by researchers at the University of Michigan stored its database username, password and encryption key on a server open to attack.
Alex Halderman, a computer scientist at the university, has detailed the vulnerabilities and hacking techniques his students used to completely control the system last week. The hack allowed them to change votes and program the system to play his school’s fight song “Hail to the Victors” after each voter cast their ballot.
The hack, unnoticed by election officials until researchers notified them, forced election officials to take the system offline and adopt a contingency plan for the November elections.
Washington, DC, began testing its internet voting system last Tuesday in advance of the November elections. The system, paid for in part with a $300,000 federal grant, is designed to let overseas military and civilian voters cast ballots quickly, instead of relying on the postal system to deliver their votes in a timely manner.
But within 36 hours of the system going live, Halderman’s team found and exploited a shell-injection vulnerability that “gave us almost total control of the server software, including the ability to change votes and reveal voters’ secret ballots.”
We modified all the ballots that had already been cast to contain write-in votes for candidates we selected. (Although the system encrypts voted ballots, we simply discarded the encrypted files and replaced them with different ones that we encrypted using the same key.) We also rigged the system to replace future votes in the same way.
We installed a back door that let us view any ballots that voters cast after our attack. This modification recorded the votes, in unencrypted form, together with the names of the voters who cast them, violating ballot secrecy.
The hack left lots of traces that an intrusion detection system should have caught. Nonetheless, it went unnoticed for two business days until Friday afternoon when several testers directed election officials to the Michigan fight song playing on their $300,000 voting system.
See also:
•Voting System Pwned by Michigan Wolverines
Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/voting-system-hacked/#ixzz11pNBd7D0
By Kim Zetter October 6, 2010 | 1:55 pm | Categories: Breaches, Cybersecurity, E-Voting, Elections An internet-based voting system that was hacked last week by researchers at the University of Michigan stored its database username, password and encryption key on a server open to attack.
Alex Halderman, a computer scientist at the university, has detailed the vulnerabilities and hacking techniques his students used to completely control the system last week. The hack allowed them to change votes and program the system to play his school’s fight song “Hail to the Victors” after each voter cast their ballot.
The hack, unnoticed by election officials until researchers notified them, forced election officials to take the system offline and adopt a contingency plan for the November elections.
Washington, DC, began testing its internet voting system last Tuesday in advance of the November elections. The system, paid for in part with a $300,000 federal grant, is designed to let overseas military and civilian voters cast ballots quickly, instead of relying on the postal system to deliver their votes in a timely manner.
But within 36 hours of the system going live, Halderman’s team found and exploited a shell-injection vulnerability that “gave us almost total control of the server software, including the ability to change votes and reveal voters’ secret ballots.”
We modified all the ballots that had already been cast to contain write-in votes for candidates we selected. (Although the system encrypts voted ballots, we simply discarded the encrypted files and replaced them with different ones that we encrypted using the same key.) We also rigged the system to replace future votes in the same way.
We installed a back door that let us view any ballots that voters cast after our attack. This modification recorded the votes, in unencrypted form, together with the names of the voters who cast them, violating ballot secrecy.
The hack left lots of traces that an intrusion detection system should have caught. Nonetheless, it went unnoticed for two business days until Friday afternoon when several testers directed election officials to the Michigan fight song playing on their $300,000 voting system.
See also:
•Voting System Pwned by Michigan Wolverines
Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/voting-system-hacked/#ixzz11pNBd7D0
Banana Republic Britain and N ?
Banana Republic Britain
by Paul Weston
As the haunting wail of the Muezzin — recently described by Barack Obama as the sweetest sound in the world — roused the slumbering Pakistani inhabitants of Mirpur, Kashmir, to Morning Prayer, young Sammy Mohammed was awakened somewhat more brutally by the boot of local Mirpurian MP, Sultan Mehmood Chaudhry.
“By ’eck Sammy lad, tha lazy young beggar, tha’ll not be thwarting democracy in Britain by festering in t’pit all day, by gum. Hand over them proxy votes sharpish, me lad, lest tha want thy backside tanning!”
The beginning of a satirical article? I am afraid not. It is routine practice for dual-nationality Pakistanis residing in Kashmir to sign thousands of proxy vote forms for the British General Election, in order that their Pakistani brothers in Britain may use them to subvert our democracy.
One “British” Mirpuri resident described the blind signing of the electoral proxy votes thus:
“They said I didn’t have to fill in any details, just to sign my name at the bottom of the form,” he says, smiling. “So I signed two…I personally know 25 other people who did the same thing, lots of people just on this street, but everybody does it.”
Having collected thousands of forms, Pakistani politicians such as Sultan Chaudry hop on the Kashmiri red-eye to Britain, where they distribute said forms amongst the many Muslims in our vibrantly diverse, exotic and eclectic multicultural cities, whilst advising them where their fraudulent vote should be cast to best represent their decidedly un-diverse and un-vibrant 7th Century mono-culture. In a BBC interview conducted in Manchester, Chaudry said:
“I’m here for the 6 May election. I always come during elections…it’s basically so I can tell people how to vote and who to vote for…most of the Pakistanis here are from Mirpur, and I am the MP from Mirpur, and I know the issues here and who will be the best candidates to help solve the issues in Kashmir.”
Even more astonishing than Pakistani politicians visiting Britain to tell the “British” electorate who to fraudulently vote for in order to solve the Kashmir Question, is the positively surreal concept of British politicians travelling to Pakistan to woo the local vote for precisely the same reason. That this actually happens is a damning indictment on how reliant Labour/Socialist politicos have become on the Third World vote if they are ever to regain power.
Many people will be flabbergasted that such Third World practices can occur in Great Britain. These flabbergastees however, do tend to be foreign. The British, immersed in a cauldron of rapidly warming multicultural soup and floating alongside a clearly overheating yet curiously blasé frog, have been subjected to such a relentless barrage of propaganda over such a lengthy period of time that most fail to realise what is being done to both themselves and their country.
And it gets much worse.
A few thousand peripatetic Kashmiri proxy votes pale into insignificance when compared to the postal voting fraud that is now endemic in what was once the seat of European democracy. When the Labour Party introduced postal voting on demand, they did so in the full knowledge it would create massive fraud, yet were more than happy knowing that the fraud would benefit Labour above all other parties.
How does one apply for a postal vote, or even multiple postal votes? Simply download a form from the Electoral Commission, make up a name(s) and address, and one or more postal votes will miraculously appear on your doormat. It does not need to be your own name, of course, and if you are one of the 100 bogus-named people living in a solitary two-bedroomed flat in Tower Hamlets, it is unlikely you will even be investigated, particularly if you register at the last possible moment before the election.
In other words, you do not need to exist in order to gain multiple postal votes. Taking it even further, some houses do not even exist! A row of terraced properties may end at number 64, but whilst the wraith like apparitions of numbers 66-70 may not actually exist in reality, the local postman, Mr Abdul Aziz, knows very well where he should deliver the extra 200 postal votes designated for the non-people within the non-houses.
The Electoral Commission simply cannot keep up. Multicultural Britain is experiencing such a massive racial and demographic shift that to track and record individuals has become an utterly impossible task. Particularly so when each official form is printed and distributed in over 20 different languages before being processed by staff who among them speak only three.
This has led to dangerous levels of fraud. In 2004, Judge Richard Mawley QC presiding over an electoral vote-rigging case in Birmingham had this to say: “The (postal vote) system is wide open to massive, systematic and organised fraud that would disgrace a banana republic.”
Shortly before the 2010 election, the police were investigating upward of 50 cases of electoral fraud, principally in Labour-controlled areas. Since the election this number has climbed to 81 cases, but little has happened since, because the alleged fraudsters were invariably Muslim and the police are loath to prosecute for fear of appearing “racist.”
In a scarcely believable precedent, Commonwealth electoral monitors were despatched to Britain to scrutinise the election result for the first time in our history, with one native from Zimbabwe suggesting that Britain lagged far behind Mr Mugabe’s regime when it came to democracy. He cited as an example the fact that Zimbabweans could only vote once, because indelible ink was applied to their finger après-vote, whilst non-existent “ghosts” in Britain could make multiple postal votes with no checks whatsoever.
And it is hard to argue with him on this point. Dear God, who would have thought a few years ago that by 2010 Britain could be accused of being a banana republic by Zimbabwe! And still we refuse to wake up.
But we need to. Before the Labour Party came to power it was impossible to register to vote once the election had been called. Labour changed this to allow registration up to 11 days after the election was called. This time-frame allows people to register and vote before any checks to prove their existence can feasibly be carried out — which is exactly what was intended.
The result of this has been an upsurge in postal voting applications, sometimes up to 200% higher than in the previous election. In ex-Home Secretary Jack Straw’s constituency of Blackburn, postal voting was running at 30% of all votes cast compared to only 15% as a national average. In the month before the election, some half a million new “voters” registered with the Electoral Commission, representing an increase of almost one fifth since the election of 2005.
One voter of Pakistani origin, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisals, told The Independent newspaper that postal vote fraud in Blackburn was widespread. “It’s worse than Birmingham, the mosque committee is 100 per cent Labour. They control the mosque. They frighten the people.” Teams of Muslims were seen distributing and collecting sheaves of postal ballot papers which were picked up on street corners en-route to the “sealed” ballot box.
This assertion is backed up by Craig Murray, Britain’s former ambassador to the central Asian republic of Uzbekistan, who was campaigning in Blackburn to unseat Jack Straw. The challenge was rather unsuccessful as it transpired because Mr Straw allegedly achieved 90% of the vote, a margin unheard of outside North Korea. Mr Murray told the Independent:
“I’ve come from Uzbekistan to Blackburnistan…this is very much a Labour rotten borough…there is a nexus of the police, the authorities and business — if we were in the Soviet Union, you would say mafia.”
The Independent is a liberal leaning newspaper experiencing a number of “teachable moments” as Mr Obama might say. Alerted to a possible massive postal voting fraud in Bangladeshi controlled Tower Hamlets, East London, the newspaper sent intrepidly bearded Jerome Tayler to investigate as to why “there have been as many as 20 Bengali names supposedly living in two or three-bedroom flats. When journalists have previously called, all too often there are far fewer living there, in some instances, no Bengalis at all.
Poor Mr Tayler discovered that the locals take exception to being investigated by impertinent young infidel reporters, even if they are liberal and bearded, and having declined to answer his questions gave him a good pasting instead. Given a few more unsuccessful missions into bandit country looking for the source of fraudulent postal ballot papers, it is possible that Mr Tayler may even refer to his assailants as politically driven Muslims rather than “poverty stricken Asians.”
Just in case these fraudulent postal ballots could be detected after the election, the Labour Party allowed them to be mixed in with the ballot papers from local polling stations, where, although identification is not required (why not?) at least faces are recognised and names crossed off a list. As such, any individual attempting to cast multiple ballots in a polling station would be quickly recognised and rumbled, so the vast majority of these ballots are therefore legitimate.
This is not the case of course for the postal voters, which is precisely why postal voting has experienced such a massive upsurge and precisely why Labour Party officials were so keen to lose the fraudulent postal ballots amongst the legitimate polling station ballots.
This destruction of British democracy, although appalling in itself, is not of the highest importance unless the fraud actually affected the election results, but now we learn that it has. In the May 2010 British General Election, the Conservative Party failed to gain a majority by the slimmest of margins, with only a handful of constituency seats swaying the result. This recently led Conservative Party Chairman, Baroness Warsi, to make the extraordinarily explosive claim that The Conservative Party failed to win a majority because of “Asian” electoral fraud.
Just before the election, ex- MP Martin Bell suggested that the result could be decided by electoral fraud. And so it has been proven. It is not a surprise that by importing the Third World you become the Third World, but what is surprising is our reaction to the very real subversion of our ancient and bloodily defended democracy — which is that of total appeasement and dhimmitude.
The idea that British democracy has been subverted by Socialist enabled Muslim fraud is an enormous front page story. Or it should be, yet having broken the potentially biggest story in Britain so far this century, Baroness Warsi and the press have become strangely reticent. Her appearance on BBC “Question Time” has been cancelled and the MSM, although not exactly in deep denial, are hardly giving this astonishing claim the attention it deserves.
Even liberals must be starting to realise why Islam, when translated, means Submission. If Muslims can illegally alter the course of a British General Election with barely a word of criticism or investigation — based on our fear of them — then we are in terrible, terrible trouble and that trouble can only become worse.
The multicultural cauldron we Brits share with the overly-optimistic frog is still only warm, but within a generation and the doubling of our Muslim population it will be boiling. The Authorities could turn the heat down if they so wished, but they appear dedicated instead to turning it into a pressure cooker with the lid tightly screwed down, seemingly unaware that the rapidly building steam must eventually find a release somewhere.
And nothing can build the steam quicker than favouring the enemy above your own soldiers and airmen. Whilst I may have given the impression that is remarkably easy to obtain voting rights in Britain, this is not always the case. Members of our Armed Forces for example find it very difficult indeed.
In one of the more perverse outcomes of Socialist rule, we find that whilst British Pakistanis fighting against the British Army in Afghanistan may use their proxy/postal vote to influence British democracy, British soldiers, fighting for their country at the behest of their government, find themselves disenfranchised. It is estimated that in 2005 eighty per-cent of our armed forces were disqualified from voting.
British Forces used to register for elections just once in their career, but this was changed in 2001 by the Labour Government, who decreed the register must be signed annually, unlike the British Muslims shooting at them, who, having registered for a postal vote, are then entitled to it for life.
The Ministry of Defence claimed our soldiers were notified. Not very well though it would seem. The vast majority had no idea of the 2001 rule change, leading Lord Garden, a Lib Dem defence spokesman to remark: “It’s rather sad that we send our military personnel off to establish democracy and set up elections in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, but don’t make enough arrangements for them to vote here.”
Quite so, but Lord Garden labours under the misapprehension that we are a fully functioning democracy rather than a discredited banana republic. And just because our curiously silent Conservative rulers and mainstream media appear disinterested in the death of our democracy, this does not mean all the people are similarly apathetic.
Banana republics are inherently unstable and violent. We are already witnessing the early stages of civil war in England, as the native EDL square up to foreign Islam and their Communist allies. The next few years will witness interesting developments in the art of “steam management.”
by Paul Weston
As the haunting wail of the Muezzin — recently described by Barack Obama as the sweetest sound in the world — roused the slumbering Pakistani inhabitants of Mirpur, Kashmir, to Morning Prayer, young Sammy Mohammed was awakened somewhat more brutally by the boot of local Mirpurian MP, Sultan Mehmood Chaudhry.
“By ’eck Sammy lad, tha lazy young beggar, tha’ll not be thwarting democracy in Britain by festering in t’pit all day, by gum. Hand over them proxy votes sharpish, me lad, lest tha want thy backside tanning!”
The beginning of a satirical article? I am afraid not. It is routine practice for dual-nationality Pakistanis residing in Kashmir to sign thousands of proxy vote forms for the British General Election, in order that their Pakistani brothers in Britain may use them to subvert our democracy.
One “British” Mirpuri resident described the blind signing of the electoral proxy votes thus:
“They said I didn’t have to fill in any details, just to sign my name at the bottom of the form,” he says, smiling. “So I signed two…I personally know 25 other people who did the same thing, lots of people just on this street, but everybody does it.”
Having collected thousands of forms, Pakistani politicians such as Sultan Chaudry hop on the Kashmiri red-eye to Britain, where they distribute said forms amongst the many Muslims in our vibrantly diverse, exotic and eclectic multicultural cities, whilst advising them where their fraudulent vote should be cast to best represent their decidedly un-diverse and un-vibrant 7th Century mono-culture. In a BBC interview conducted in Manchester, Chaudry said:
“I’m here for the 6 May election. I always come during elections…it’s basically so I can tell people how to vote and who to vote for…most of the Pakistanis here are from Mirpur, and I am the MP from Mirpur, and I know the issues here and who will be the best candidates to help solve the issues in Kashmir.”
Even more astonishing than Pakistani politicians visiting Britain to tell the “British” electorate who to fraudulently vote for in order to solve the Kashmir Question, is the positively surreal concept of British politicians travelling to Pakistan to woo the local vote for precisely the same reason. That this actually happens is a damning indictment on how reliant Labour/Socialist politicos have become on the Third World vote if they are ever to regain power.
Many people will be flabbergasted that such Third World practices can occur in Great Britain. These flabbergastees however, do tend to be foreign. The British, immersed in a cauldron of rapidly warming multicultural soup and floating alongside a clearly overheating yet curiously blasé frog, have been subjected to such a relentless barrage of propaganda over such a lengthy period of time that most fail to realise what is being done to both themselves and their country.
And it gets much worse.
A few thousand peripatetic Kashmiri proxy votes pale into insignificance when compared to the postal voting fraud that is now endemic in what was once the seat of European democracy. When the Labour Party introduced postal voting on demand, they did so in the full knowledge it would create massive fraud, yet were more than happy knowing that the fraud would benefit Labour above all other parties.
How does one apply for a postal vote, or even multiple postal votes? Simply download a form from the Electoral Commission, make up a name(s) and address, and one or more postal votes will miraculously appear on your doormat. It does not need to be your own name, of course, and if you are one of the 100 bogus-named people living in a solitary two-bedroomed flat in Tower Hamlets, it is unlikely you will even be investigated, particularly if you register at the last possible moment before the election.
In other words, you do not need to exist in order to gain multiple postal votes. Taking it even further, some houses do not even exist! A row of terraced properties may end at number 64, but whilst the wraith like apparitions of numbers 66-70 may not actually exist in reality, the local postman, Mr Abdul Aziz, knows very well where he should deliver the extra 200 postal votes designated for the non-people within the non-houses.
The Electoral Commission simply cannot keep up. Multicultural Britain is experiencing such a massive racial and demographic shift that to track and record individuals has become an utterly impossible task. Particularly so when each official form is printed and distributed in over 20 different languages before being processed by staff who among them speak only three.
This has led to dangerous levels of fraud. In 2004, Judge Richard Mawley QC presiding over an electoral vote-rigging case in Birmingham had this to say: “The (postal vote) system is wide open to massive, systematic and organised fraud that would disgrace a banana republic.”
Shortly before the 2010 election, the police were investigating upward of 50 cases of electoral fraud, principally in Labour-controlled areas. Since the election this number has climbed to 81 cases, but little has happened since, because the alleged fraudsters were invariably Muslim and the police are loath to prosecute for fear of appearing “racist.”
In a scarcely believable precedent, Commonwealth electoral monitors were despatched to Britain to scrutinise the election result for the first time in our history, with one native from Zimbabwe suggesting that Britain lagged far behind Mr Mugabe’s regime when it came to democracy. He cited as an example the fact that Zimbabweans could only vote once, because indelible ink was applied to their finger après-vote, whilst non-existent “ghosts” in Britain could make multiple postal votes with no checks whatsoever.
And it is hard to argue with him on this point. Dear God, who would have thought a few years ago that by 2010 Britain could be accused of being a banana republic by Zimbabwe! And still we refuse to wake up.
But we need to. Before the Labour Party came to power it was impossible to register to vote once the election had been called. Labour changed this to allow registration up to 11 days after the election was called. This time-frame allows people to register and vote before any checks to prove their existence can feasibly be carried out — which is exactly what was intended.
The result of this has been an upsurge in postal voting applications, sometimes up to 200% higher than in the previous election. In ex-Home Secretary Jack Straw’s constituency of Blackburn, postal voting was running at 30% of all votes cast compared to only 15% as a national average. In the month before the election, some half a million new “voters” registered with the Electoral Commission, representing an increase of almost one fifth since the election of 2005.
One voter of Pakistani origin, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisals, told The Independent newspaper that postal vote fraud in Blackburn was widespread. “It’s worse than Birmingham, the mosque committee is 100 per cent Labour. They control the mosque. They frighten the people.” Teams of Muslims were seen distributing and collecting sheaves of postal ballot papers which were picked up on street corners en-route to the “sealed” ballot box.
This assertion is backed up by Craig Murray, Britain’s former ambassador to the central Asian republic of Uzbekistan, who was campaigning in Blackburn to unseat Jack Straw. The challenge was rather unsuccessful as it transpired because Mr Straw allegedly achieved 90% of the vote, a margin unheard of outside North Korea. Mr Murray told the Independent:
“I’ve come from Uzbekistan to Blackburnistan…this is very much a Labour rotten borough…there is a nexus of the police, the authorities and business — if we were in the Soviet Union, you would say mafia.”
The Independent is a liberal leaning newspaper experiencing a number of “teachable moments” as Mr Obama might say. Alerted to a possible massive postal voting fraud in Bangladeshi controlled Tower Hamlets, East London, the newspaper sent intrepidly bearded Jerome Tayler to investigate as to why “there have been as many as 20 Bengali names supposedly living in two or three-bedroom flats. When journalists have previously called, all too often there are far fewer living there, in some instances, no Bengalis at all.
Poor Mr Tayler discovered that the locals take exception to being investigated by impertinent young infidel reporters, even if they are liberal and bearded, and having declined to answer his questions gave him a good pasting instead. Given a few more unsuccessful missions into bandit country looking for the source of fraudulent postal ballot papers, it is possible that Mr Tayler may even refer to his assailants as politically driven Muslims rather than “poverty stricken Asians.”
Just in case these fraudulent postal ballots could be detected after the election, the Labour Party allowed them to be mixed in with the ballot papers from local polling stations, where, although identification is not required (why not?) at least faces are recognised and names crossed off a list. As such, any individual attempting to cast multiple ballots in a polling station would be quickly recognised and rumbled, so the vast majority of these ballots are therefore legitimate.
This is not the case of course for the postal voters, which is precisely why postal voting has experienced such a massive upsurge and precisely why Labour Party officials were so keen to lose the fraudulent postal ballots amongst the legitimate polling station ballots.
This destruction of British democracy, although appalling in itself, is not of the highest importance unless the fraud actually affected the election results, but now we learn that it has. In the May 2010 British General Election, the Conservative Party failed to gain a majority by the slimmest of margins, with only a handful of constituency seats swaying the result. This recently led Conservative Party Chairman, Baroness Warsi, to make the extraordinarily explosive claim that The Conservative Party failed to win a majority because of “Asian” electoral fraud.
Just before the election, ex- MP Martin Bell suggested that the result could be decided by electoral fraud. And so it has been proven. It is not a surprise that by importing the Third World you become the Third World, but what is surprising is our reaction to the very real subversion of our ancient and bloodily defended democracy — which is that of total appeasement and dhimmitude.
The idea that British democracy has been subverted by Socialist enabled Muslim fraud is an enormous front page story. Or it should be, yet having broken the potentially biggest story in Britain so far this century, Baroness Warsi and the press have become strangely reticent. Her appearance on BBC “Question Time” has been cancelled and the MSM, although not exactly in deep denial, are hardly giving this astonishing claim the attention it deserves.
Even liberals must be starting to realise why Islam, when translated, means Submission. If Muslims can illegally alter the course of a British General Election with barely a word of criticism or investigation — based on our fear of them — then we are in terrible, terrible trouble and that trouble can only become worse.
The multicultural cauldron we Brits share with the overly-optimistic frog is still only warm, but within a generation and the doubling of our Muslim population it will be boiling. The Authorities could turn the heat down if they so wished, but they appear dedicated instead to turning it into a pressure cooker with the lid tightly screwed down, seemingly unaware that the rapidly building steam must eventually find a release somewhere.
And nothing can build the steam quicker than favouring the enemy above your own soldiers and airmen. Whilst I may have given the impression that is remarkably easy to obtain voting rights in Britain, this is not always the case. Members of our Armed Forces for example find it very difficult indeed.
In one of the more perverse outcomes of Socialist rule, we find that whilst British Pakistanis fighting against the British Army in Afghanistan may use their proxy/postal vote to influence British democracy, British soldiers, fighting for their country at the behest of their government, find themselves disenfranchised. It is estimated that in 2005 eighty per-cent of our armed forces were disqualified from voting.
British Forces used to register for elections just once in their career, but this was changed in 2001 by the Labour Government, who decreed the register must be signed annually, unlike the British Muslims shooting at them, who, having registered for a postal vote, are then entitled to it for life.
The Ministry of Defence claimed our soldiers were notified. Not very well though it would seem. The vast majority had no idea of the 2001 rule change, leading Lord Garden, a Lib Dem defence spokesman to remark: “It’s rather sad that we send our military personnel off to establish democracy and set up elections in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, but don’t make enough arrangements for them to vote here.”
Quite so, but Lord Garden labours under the misapprehension that we are a fully functioning democracy rather than a discredited banana republic. And just because our curiously silent Conservative rulers and mainstream media appear disinterested in the death of our democracy, this does not mean all the people are similarly apathetic.
Banana republics are inherently unstable and violent. We are already witnessing the early stages of civil war in England, as the native EDL square up to foreign Islam and their Communist allies. The next few years will witness interesting developments in the art of “steam management.”
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Europe bans "Mein Kampf" and ? ?
Geert Wilders, MP, Chairman of the Party for Freedom
http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1117
http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1117
In various suras Muslims are summoned to oppress, prosecute or kill Jews, Christians, renegades and non-believers, to beat and rape women and to establish a worldwide Islamic state through violence. I’ve lost count of the number of suras that incite Muslims to spread death and destruction.
Why don’t we ban that miserable book? After all, we also decided to ban Mein Kampf! This would bring the message home to those who assaulted Jami and to other Islamists that in this country the Koran should never, absolutely never, be used as a source of inspiration or an excuse for violence.
I am fed up with Islam in the Netherlands: let’s put a stop to the influx of Muslim immigrants. I am fed up with the worshipping of Allah and Mohammed in the Netherlands: let’s put a stop to the building of mosques. I am fed up with the Koran in the Netherlands: let’s ban that fascist book.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Security
B replied to comment from undaunted | October 1, 2010 12:20 PM | Reply
Undaunted,
I was looking for more of a place of info that makes people posting online to be aware and beware some of the dangers. Despite the fact that we have freedom of speech in this country, that still won't protect us against fatwas from Imams or Muslims like IE or DOI who might decide to "take one of us out".
Here's my list so far
----------------------------
Protecting yourself online and in real life
Easy-Hide-IP – $29.95 - bypass virtually any form of censorship or internet traffic blocking imposed on you by your ISP, by your company, or by some other third parties. All your internet traffic is routed through remote servers. On your ISP’s log file, only the IPs of the remote servers will be shown, not the sites you have visited.
Keyscrambler Personal – Free – Add on for various browsers like Firefox and IE. Scrambles what you type so keyloggers can't capture the data.
Iobit Random Password Generator – Free - create hard to guess passwords for your accounts.
PGP – encrypt your emails and digitally sign emails to known and trusted people. Prevents interception of emails by anyone. Also method to establish that it was really you who sent an email to someone else you know.
SSH – applications like Putty (freeware), WinSCP (freeware), FileZilla (FTP prog that supports SFTP, freeware.
Antivirus Software – AVG Antivirus (Free), Avast! (Free) - Use AV software to protect your computer from malware, spyware and trojans which can compromise your PC security.
No Script – Free addon for Firefox – Prevents potentially malicious javascripts or code from activating on web pages. It's can be a pain since it will disable most of the content on web pages until you allow it. Once you allow the page, it will allow most of the content except third site information.
Firewalls – You can use both a router firewall (preferred method with incoming and outgoing controls on the firewall, or a personal software firewall like Zonealarm (free version). Firewalls protect intrusions from the internet.
Malware Software – very similar to AV software. They scan for virus, trojans and malicious apps that come through web pages and cookies. Malware is also installed via applications you may actually want. You should always monitor the installation process so you can opt out of some extra software installs you don't need like the yahoo toolbar.
Put Passwords on all your accounts – This includes your credit card account, bank account, phone account, power company accounts, etc. Avoid using easily available information – like your mother's maiden name, your birth date, last four digits of your SSN, or your phone number – or obvious choices like a series of consecutive numbers or your hometown football team. You should do this now before any threats arise. By the time you know something is happening, it will be too late. Politicians or anyone seeking political office are encourage to do this. News reporters go snooping for dirt and if you leave this unaddressed it may hurt you politically.
Paper shredder – Use one of these to shred any personal information that an identity thief may be able to find by picking through your trash. When you discard receipts, copies of credit applications, insurance forms, physician statements, bank checks and statements, expired charge cards, credit offers you get in the mail, and mailing labels from magazines, tear or shred them.
Online guides to protecting your personal information
EFF's Top 12 ways to Protect Your Online Privacy - http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy
Undaunted,
I was looking for more of a place of info that makes people posting online to be aware and beware some of the dangers. Despite the fact that we have freedom of speech in this country, that still won't protect us against fatwas from Imams or Muslims like IE or DOI who might decide to "take one of us out".
Here's my list so far
----------------------------
Protecting yourself online and in real life
Easy-Hide-IP – $29.95 - bypass virtually any form of censorship or internet traffic blocking imposed on you by your ISP, by your company, or by some other third parties. All your internet traffic is routed through remote servers. On your ISP’s log file, only the IPs of the remote servers will be shown, not the sites you have visited.
Keyscrambler Personal – Free – Add on for various browsers like Firefox and IE. Scrambles what you type so keyloggers can't capture the data.
Iobit Random Password Generator – Free - create hard to guess passwords for your accounts.
PGP – encrypt your emails and digitally sign emails to known and trusted people. Prevents interception of emails by anyone. Also method to establish that it was really you who sent an email to someone else you know.
SSH – applications like Putty (freeware), WinSCP (freeware), FileZilla (FTP prog that supports SFTP, freeware.
Antivirus Software – AVG Antivirus (Free), Avast! (Free) - Use AV software to protect your computer from malware, spyware and trojans which can compromise your PC security.
No Script – Free addon for Firefox – Prevents potentially malicious javascripts or code from activating on web pages. It's can be a pain since it will disable most of the content on web pages until you allow it. Once you allow the page, it will allow most of the content except third site information.
Firewalls – You can use both a router firewall (preferred method with incoming and outgoing controls on the firewall, or a personal software firewall like Zonealarm (free version). Firewalls protect intrusions from the internet.
Malware Software – very similar to AV software. They scan for virus, trojans and malicious apps that come through web pages and cookies. Malware is also installed via applications you may actually want. You should always monitor the installation process so you can opt out of some extra software installs you don't need like the yahoo toolbar.
Put Passwords on all your accounts – This includes your credit card account, bank account, phone account, power company accounts, etc. Avoid using easily available information – like your mother's maiden name, your birth date, last four digits of your SSN, or your phone number – or obvious choices like a series of consecutive numbers or your hometown football team. You should do this now before any threats arise. By the time you know something is happening, it will be too late. Politicians or anyone seeking political office are encourage to do this. News reporters go snooping for dirt and if you leave this unaddressed it may hurt you politically.
Paper shredder – Use one of these to shred any personal information that an identity thief may be able to find by picking through your trash. When you discard receipts, copies of credit applications, insurance forms, physician statements, bank checks and statements, expired charge cards, credit offers you get in the mail, and mailing labels from magazines, tear or shred them.
Online guides to protecting your personal information
EFF's Top 12 ways to Protect Your Online Privacy - http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy
Teach them well
September 18, 2010
Al Gore's Baleful Brood
Posted by Van Helsing at September 18, 2010 3:32 PM
This is what liberals are using their control of the media and education establishments to do to innocent children's minds:
Turning children against their parents while shaping them into venomous miniature maniacs by feeding them a constant diet of malignant lies is nothing new for totalitarians:
One more apposite quote:
Ronald Reagan
Freedom will not be on the agenda for a generation brainwashed by moonbats.
On a tip from Marasmius.
Al Gore's Baleful Brood
Posted by Van Helsing at September 18, 2010 3:32 PM
This is what liberals are using their control of the media and education establishments to do to innocent children's minds:
Turning children against their parents while shaping them into venomous miniature maniacs by feeding them a constant diet of malignant lies is nothing new for totalitarians:
When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community."Adolf Hitler
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
One more apposite quote:
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
Ronald Reagan
Freedom will not be on the agenda for a generation brainwashed by moonbats.
On a tip from Marasmius.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
