Question:

    Over the past several days, voters throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia have filed complaints of incidents aimed at suppressing voter turn out in heavily Democratic and African American neighborhoods. Today, the Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections Jean Jensen concluded that the incidents appear widespread and deliberate. This is very serious and complaints have come about robo-calls telling people their voting place has changed, telling people that if they registered in another state they will be arrested, and Fliers  being passed out. This is again very serious. Wide spread PROOF of voter suppression in action.     There are now credible reports from multiple jurisdictions around the Commonwealth that establish a pattern of dirty tricks being employed to confuse and frustrate Virginia’s voters from exercising their right to vote tomorrow. In addition to reports that have been received by the Democratic Party of Virginia, these local election officials have been receiving reports from concerned voters," said Jack Young, co-chair of Promote the Vote. Documented incidents of suppression incidents include:     1) Calls that Voting will Lead to Arrest.     Tim Daly from Clarendon got a call saying that if he votes Tuesday, he will be arrested. A recording of his voicemail can be found online at: www.webbforsenate.com/media/phone_message.wav     2) Widespread Calls, Allegedly from "Webb Volunteers," Telling Voters that their Polling Location has Changed.     3) Fliers in Buckingham County Say "SKIP THIS ELECTION" (paid for by the RNC) have caused many in the African American community to call the Board of Elections to see if the election is still on. The full tag line says: "SKIP THIS ELECTION… (and then in smaller print): Don’t Let the Tax and Spend Liberals Win."     4). Voter Machine Problems     a. On many ballots in heavily Democratic neighborhoods, Jim’s name is cut off. The ballots say: "James H. (Jim)" with no Webb.     b. New reports that ballots in Essex County have Jim’s name split on 2 pages. The "James H (Jim)" on one page, "Webb" on the next.     c. Reports of voting machines in Isle of White that do not provide a clear image of the ballot, making voting a challenge.

Response:

Cool…that will negate all the democratic votes by dead people and people in jail. Love this country.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >     Over the past several days, voters throughout the Commonwealth of > Virginia have filed complaints of incidents aimed at suppressing voter > turn out in heavily Democratic and African American neighborhoods. > Today, the Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections Jean > Jensen concluded that the incidents appear widespread and deliberate. > This is very serious and complaints have come about robo-calls telling > people their voting place has changed, telling people that if they > registered in another state they will be arrested, and Fliers  being > passed out. This is again very serious. Wide spread PROOF of voter > suppression in action. >     There are now credible reports from multiple jurisdictions around > the Commonwealth that establish a pattern of dirty tricks being > employed to confuse and frustrate Virginia’s voters from exercising > their right to vote tomorrow. In addition to reports that have been > received by the Democratic Party of Virginia, these local election > officials have been receiving reports from concerned voters," said Jack > Young, co-chair of Promote the Vote. > Documented incidents of suppression incidents include: >     1) Calls that Voting will Lead to Arrest. >     Tim Daly from Clarendon got a call saying that if he votes Tuesday, > he will be arrested. A recording of his voicemail can be found online > at: www.webbforsenate.com/media/phone_message.wav >     2) Widespread Calls, Allegedly from "Webb Volunteers," Telling > Voters that their Polling Location has Changed. >     3) Fliers in Buckingham County Say "SKIP THIS ELECTION" (paid for > by the RNC) have caused many in the African American community to call > the Board of Elections to see if the election is still on. The full tag > line says: "SKIP THIS ELECTION… (and then in smaller print): Don’t > Let the Tax and Spend Liberals Win." >     4). Voter Machine Problems >     a. On many ballots in heavily Democratic neighborhoods, Jim’s name > is cut off. The ballots say: "James H. (Jim)" with no Webb. >     b. New reports that ballots in Essex County have Jim’s name split > on 2 pages. The "James H (Jim)" on one page, "Webb" on the next. >     c. Reports of voting machines in Isle of White that do not provide > a clear image of the ballot, making voting a challenge.

Here’s another sleazy method lying, cheating retardicon authoritarian slimeballs are having to resort to: Using robo-calls to repeatedly call voters really late at night and really early in the morning while pretending to be a voice for the democratic candidate knowing the voter will get irriated and have a lack of sleep and most likely not bother to go vote. The retardicons have always known they’re outnumbered, so the only way they can win is to cheat. And what do we get as a nation when they win? Look at what’s already happened in the last 6 years. Corporate deregulation while the government sticks its nose in our private lives, that illegal obscene invasion and now futile occuapation of a country that never attacked us, high rises in the cost of living, gasoline and healthcare (they know what part of the body they’ve got us by), the shredding of our Constitutional Rights and Freedoms, our biggest export being our jobs, trying to combine the church with the state, trying to make Duhbya the emperor of a feudal system by eliminating the middle class. NOW WHAT KIND OF PERSON IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD VOTE FOR ALL OF THAT ANTI-AMERICAN SHIT? NO ONE, OF COURSE. WHICH IS WHY THEY HAVE TO CHEAT.

Response:

> NOW WHAT KIND OF PERSON IN THEIR RIGHT MIND > WOULD VOTE FOR ALL OF THAT ANTI-AMERICAN SHIT? > NO ONE, OF COURSE. WHICH IS WHY THEY HAVE > TO _BREAK_INTO_SONG_.

Lyrics to song written and sung by John Ashcroft: "Let the eagle soar, Like she

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: > WASHINGTON — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush > was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming > the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed. > In a report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Bush > had used so-called "signing statements" far more than his predecessors, > raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than > 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives. > In the report, members said those broad assertions of presidential power > amount to a "line-item veto" and improperly deprive Congress of the > opportunity to override the veto. > For example, in signing a statutory ban on torture and other national > security laws approved by Congress, Bush reserved the right to disregard > them. > The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in that way > was "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of > separation of powers." From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents > have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a > president "must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto." > If the president deems a bill unconstitutional, he can veto it, the panel > said, but "signing statements should not be a substitute for a presidential > veto." > The panel’s report adds momentum to a campaign by scholars and members of > Congress who want to curtail the use of signing statements as a device to > augment presidential power. > At a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Arlen > Specter, R-Pa., said Bush seemed to think he could "cherry-pick the > provisions he likes and exclude the ones he doesn’t like." > Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the committee, said > the signing statements were "a diabolical device" to rewrite laws enacted > by Congress. > advertising > Presidents have long assumed the prerogative of signing statements, which > detail portions of legislation they object to and may possibly not enforce. > Justice Department officials dismiss such criticism as unjustified. > "President Bush’s signing statements are indistinguishable from those > issued by past presidents," said Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant > attorney general. "He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate > way." > Michael Greco, the president of the bar association, who created the study > panel, said its report highlighted a "threat to the Constitution and to the > rule of law." > At its annual meeting next month, in Hawaii, the association will consider > several policy recommendations, including a proposal for judicial review of > signing statements. > The panel acknowledged that earlier presidents, including Andrew Jackson, > Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, had > occasionally asserted the right to disregard provisions of a law to which > they objected. Under Bill Clinton, the Justice Department told the White > House that the president could "decline to execute unconstitutional > statutes." > But the panel said that Bush had expressed his objections more forcefully, > more often and more systematically, "as a strategic weapon" to influence > federal agencies and judges. > In his first term, the panel said, Bush raised 505 constitutional > objections to new laws. > The panel said Bush’s signing statements often used the same formulaic > language, with "no citation of authority or detailed explanation." It urged > Congress to pass a law requiring the president to "set forth in full the > reasons and legal basis" for any signing statement in which he says he can > disregard or decline to enforce a statute. > How can any sane American continue to support this fuckhead?

Obstinance, misplaced self-interest (no one typing at AGA is int the $$$ bracket whose presidency the wad benefits.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: > WASHINGTON — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President > Bush > was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming > the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed. > In a report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said > Bush > had used so-called "signing statements" far more than his predecessors, > raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more > than > 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives. > In the report, members said those broad assertions of presidential power > amount to a "line-item veto" and improperly deprive Congress of the > opportunity to override the veto. > For example, in signing a statutory ban on torture and other national > security laws approved by Congress, Bush reserved the right to disregard > them. > The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in that way > was "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of > separation of powers." From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents > have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a > president "must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto." > If the president deems a bill unconstitutional, he can veto it, the panel > said, but "signing statements should not be a substitute for a > presidential > veto." > The panel’s report adds momentum to a campaign by scholars and members of > Congress who want to curtail the use of signing statements as a device to > augment presidential power. > At a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Arlen > Specter, R-Pa., said Bush seemed to think he could "cherry-pick the > provisions he likes and exclude the ones he doesn’t like." > Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the committee, said > the signing statements were "a diabolical device" to rewrite laws enacted > by Congress. > advertising > Presidents have long assumed the prerogative of signing statements, which > detail portions of legislation they object to and may possibly not > enforce. > Justice Department officials dismiss such criticism as unjustified. > "President Bush’s signing statements are indistinguishable from those > issued by past presidents," said Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant > attorney general. "He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate > way." > Michael Greco, the president of the bar association, who created the > study > panel, said its report highlighted a "threat to the Constitution and > to the > rule of law." > At its annual meeting next month, in Hawaii, the association will > consider > several policy recommendations, including a proposal for judicial > review of > signing statements. > The panel acknowledged that earlier presidents, including Andrew Jackson, > Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, had > occasionally asserted the right to disregard provisions of a law to which > they objected. Under Bill Clinton, the Justice Department told the White > House that the president could "decline to execute unconstitutional > statutes." > But the panel said that Bush had expressed his objections more > forcefully, > more often and more systematically, "as a strategic weapon" to influence > federal agencies and judges. > In his first term, the panel said, Bush raised 505 constitutional > objections to new laws. > The panel said Bush’s signing statements often used the same formulaic > language, with "no citation of authority or detailed explanation." It > urged > Congress to pass a law requiring the president to "set forth in full the > reasons and legal basis" for any signing statement in which he says he > can > disregard or decline to enforce a statute. > How can any sane American continue to support this fuckhead? > Obstinance, misplaced self-interest (no one typing at AGA is int the $$$ > bracket whose presidency the wad benefits.

Hmmm, My understanding of rule of law is nobody is below or above the law.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: >> WASHINGTON — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President >> Bush >> was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by >> claiming >> the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed. >> In a report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said >> Bush >> had used so-called "signing statements" far more than his predecessors, >> raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more >> than >> 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives. >> In the report, members said those broad assertions of presidential power >> amount to a "line-item veto" and improperly deprive Congress of the >> opportunity to override the veto. >> For example, in signing a statutory ban on torture and other national >> security laws approved by Congress, Bush reserved the right to disregard >> them. >> The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in that way >> was "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of >> separation of powers." From the dawn of the Republic, it said, >> presidents >> have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a >> president "must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto." >> If the president deems a bill unconstitutional, he can veto it, the >> panel >> said, but "signing statements should not be a substitute for a >> presidential >> veto." >> The panel’s report adds momentum to a campaign by scholars and >> members of >> Congress who want to curtail the use of signing statements as a >> device to >> augment presidential power. >> At a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Arlen >> Specter, R-Pa., said Bush seemed to think he could "cherry-pick the >> provisions he likes and exclude the ones he doesn’t like." >> Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the committee, >> said >> the signing statements were "a diabolical device" to rewrite laws >> enacted >> by Congress. >> advertising >> Presidents have long assumed the prerogative of signing statements, >> which >> detail portions of legislation they object to and may possibly not >> enforce. >> Justice Department officials dismiss such criticism as unjustified. >> "President Bush’s signing statements are indistinguishable from those >> issued by past presidents," said Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant >> attorney general. "He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate >> way." >> Michael Greco, the president of the bar association, who created the >> study >> panel, said its report highlighted a "threat to the Constitution and >> to the >> rule of law." >> At its annual meeting next month, in Hawaii, the association will >> consider >> several policy recommendations, including a proposal for judicial >> review of >> signing statements. >> The panel acknowledged that earlier presidents, including Andrew >> Jackson, >> Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, had >> occasionally asserted the right to disregard provisions of a law to >> which >> they objected. Under Bill Clinton, the Justice Department told the White >> House that the president could "decline to execute unconstitutional >> statutes." >> But the panel said that Bush had expressed his objections more >> forcefully, >> more often and more systematically, "as a strategic weapon" to influence >> federal agencies and judges. >> In his first term, the panel said, Bush raised 505 constitutional >> objections to new laws. >> The panel said Bush’s signing statements often used the same formulaic >> language, with "no citation of authority or detailed explanation." It >> urged >> Congress to pass a law requiring the president to "set forth in full the >> reasons and legal basis" for any signing statement in which he says >> he can >> disregard or decline to enforce a statute. >> How can any sane American continue to support this fuckhead? > Obstinance, misplaced self-interest (no one typing at AGA is int the $$$ > bracket whose presidency the wad benefits. > Hmmm, > My understanding of rule of law is nobody is below or above the law.

That was once true.

Response:

> My understanding of rule of law is nobody is below or above the law.

Yeah, you’d *never* see a Democrat President doing something like this, simply couldn’t happen–Cough-Carter-Cough, you’re so well-informed on these issues. The way it works Tony is a President who believes a bill infringes on his constitutional authority or is in some other way not constitutional can issue statements to that effect and sooner or later the courts will decide if he’s right.  Abraham Lincoln, for example, didn’t think Congress had the authority to tell him he couldn’t fire a particular general in command of the army (Grant).  Many other Presidents have used signing statements literally back to the founding of the nation.  That isn’t support for Bush’s use of signing statements BTW, merely pointing out it isn’t something Karl Rove (or Alito depending on which conspiracy theory you prefer) thought up a couple of years ago. It’s a little different in Canada of course, there the constitution gives the government the ability to do as it pleases and simply announce they’re going to ignore the supreme court if it rules against them, it’s called the notwithstanding clause, you might recall the govt. of Quebec using it to ignore the supreme court’s ruling on their paranoid language laws.  Isn’t it nice when the law of the land says the govt. gets to ignore the law, so much tidier that way.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->My understanding of rule of law is nobody is below or above the law. > Yeah, you’d *never* see a Democrat President doing something like this, > simply couldn’t happen–Cough-Carter-Cough, you’re so well-informed on these > issues. > The way it works Tony is a President who believes a bill infringes on his > constitutional authority or is in some other way not constitutional can > issue statements to that effect and sooner or later the courts will decide > if he’s right.  Abraham Lincoln, for example, didn’t think Congress had the > authority to tell him he couldn’t fire a particular general in command of > the army (Grant).  Many other Presidents have used signing statements > literally back to the founding of the nation.  That isn’t support for Bush’s > use of signing statements BTW, merely pointing out it isn’t something Karl > Rove (or Alito depending on which conspiracy theory you prefer) thought up a > couple of years ago. > It’s a little different in Canada of course, there the constitution gives > the government the ability to do as it pleases and simply announce they’re > going to ignore the supreme court if it rules against them, it’s called the > notwithstanding clause, you might recall the govt. of Quebec using it to > ignore the supreme court’s ruling on their paranoid language laws.  Isn’t it > nice when the law of the land says the govt. gets to ignore the law, so much > tidier that way.

Hi, Better than dictatorship. To have a true democracy, prliament needs full independence. In Canada, it’s different because we have to respect Quebec’s uniqueness. Notwithstanding clause is a mechanism for check and balance. Still Supereme court has final say. If all else fails, GG can dissolve the government. AS YOU KNOW! Hmm,What did Abe say in Gettisburgh?

Response:

courageously avow: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: >> WASHINGTON — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President >> Bush >> was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming >> the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed. >> In a report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said >> Bush >> had used so-called "signing statements" far more than his predecessors, >> raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more >> than >> 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives. >> In the report, members said those broad assertions of presidential power >> amount to a "line-item veto" and improperly deprive Congress of the >> opportunity to override the veto. >> For example, in signing a statutory ban on torture and other national >> security laws approved by Congress, Bush reserved the right to disregard >> them. >> The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in that way >> was "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of >> separation of powers." From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents >> have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a >> president "must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto." >> If the president deems a bill unconstitutional, he can veto it, the panel >> said, but "signing statements should not be a substitute for a >> presidential >> veto." >> The panel’s report adds momentum to a campaign by scholars and members of >> Congress who want to curtail the use of signing statements as a device to >> augment presidential power. >> At a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Arlen >> Specter, R-Pa., said Bush seemed to think he could "cherry-pick the >> provisions he likes and exclude the ones he doesn’t like." >> Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the committee, said >> the signing statements were "a diabolical device" to rewrite laws enacted >> by Congress. >> advertising >> Presidents have long assumed the prerogative of signing statements, which >> detail portions of legislation they object to and may possibly not >> enforce. >> Justice Department officials dismiss such criticism as unjustified. >> "President Bush’s signing statements are indistinguishable from those >> issued by past presidents," said Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant >> attorney general. "He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate >> way." >> Michael Greco, the president of the bar association, who created the >> study >> panel, said its report highlighted a "threat to the Constitution and >> to the >> rule of law." >> At its annual meeting next month, in Hawaii, the association will >> consider >> several policy recommendations, including a proposal for judicial >> review of >> signing statements. >> The panel acknowledged that earlier presidents, including Andrew Jackson, >> Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, had >> occasionally asserted the right to disregard provisions of a law to which >> they objected. Under Bill Clinton, the Justice Department told the White >> House that the president could "decline to execute unconstitutional >> statutes." >> But the panel said that Bush had expressed his objections more >> forcefully, >> more often and more systematically, "as a strategic weapon" to influence >> federal agencies and judges. >> In his first term, the panel said, Bush raised 505 constitutional >> objections to new laws. >> The panel said Bush’s signing statements often used the same formulaic >> language, with "no citation of authority or detailed explanation." It >> urged >> Congress to pass a law requiring the president to "set forth in full the >> reasons and legal basis" for any signing statement in which he says he >> can >> disregard or decline to enforce a statute. >> How can any sane American continue to support this fuckhead? > Obstinance, misplaced self-interest (no one typing at AGA is int the $$$ > bracket whose presidency the wad benefits. >Hmmm, >My understanding of rule of law is nobody is below or above the law.

I thought they were using the golden rule, he who owns the gold … — Ken Wilson

Response:

> Hi, > Better than dictatorship. To have a true democracy, prliament needs full > independence.

understanding is nobody can be above the law, now you’re saying that the party in power should be able to ignore the supreme court if it doesn’t like being found unconstitutional?  And you have the nerve to criticize Bush’s signing statements? > In Canada, it’s different because we have to respect Quebec’s uniqueness.

In other words kiss their ass. > Notwithstanding clause is a mechanism for check and balance.

Bull, it was a bribe paid to Quebec to get them to go along with the repatriation of the constitution. > Still Supereme court has final say.

Sure, you can point to examples of that with no problem. > If all else fails, GG can dissolve the government.

Yeah, fat chance, when was the last time that was done. > AS YOU KNOW! Hmm,What did Abe say in Gettisburgh?

Since when do you want details, you’re the sweeping generalizations based on little or no information specialist.

Response:

And the fool settles in with agreement to the name of the thread… American Bar Association says "Bush undermining rule of law"* This is how the thief-in-chief got to disgrace the office he was NOT elected into…sub-simian proletariates like dead gas here, who think bearing 270 is East, etc. Enjoy his continued self-immolation. tick tick, 11 tick tick ‘08.  :-) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Isn’t it nice when the law of the land says the govt. gets to ignore the law, so much > tidier that way.

Response:

Question:

The American Conservative January 30, 2006 Issue All the President

Question:

>The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing >Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping Arabs >of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a bikini.

their oil is not being stolen, it is being paid for. >The Muslim woman’s focus is her home, the "nest" where her children are >born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that sustains the >spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her children, >providing refuge and support to her husband.

women are property in islam, pure and simple. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically >naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. >In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no >one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is >auctioning herself all of the time. >In America, the cultural measure of a woman’s value is her sex appeal. >(As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with >appearance and plagued by weight problems.) >As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act >approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be >loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than >to demand patient courtship and true love. As a result, dozens of males >know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which is a >part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable to >love, she is unfit to receive her husband’s seed.

things are not perfect here, but at least we are free.

Response:

How patently strange that you think a western woman exercising her right to choose is oppressed and a muslim woman under a dress code is free–very odd – very pathetic. First, NO WHERE in the Qu’ran does it say that women must be veiled! The Qu’ran says that men and women both should dress modestly. Women should "cover their ornaments." No mention of the veil or burqa anywhere. That is the invention of men who want to treat women as if they are property. The Qu’ran also says that men and women are supposed to be equal, but where in the Islamic world are women treated with equality? The truth about Islam and its primitive, backward practices should be told to all the world.  Everywhere in the world where Islam is in the majority it has brought backwardness, bigotry, oppression, destruction and great suffering. The Muslim world casts all Western women as whores and our way of life as "immoral" while lusting after the very same and more in their Paradise. I would say promoting misery and ignorance in this life while wishing for 72 virgins and all the trimmings in the next is the height of immorality as well as hypocrisy. Women have the right to dress as they want, the right to education, right to work, reproductive rights, right to worship or not to, right to be free of the Muttawa, right to testify, right to inherit, right to vote, etc. Until islam allows these things for women it is  just a repressive, barbaric, death cult-an example the civilized world would rather not follow-thank you very much! Find out the truth about the abomination known as islam in The Flanstein: http://flanstein.blogspot.com/

Response:

The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka By Henry Makow Ph.D. On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka. Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing nothing but a bikini. One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of so-called "civilizations." The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping Arabs of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a bikini. I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am defending some of the values that the burka represents for me. For me, the burka represents a woman’s consecration to her husband and family. Only they see her. It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic sphere. The Muslim woman’s focus is her home, the "nest" where her children are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her children, providing refuge and support to her husband. In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is auctioning herself all of the time. In America, the cultural measure of a woman’s value is her sex appeal. (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with appearance and plagued by weight problems.) As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than to demand patient courtship and true love. As a result, dozens of males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable to love, she is unfit to receive her husband’s seed. The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and prey. It is based on aggression and reason. Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in "oppression" and that she should convert to male behavior instead. The result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother. This, of course, is the goal of the social engineers at the NWO: undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the "brave new world," women are not supposed to be "nest" makers, or progenitors of the race. They are meant to be neutered autonomous creatures that indulge in sex for physical pleasure, not for love or procreation. At his press conference on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld said that Iranian women and youth were restive under the rule of the Mullahs. He implied that the US would soon liberate them. To Britney Spears? To low-rise "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for sexuality in America? Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God’s surrogates: creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for marriage. We are to remain stunted: single, sex-starved and self-obsessed. We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are to remain lonely and isolated, dependent on consumer products for our identity, in a state of perpetual courtship. This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent," she is not likely to find a permanent mate. Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making marriage and family her first priority. Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam. I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it represents, specifically a woman’s consecration to her future husband and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails. The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies somewhere in the middle. Henry Makow, is the inventor of the board game Scruples, and the author of A Long Way to go for a Date. He received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto. http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html

Response:

> > Cool > Sock puppet wanker.

< I agree Sock puppet wanker No 2

Response:

<snip> > Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched > American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined > millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam.

Uh-huh.  This Makow guy—is he a Muslim posing as a Jew? Lisa

Response:

> Cool

Sock puppet wanker.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka > By Henry Makow Ph.D. > On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka. > Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing > nothing but a bikini. > One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally > exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of > so-called "civilizations." > The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing > Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping > Arabs of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a > bikini. > I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love > feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am > defending some of the values that the burka represents for me. > For me, the burka represents a woman’s consecration to her husband and > family. Only they see her. > It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic > sphere. > The Muslim woman’s focus is her home, the "nest" where her children > are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that > sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her > children, providing refuge and support to her husband. > In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically > naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. > In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no > one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is > auctioning herself all of the time. > In America, the cultural measure of a woman’s value is her sex appeal. > (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with > appearance and plagued by weight problems.) > As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act > approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be > loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than > to demand patient courtship and true love. As a result, dozens of > males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which > is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable > to love, she is unfit to receive her husband’s seed. > The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship > between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. > Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and > prey. It is based on aggression and reason. > Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in > "oppression" and that she should convert to male behavior instead. The > result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her > shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother. > This, of course, is the goal of the social engineers at the NWO: > undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and > personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the "brave new world," > women are not supposed to be "nest" makers, or progenitors of the > race. They are meant to be neutered autonomous creatures that indulge > in sex for physical pleasure, not for love or procreation. > At his press conference on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld said that Iranian > women and youth were restive under the rule of the Mullahs. He implied > that the US would soon liberate them. To Britney Spears? To low-rise > "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for > sexuality in America? > Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when > we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God’s surrogates: > creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us > to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for > marriage. We are to remain stunted: single, sex-starved and > self-obsessed. > We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are to remain > lonely and isolated, dependent on consumer products for our identity, > in a state of perpetual courtship. > This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a > function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex > appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent," > she is not likely to find a permanent mate. > Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making > marriage and family her first priority. > Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched > American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined > millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam. > I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it > represents, specifically a woman’s consecration to her future husband > and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails. > The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies > somewhere in the middle. > http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html > good post

I agree

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka > By Henry Makow Ph.D. > On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka. > Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing > nothing but a bikini. > One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally > exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of > so-called "civilizations." > The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing > Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping > Arabs of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a > bikini. > I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love > feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am > defending some of the values that the burka represents for me. > For me, the burka represents a woman’s consecration to her husband and > family. Only they see her. > It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic > sphere. > The Muslim woman’s focus is her home, the "nest" where her children > are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that > sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her > children, providing refuge and support to her husband. > In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically > naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. > In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no > one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is > auctioning herself all of the time. > In America, the cultural measure of a woman’s value is her sex appeal. > (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with > appearance and plagued by weight problems.) > As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act > approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be > loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than > to demand patient courtship and true love. As a result, dozens of > males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which > is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable > to love, she is unfit to receive her husband’s seed. > The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship > between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. > Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and > prey. It is based on aggression and reason. > Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in > "oppression" and that she should convert to male behavior instead. The > result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her > shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother. > This, of course, is the goal of the social engineers at the NWO: > undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and > personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the "brave new world," > women are not supposed to be "nest" makers, or progenitors of the > race. They are meant to be neutered autonomous creatures that indulge > in sex for physical pleasure, not for love or procreation. > At his press conference on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld said that Iranian > women and youth were restive under the rule of the Mullahs. He implied > that the US would soon liberate them. To Britney Spears? To low-rise > "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for > sexuality in America? > Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when > we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God’s surrogates: > creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us > to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for > marriage. We are to remain stunted: single, sex-starved and > self-obsessed. > We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are to remain > lonely and isolated, dependent on consumer products for our identity, > in a state of perpetual courtship. > This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a > function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex > appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent," > she is not likely to find a permanent mate. > Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making > marriage and family her first priority. > Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched > American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined > millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam. > I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it > represents, specifically a woman’s consecration to her future husband > and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails. > The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies > somewhere in the middle. > http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html

Cool

Response:

>>> The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka By Henry >> Makow Ph.D.  http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html > I wonder who the author of this article is.  Is he a westerner?  A > Muslim?

You can go to the website, follow the links, and find out for yourself. If you like sour bitter tirades against feminists (any woman who is not a doormat is of course a "feminist"!) and conspiracy-mongering rants about the "Freemasonic plots", then you’ll feel quite at home! — SAUDIA OMNIS IN PARTES TRES DIVIDENDA EST!  Free Arabia by splitting the Saudi tyranny into its three natural parts: Hejaz-alHarameyn, Nejd-Wahhabistan, and Gulf-Petrolia. Murderers are not Martyrs! http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/ &#1575;&#1604;&#1605;&#1578;&#1576;&#1585;&#1580;&#1577; &#1582;&#1610;&#1585; &#1605;&#1606; &#1573;&#1585;&#1607;&#1575;&#1576;&#1610; &#1605;&#1606;&#1578;&#1581;&#1585;

Response:

Burkini

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Where can I get one from – do they sell them in wallmart? > > The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies > > somewhere in the middle. > A Bikiniburka ?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka > By Henry Makow Ph.D. > On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka. > Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing > nothing but a bikini. > One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally > exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of > so-called "civilizations." > The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing > Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping > Arabs of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a > bikini. > I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love > feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am > defending some of the values that the burka represents for me. > For me, the burka represents a woman’s consecration to her husband and > family. Only they see her. > It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic > sphere. > The Muslim woman’s focus is her home, the "nest" where her children > are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that > sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her > children, providing refuge and support to her husband. > In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically > naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. > In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no > one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is > auctioning herself all of the time. > In America, the cultural measure of a woman’s value is her sex appeal. > (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with > appearance and plagued by weight problems.) > As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act > approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be > loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than > to demand patient courtship and true love. As a result, dozens of > males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which > is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable > to love, she is unfit to receive her husband’s seed. > The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship > between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. > Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and > prey. It is based on aggression and reason. > Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in > "oppression" and that she should convert to male behavior instead. The > result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her > shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother. > This, of course, is the goal of the social engineers at the NWO: > undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and > personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the "brave new world," > women are not supposed to be "nest" makers, or progenitors of the > race. They are meant to be neutered autonomous creatures that indulge > in sex for physical pleasure, not for love or procreation. > At his press conference on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld said that Iranian > women and youth were restive under the rule of the Mullahs. He implied > that the US would soon liberate them. To Britney Spears? To low-rise > "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for > sexuality in America? > Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when > we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God’s surrogates: > creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us > to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for > marriage. We are to remain stunted: single, sex-starved and > self-obsessed. > We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are to remain > lonely and isolated, dependent on consumer products for our identity, > in a state of perpetual courtship. > This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a > function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex > appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent," > she is not likely to find a permanent mate. > Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making > marriage and family her first priority. > Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched > American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined > millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam. > I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it > represents, specifically a woman’s consecration to her future husband > and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails. > The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies > somewhere in the middle. > http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html > good post

Good post? This is an excellent post; the best one I have read so far! I wonder who the author of this article is.  Is he a westerner?  A Muslim? To which side of the clash of civlization does the author place himself? Obviously in a clash of civilization, neutrality is unaffordable! Zubair

Response:

Where can I get one from – do they sell them in wallmart?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies > somewhere in the middle. > A Bikiniburka ?

Response:

>> The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka > By Henry Makow Ph.D. > good post

Sock puppet! — SAUDIA OMNIS IN PARTES TRES DIVIDENDA EST!  Free Arabia by splitting the Saudi tyranny into its three natural parts: Hejaz-alHarameyn, Nejd-Wahhabistan, and Gulf-Petrolia. Murderers are not Martyrs! http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/ &#1575;&#1604;&#1605;&#1578;&#1576;&#1585;&#1580;&#1577; &#1582;&#1610;&#1585; &#1605;&#1606; &#1573;&#1585;&#1607;&#1575;&#1576;&#1610; &#1605;&#1606;&#1578;&#1581;&#1585;

Response:

> The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies > somewhere in the middle.

A Bikiniburka ?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka > By Henry Makow Ph.D. > On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka. > Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing > nothing but a bikini. > One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally > exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of > so-called "civilizations." > The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing > Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping > Arabs of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a > bikini. > I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love > feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am > defending some of the values that the burka represents for me. > For me, the burka represents a woman’s consecration to her husband and > family. Only they see her. > It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic > sphere. > The Muslim woman’s focus is her home, the "nest" where her children > are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that > sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her > children, providing refuge and support to her husband. > In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically > naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. > In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no > one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is > auctioning herself all of the time. > In America, the cultural measure of a woman’s value is her sex appeal. > (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with > appearance and plagued by weight problems.) > As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act > approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be > loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than > to demand patient courtship and true love. As a result, dozens of > males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which > is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable > to love, she is unfit to receive her husband’s seed. > The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship > between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. > Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and > prey. It is based on aggression and reason. > Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in > "oppression" and that she should convert to male behavior instead. The > result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her > shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother. > This, of course, is the goal of the social engineers at the NWO: > undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and > personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the "brave new world," > women are not supposed to be "nest" makers, or progenitors of the > race. They are meant to be neutered autonomous creatures that indulge > in sex for physical pleasure, not for love or procreation. > At his press conference on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld said that Iranian > women and youth were restive under the rule of the Mullahs. He implied > that the US would soon liberate them. To Britney Spears? To low-rise > "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for > sexuality in America? > Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when > we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God’s surrogates: > creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us > to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for > marriage. We are to remain stunted: single, sex-starved and > self-obsessed. > We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are to remain > lonely and isolated, dependent on consumer products for our identity, > in a state of perpetual courtship. > This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a > function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex > appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent," > she is not likely to find a permanent mate. > Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making > marriage and family her first priority. > Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched > American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined > millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam. > I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it > represents, specifically a woman’s consecration to her future husband > and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails. > The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies > somewhere in the middle. > http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html

good post

Response:

Abualwafa al-khara you posted this old crap before. Get a life and go and see a shrink. You need some help. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka > By Henry Makow Ph.D. > On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka. > Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing > nothing but a bikini. > One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally > exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of > so-called "civilizations." > The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing > Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping > Arabs of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a > bikini. > I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love > feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am > defending some of the values that the burka represents for me. > For me, the burka represents a woman’s consecration to her husband and > family. Only they see her. > It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic > sphere. > The Muslim woman’s focus is her home, the "nest" where her children > are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that > sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her > children, providing refuge and support to her husband. > In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically > naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. > In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no > one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is > auctioning herself all of the time. > In America, the cultural measure of a woman’s value is her sex appeal. > (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with > appearance and plagued by weight problems.) > As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act > approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be > loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than > to demand patient courtship and true love. As a result, dozens of > males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which > is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable > to love, she is unfit to receive her husband’s seed. > The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship > between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. > Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and > prey. It is based on aggression and reason. > Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in > "oppression" and that she should convert to male behavior instead. The > result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her > shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother. > This, of course, is the goal of the social engineers at the NWO: > undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and > personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the "brave new world," > women are not supposed to be "nest" makers, or progenitors of the > race. They are meant to be neutered autonomous creatures that indulge > in sex for physical pleasure, not for love or procreation. > At his press conference on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld said that Iranian > women and youth were restive under the rule of the Mullahs. He implied > that the US would soon liberate them. To Britney Spears? To low-rise > "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for > sexuality in America? > Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when > we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God’s surrogates: > creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us > to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for > marriage. We are to remain stunted: single, sex-starved and > self-obsessed. > We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are to remain > lonely and isolated, dependent on consumer products for our identity, > in a state of perpetual courtship. > This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a > function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex > appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent," > she is not likely to find a permanent mate. > Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making > marriage and family her first priority. > Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched > American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined > millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam. > I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it > represents, specifically a woman’s consecration to her future husband > and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails. > The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies > somewhere in the middle. > http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html

Response:

The greatest strength of a person comes when he knows himself and is able to control himself.  One cannot conquer his fear of heights or water until one confronts  those fears.  One could avoid water and heights for the duration of his life and believe he has overcome his fears but he is fooling neither himself nor his God.  By avoiding his problems, he has not grown spiritually and has failed in the eyes of God who gave each of us the ability to overcome our faults.  Sexual desires are strong and are not easily controlled but that does not mean it is an impossibility.  God has allowed you a confrontation and your job is to recognize the problem and learn to deal with it.  Do you ignore the problem?  Do you change the dynamics of the problem?  Or do you understand that the problem is only in your mind and of your own making.  What do you think of when you see a bikini clad woman? Think about it and you might realize that the problem is yours and not mine. Of course we know Allah will be very incensed that you have found a truth of Jehovah.  Remember, Allah cannot harm you unless you allow him into your life.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka > By Henry Makow Ph.D. > On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka. > Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing > nothing but a bikini. > One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally > exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of > so-called "civilizations." > The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing > Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping > Arabs of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a > bikini. > I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love > feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am > defending some of the values that the burka represents for me. > For me, the burka represents a woman’s consecration to her husband and > family. Only they see her. > It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic > sphere. > The Muslim woman’s focus is her home, the "nest" where her children > are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that > sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her > children, providing refuge and support to her husband. > In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically > naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. > In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no > one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is > auctioning herself all of the time. > In America, the cultural measure of a woman’s value is her sex appeal. > (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with > appearance and plagued by weight problems.) > As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act > approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be > loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than > to demand patient courtship and true love. As a result, dozens of > males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which > is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable > to love, she is unfit to receive her husband’s seed. > The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship > between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. > Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and > prey. It is based on aggression and reason. > Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in > "oppression" and that she should convert to male behavior instead. The > result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her > shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother. > This, of course, is the goal of the social engineers at the NWO: > undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and > personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the "brave new world," > women are not supposed to be "nest" makers, or progenitors of the > race. They are meant to be neutered autonomous creatures that indulge > in sex for physical pleasure, not for love or procreation. > At his press conference on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld said that Iranian > women and youth were restive under the rule of the Mullahs. He implied > that the US would soon liberate them. To Britney Spears? To low-rise > "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for > sexuality in America? > Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when > we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God’s surrogates: > creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us > to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for > marriage. We are to remain stunted: single, sex-starved and > self-obsessed. > We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are to remain > lonely and isolated, dependent on consumer products for our identity, > in a state of perpetual courtship. > This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a > function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex > appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent," > she is not likely to find a permanent mate. > Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making > marriage and family her first priority. > Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched > American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined > millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam. > I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it > represents, specifically a woman’s consecration to her future husband > and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails. > The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies > somewhere in the middle. > http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html

Response:

The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka By Henry Makow Ph.D. On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka. Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing nothing but a bikini. One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of so-called "civilizations." The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping Arabs of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a bikini. I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am defending some of the values that the burka represents for me. For me, the burka represents a woman’s consecration to her husband and family. Only they see her. It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic sphere. The Muslim woman’s focus is her home, the "nest" where her children are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her children, providing refuge and support to her husband. In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is auctioning herself all of the time. In America, the cultural measure of a woman’s value is her sex appeal. (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with appearance and plagued by weight problems.) As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than to demand patient courtship and true love. As a result, dozens of males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable to love, she is unfit to receive her husband’s seed. The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and prey. It is based on aggression and reason. Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in "oppression" and that she should convert to male behavior instead. The result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother. This, of course, is the goal of the social engineers at the NWO: undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the "brave new world," women are not supposed to be "nest" makers, or progenitors of the race. They are meant to be neutered autonomous creatures that indulge in sex for physical pleasure, not for love or procreation. At his press conference on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld said that Iranian women and youth were restive under the rule of the Mullahs. He implied that the US would soon liberate them. To Britney Spears? To low-rise "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for sexuality in America? Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God’s surrogates: creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for marriage. We are to remain stunted: single, sex-starved and self-obsessed. We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are to remain lonely and isolated, dependent on consumer products for our identity, in a state of perpetual courtship. This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent," she is not likely to find a permanent mate. Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making marriage and family her first priority. Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam. I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it represents, specifically a woman’s consecration to her future husband and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails. The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies somewhere in the middle. http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html

Response:

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka > By Henry Makow Ph.D. > On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka. > Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing > nothing but a bikini. > One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally > exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of > so-called "civilizations." > The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing > Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping Arabs > of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a bikini. > I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love feminine > beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am defending some of > the values that the burka represents for me. > For me, the burka represents a woman’s consecration to her husband and > family. Only they see her. > It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic > sphere. > The Muslim woman’s focus is her home, the "nest" where her children are > born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that sustains the > spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her children, > providing refuge and support to her husband. > In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically > naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. > In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no > one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is > auctioning herself all of the time. > In America, the cultural measure of a woman’s value is her sex appeal. > (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with > appearance and plagued by weight problems.) > As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act > approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be > loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than > to demand patient courtship and true love. As a result, dozens of males > know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which is a > part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable to > love, she is unfit to receive her husband’s seed. > The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship > between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. > Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and > prey. It is based on aggression and reason. > Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in > "oppression" and that she should convert to male behavior instead. The > result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her > shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother. > This, of course, is the goal of the social engineers at the NWO: > undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and > personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the "brave new world," > women are not supposed to be "nest" makers, or progenitors of the race. > They are meant to be neutered autonomous creatures that indulge in sex > for physical pleasure, not for love or procreation. > At his press conference on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld said that Iranian > women and youth were restive under the rule of the Mullahs. He implied > that the US would soon liberate them. To Britney Spears? To low-rise > "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for > sexuality in America? > Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when > we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God’s surrogates: > creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us > to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for > marriage. We are to remain stunted: single, sex-starved and > self-obsessed. > We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are to remain > lonely and isolated, dependent on consumer products for our identity, > in a state of perpetual courtship. > This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a > function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex > appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent," > she is not likely to find a permanent mate. > Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making > marriage and family her first priority. > Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched > American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined > millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam. > I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it > represents, specifically a woman’s consecration to her future husband > and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails. > The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies > somewhere in the middle. > Henry Makow, is the inventor of the board game Scruples, and the author > of A Long Way to go for a Date. He received his Ph.D. in English > Literature from the University of Toronto. > http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html

If this doesn’t say it all … nothing does

Response:

> The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka > By Henry Makow Ph.D.    http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html

Give it up, Abu Alfalfa — that’s just old and tired and stale and discredited by this point, so it’s rather pointless of you to try to keep dragging it out of the trash heap at this late date!  This article was extensively discussed and debunked in the groups when Makow first published it, and most of us are not very impressed with his argumentation, nor with Henry "Beware the secret Freemasonic plots"  "Put Western women into Burkas"  "My Philippina mail-order bride left me" Makow himself.  Can’t you come up with a slightly better grade of ranting conspiracy theorist and sensitively touchy paranoid anti-feminist than Makow?  To see an appropriate Arabic slogan for you (which contains a lot more truth than the Makow article ever did!), view my sig below as HTML, or click on the URL and view the beautiful calligraphy at my website: — &#1575;&#1604;&#1605;&#1578;&#1576;&#1585;&#1580;&#1577; &#1582;&#1610;&#1585; &#1605;&#1606; &#1575;&#1604;&#1573;&#1585;&#1607;&#1575;&#1576;&#1610; &#1575;&#1604;&#1605;&#1606;&#1578;&#1581;&#1585;   Murderers are not martyrs!     http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/abulwafa.htm#mutabarrijah

Response:

> The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka

http://webpages.charter.net/quantim/quantim/islamcult.jpg http://www.thedaily.com/bikini.html

Response:

Of course, this Islamist dude forgot to print you folks a bunch of the better rebuttals to the article on this site.   The Islamic world is so conformist that it has a difficult time with the concept of freedom.  I don’t think America or the west would appreciate a clerical squad of "morals police" imprisoning them for violating a Muslim dress code. Ironically, when Muslims move to the west, severe social problems have been noted.  Denmarks tiny Islamic minority shocked the nation a short while ago when government statistics showed this group to be responsible for the largest percentage of rapes and violent crimes against Danish women. Islam is repressed–and I am not alone in believing that the sexual repression of Islam is a good part of the reason for the worldwide epidemic of Muslim Rage.  Get laid more, Muslims, you’ll be more peaceful…..  Here’s one: Comment From Mike Harris 9-20-2 While Dr. Makow makes some valid observations concerning some of the flawed perspectives directed towards and about women in Western Society, he fails miserably to produce any true insight. The comparison of a "Miss America" Contestant with the "average" Burka-covered Muslim female is ludicrous–were women expected to be parading on our city streets or going to the market dressed in Bikinis it might be an apt comparison, but such is not the case. Further, the inadequacies of Britney Spears as a Teenage Role Model have been pointed out many times by others–including Spears herself recently. Dr. Makow seems to use the term "independent" in connection with women as some sort of slang insult,and he competely ignores that the so-called revered status of Muslim womanhood amounts to them being treated as Property . In America, women are treated as a Commodity due to their beauty (as are Men) — IF they wish to be and IF they allow it . But bottom-line, they have The Freedom to either self-promote or reject the status of Commodity. In the Muslim rigid framework of existence, women are Property, and are subject to cruelty far greater than any so-called Western "debauchery". "The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies somewhere in the middle. " That is the only unassailable statement Dr. Makow makes—all else is simply proof that a Ph.D doesn’t necessarily guarantee a perceptive viewpoint, merely that the author’s Opinion shall be printed somewhere. — Mike Harris (no Ph.D…but no Personal Agenda, either…)

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka > By Henry Makow Ph.D. > On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka. > Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing > nothing but a bikini. > One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally > exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of > so-called "civilizations." > The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing > Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping Arabs > of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a bikini. > I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love feminine > beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am defending some of > the values that the burka represents for me. > For me, the burka represents a woman’s consecration to her husband and > family. Only they see her. > It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic > sphere. > The Muslim woman’s focus is her home, the "nest" where her children are > born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that sustains the > spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her children, > providing refuge and support to her husband. > In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically > naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. > In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no > one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is > auctioning herself all of the time. > In America, the cultural measure of a woman’s value is her sex appeal. > (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with > appearance and plagued by weight problems.) > As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act > approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be > loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than > to demand patient courtship and true love. As a result, dozens of males > know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which is a > part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable to > love, she is unfit to receive her husband’s seed. > The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship > between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. > Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and > prey. It is based on aggression and reason. > Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in > "oppression" and that she should convert to male behavior instead. The > result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her > shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother. > This, of course, is the goal of the social engineers at the NWO: > undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and > personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the "brave new world," > women are not supposed to be "nest" makers, or progenitors of the race. > They are meant to be neutered autonomous creatures that indulge in sex > for physical pleasure, not for love or procreation. > At his press conference on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld said that Iranian > women and youth were restive under the rule of the Mullahs. He implied > that the US would soon liberate them. To Britney Spears? To low-rise > "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for > sexuality in America? > Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when > we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God’s surrogates: > creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us > to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for > marriage. We are to remain stunted: single, sex-starved and > self-obsessed. > We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are to remain > lonely and isolated, dependent on consumer products for our identity, > in a state of perpetual courtship. > This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a > function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex > appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent," > she is not likely to find a permanent mate. > Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making > marriage and family her first priority. > Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched > American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined > millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam. > I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it > represents, specifically a woman’s consecration to her future husband > and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails. > The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies > somewhere in the middle. > Henry Makow, is the inventor of the board game Scruples, and the author > of A Long Way to go for a Date. He received his Ph.D. in English > Literature from the University of Toronto. > http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html

Response:

> The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka > By Henry Makow Ph.D. > On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka.

The picture of the woman in Burka on Faris Jizwad’s wall. heehee OVER 18 PLEASE http://zeerabi.com/0605bingirl/1.shtml idiot. American women have more integrity than Islamist whores. At least they do not produce children for money to be used as homocide bombers.

Response:

The role of Vitamin D in the prevention of cancer has been one of the hottest areas of research of late, with long documentation that cancer rates sharply increase with low vitamin D intake–and as one moves further north. Vitamin D is in the grey area of both vitamin and hormone (the body manufactures it via sunlight on skin)–while the incidence of skin cancer increases with too much sun exposure, skin cancers tend not to be life threatening like other cancers.  Now, dermatologists are realizing that the data dictates more sun exposure is an asset for cancer prevention.  Muslim women who wear the burka in western societies tend to have higher cancer rates.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka > By Henry Makow Ph.D. > On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka. > Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing > nothing but a bikini. > One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally > exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of > so-called "civilizations." > The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing > Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping Arabs > of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a bikini. > I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love feminine > beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am defending some of > the values that the burka represents for me. > For me, the burka represents a woman’s consecration to her husband and > family. Only they see her. > It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic > sphere. > The Muslim woman’s focus is her home, the "nest" where her children are > born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that sustains the > spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her children, > providing refuge and support to her husband. > In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically > naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. > In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no > one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is > auctioning herself all of the time. > In America, the cultural measure of a woman’s value is her sex appeal. > (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with > appearance and plagued by weight problems.) > As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act > approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be > loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than > to demand patient courtship and true love. As a result, dozens of males > know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which is a > part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable to > love, she is unfit to receive her husband’s seed. > The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship > between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. > Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and > prey. It is based on aggression and reason. > Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in > "oppression" and that she should convert to male behavior instead. The > result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her > shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother. > This, of course, is the goal of the social engineers at the NWO: > undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and > personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the "brave new world," > women are not supposed to be "nest" makers, or progenitors of the race. > They are meant to be neutered autonomous creatures that indulge in sex > for physical pleasure, not for love or procreation. > At his press conference on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld said that Iranian > women and youth were restive under the rule of the Mullahs. He implied > that the US would soon liberate them. To Britney Spears? To low-rise > "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for > sexuality in America? > Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when > we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God’s surrogates: > creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us > to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for > marriage. We are to remain stunted: single, sex-starved and > self-obsessed. > We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are to remain > lonely and isolated, dependent on consumer products for our identity, > in a state of perpetual courtship. > This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a > function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex > appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent," > she is not likely to find a permanent mate. > Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making > marriage and family her first priority. > Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched > American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined > millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam. > I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it > represents, specifically a woman’s consecration to her future husband > and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails. > The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies > somewhere in the middle. > Henry Makow, is the inventor of the board game Scruples, and the author > of A Long Way to go for a Date. He received his Ph.D. in English > Literature from the University of Toronto. > http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html

Response:

The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka By Henry Makow Ph.D. On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka. Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing nothing but a bikini. One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of so-called "civilizations." The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping Arabs of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a bikini. I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am defending some of the values that the burka represents for me. For me, the burka represents a woman’s consecration to her husband and family. Only they see her. It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic sphere. The Muslim woman’s focus is her home, the "nest" where her children are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her children, providing refuge and support to her husband. In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is auctioning herself all of the time. In America, the cultural measure of a woman’s value is her sex appeal. (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with appearance and plagued by weight problems.) As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than to demand patient courtship and true love. As a result, dozens of males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable to love, she is unfit to receive her husband’s seed. The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and prey. It is based on aggression and reason. Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in "oppression" and that she should convert to male behavior instead. The result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother. This, of course, is the goal of the social engineers at the NWO: undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the "brave new world," women are not supposed to be "nest" makers, or progenitors of the race. They are meant to be neutered autonomous creatures that indulge in sex for physical pleasure, not for love or procreation. At his press conference on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld said that Iranian women and youth were restive under the rule of the Mullahs. He implied that the US would soon liberate them. To Britney Spears? To low-rise "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for sexuality in America? Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God’s surrogates: creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for marriage. We are to remain stunted: single, sex-starved and self-obsessed. We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are to remain lonely and isolated, dependent on consumer products for our identity, in a state of perpetual courtship. This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent," she is not likely to find a permanent mate. Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making marriage and family her first priority. Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam. I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it represents, specifically a woman’s consecration to her future husband and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails. The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies somewhere in the middle. Henry Makow, is the inventor of the board game Scruples, and the author of A Long Way to go for a Date. He received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto. http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html

Response:

>Granted,  I’m sure there are many, many Muslims who would be considered >decent, honest and pious.  However, no other religion has schools organized >to indoctrinate children with hatred.  No other religion has religious >clerics spewing venom, lies and inciting to murder while preaching in a >place of worship.

can you give me an example of those schools?

Response:

>Granted,  I’m sure there are many, many Muslims who would be considered >decent, honest and pious.  However, no other religion has schools >organized >to indoctrinate children with hatred.  No other religion has religious >clerics spewing venom, lies and inciting to murder while preaching in a >place of worship. > can you give me an example of those schools?

Just one ?, OK : Jemaah Islamiyah (Still active, and arsehole Bashir is their chief "cleric") Bashir found enough support to create a boarding school in Java, whose motto, "Death in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration," should tell you everything you need to know about its curriculum. http://www.rotten.com/library/history/terrorist-organizations/jemaah-…

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Granted,  I’m sure there are many, many Muslims who would be considered >>decent, honest and pious.  However, no other religion has schools >>organized >>to indoctrinate children with hatred.  No other religion has religious >>clerics spewing venom, lies and inciting to murder while preaching in a >>place of worship. > can you give me an example of those schools? > Just one ?, OK : > Jemaah Islamiyah (Still active, and arsehole Bashir is their chief > "cleric") > Bashir found enough support to create a boarding school in Java, whose > motto, "Death in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration," should tell > you everything you need to know about its curriculum. > http://www.rotten.com/library/history/terrorist-organizations/jemaah-…

This fellow can’t seriouly be asking that question. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

> The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka > By Henry Makow Ph.D.

All guys like Makow, who obsess over sex and get fizzly with indignation when they see pretty young girls flaunting their beauty, do so for the same reason: they want the girls, they can’t have them, and it makes them feel bad. Universal behavior.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> good response Joe King, > I have not heard about what Pat Robertson has said, because of > censorship in public media or just ignorance of what someone has told > about Hugo Chavez which his country is a partner of ours in many > fields. > Maybe you’re right but, > 1-   personally i think that hugu chavez is right and US will do > something about him. > 2-   if Robertson was muslim he would have never told other muslims to > kill someone because he/she think that muslims want to kill him, > Muslims are forbidden from killing other people just in some specific > conditions, for example when someone publicly insults their prophet, > when others start fighting with them (= when defending theirselves) or > when someone kills another muslim intentionally. > I know that sometime muslims do something that is really disgraceful > and even forbidden in Islam and sometime other people( non-muslims) try > to do something to show that muslims are crule. > Do you think bin-ladan is muslim? I don’t know what you or all other > non-muslims think but we muslims (at least people of my country) do not > consider them muslim and have shown our disapproval about them. They > are part of US political program, they go every where US governments > want. Can you consider the time when bin-ladan is arrested? then, How > US governments can explain their military affairs around the world . > THEY HAVE CREATED THEM (Bin-Lanan, Algaaede or …) AND WANT THEM TO > WANDER AROUND THE WORLD TO OPEN THE ROAD OF CONQUERING ALL PART OF THE > WORLD. > but if you see that most muslim countries are silent about this > affairs, one of its reason is that they are all busy with their fights > with each other, or internal problems: > –  Iraq has no stable government > –  Sudia thinks about its oil and nothing else > –  Afghanistan is busy with its problems > –  Pakistan is busy with India in a competition in producing more > powerful military equipments > –  Sudan is solving its national problem after many years of fighting > –  …. > See? And it may sound funny to you but personally i think it is also > another political plan! > I don’t want to say that all muslims mistakes are political plans of > their enemies, they have made alot of mistakes but none of them is > Islam’s mistake. > thanks for paying attention, > –Jimmy

Of course none of those are Islam’s mistake just as atrocities committed by Christians are not Christianity’s mistakes.  The onus for mistakes of adherenta to a specific religion is solely on the individual.  Having said that, Islam condones and encourages murder of innocents.  Yes, Muslims have their own interpretation of the meaning of an innocent but the Islamic religion does demand that killing.  Participants of the Olympic Games, embassy personnel, people riding in buses, airline passengers, people who have a different belief have all been accomplished in the name of Allah and Islam but there is little objection heard from the Muslim world.   The Quran has numerous admonitions pertaining to killing innocents. Granted,  I’m sure there are many, many Muslims who would be considered decent, honest and pious.  However, no other religion has schools organized to indoctrinate children with hatred.  No other religion has religious clerics spewing venom, lies and inciting to murder while preaching in a place of worship. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

good response Joe King, I have not heard about what Pat Robertson has said, because of censorship in public media or just ignorance of what someone has told about Hugo Chavez which his country is a partner of ours in many fields. Maybe you’re right but, 1-   personally i think that hugu chavez is right and US will do something about him. 2-   if Robertson was muslim he would have never told other muslims to kill someone because he/she think that muslims want to kill him, Muslims are forbidden from killing other people just in some specific conditions, for example when someone publicly insults their prophet, when others start fighting with them (= when defending theirselves) or when someone kills another muslim intentionally. I know that sometime muslims do something that is really disgraceful and even forbidden in Islam and sometime other people( non-muslims) try to do something to show that muslims are crule. Do you think bin-ladan is muslim? I don’t know what you or all other non-muslims think but we muslims (at least people of my country) do not consider them muslim and have shown our disapproval about them. They are part of US political program, they go every where US governments want. Can you consider the time when bin-ladan is arrested? then, How US governments can explain their military affairs around the world . THEY HAVE CREATED THEM (Bin-Lanan, Algaaede or …) AND WANT THEM TO WANDER AROUND THE WORLD TO OPEN THE ROAD OF CONQUERING ALL PART OF THE WORLD. but if you see that most muslim countries are silent about this affairs, one of its reason is that they are all busy with their fights with each other, or internal problems: –  Iraq has no stable government –  Sudia thinks about its oil and nothing else –  Afghanistan is busy with its problems –  Pakistan is busy with India in a competition in producing more powerful military equipments –  Sudan is solving its national problem after many years of fighting –  …. See? And it may sound funny to you but personally i think it is also another political plan! I don’t want to say that all muslims mistakes are political plans of their enemies, they have made alot of mistakes but none of them is Islam’s mistake. thanks for your paying attention, –Jimmy

Response:

> If you prefer donkeys to women, something must be done about you. If > you prefer freedom to buy women’s body, be happy in the way you like. > If you think that women must wear potato sacks and your female > relatives wear that its your problem. > Women’s clothes in islam is not what you see as potato sacks, so if you > do not want to read and think about it do not fight with it. > If some non-muslims kill innocent people all over the world, or sell > girls as goods to have sex with many people or… Are all christians > like that? > Take my advice : DO NOT EXTRACT ISLAM FROM BEHAVIOUR OF SOME BARBARIANS > WHO TRY TO INTERPERT ISLAM IN THE WORST POSSIBLE. > -Jimmy

Considering your response to my post, I’d say you are rather upset.  If you want to get under the skin of a racist, bigot or just a plain rude person then give them back exactly what they are doing.  I suggest you re read the post that I responded to (the same one that has been reposted dozens of times), I mean really read it and try to place yourself in the shoes of a non Muslim.  You’ll quickly notice the hate and discust of another culture. Actually, it’s a little humorous coming from someone advocating a culture steeped in backwardtism and an adherence to archaic and barbarous social customs.  In short, a tenth century culture attempting to exist in the 21st century. Yours is but a whisper within a sea of roars.  If Islam is as you say then why is there such a deafening silence concerning what you call barbarians? What did you hear from Americans when that religious person declared we should assasinate a president of a south American country?  I’ll tell you. You heard an immediate and sound refutiation of the comments and the persons beliefs.  If Pat Robertson ahd been Muslim then no doubtedly someone would have attempted to carry out his wishes.  If there was the same uproar coming from Islamic clerics and political persons then you might have some justification for what you say. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi Katrina, > Article was a nice work. I agree with most part, I hope to read more of > you > You are one of few people who wants to tell something not to fight with > others. > -Jimmy >Yes, we need to let eveyone hear this message.  In that way we can continue >to conceal the fact that the real reason we force our woman to wear potato >sacks is because they are so ugly and fat.  I might add it’s also a good way >to cover the stench of their bodies.  And those stupid Westerners wonder why >we prefer camels and donkeys to women.

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Why are there so many terrorist nests/mosques and islamist foundations in > the western world but there are no hindu temples, churches, or synagogues > in Saudi Arabia specially in Mecca? > The west must force the damned arabs to open up to other religious > followers or shut down their islamic centers and their arab organizations > in their own.  London & Paris has already become like Mecca & Medina. > It is up to the people in the west to force their reps to do something > about this issue.  That is the first step to open up the closed society of > the savage islamist arabs. > Let’s do it guys.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I found this story hard to believe > Ardalan Keykavoussi Charged for raping neighbor’s dog > Ardalan Keykavoussi faced charges Thursday after he > was caught sexually assaulting a neighbor’s dog, Palm > Beach County deputies said. > Officials said, Ardalan Keykavoussi, a registered > Zoroastrian pimp, sexually assaulted a young mixed-breed dog. Deputies > said a stranger wearing Nike’s shoes saw the attack. > Ardalan Keykavoussi noticed he was being watched," said Palm Beach County > Sheriff’s Deputy Cassie Kovacs. "He covered himself with a sheet, and then > the dog got away, and then she saw Ardalan Keykavoussi masturbating > himself." > Kovacs said Ardalan Keykavoussi was allegedly sodomizing the dog with a > spoon, and the dog was yelping in pain. > Kovacs added that the incident was not the first time > Ardalan Keykavoussi has been seen involved in disturbing acts with the dog > and other animals. > "According to the neighbors, he is always walking around > with animals, kissing and licking them and everything — > cats, animals he picks up in the neighborhood," Kovacs said. > Neighbors told Kovacs that at least one cat emerged from Ardalan > Keykavoussi home to lie lifeless in the grass. > Kovacs said she was not able to arrest Ardalan Keykavoussi for bestiality, > only for animal cruelty and exposing himself. In Florida, it is not > illegal to have sex with animals, Kovacs said. > Sex crimes prosecutor Lanna Belohlavek said bestiality > was removed from the statute years ago when it was deemed > unconstitutional. > "Now, it’s only a crime if the animal was injured, or if > the sex occurred before a child less than 16 years old — > its a second degree felony," Belohlavek said. > Belohlavek said that removing bestiality from the books > might have been an oversight when laws were being rewritten. > Meanwhile, animal cruelty investigators said they’ve had > several recent complaints but couldn’t make any arrests, > so they are working with county officials to draft a > countywide bestiality law. > Animal advocates hope if a countywide law is passed, they might get state > legislators to do the same.

"Ardalan Keykavoussi" a hindu pretending to be Zoroastrian,

Response:

I care less about religions but I know how to attract arab islamonazis. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Why should anyone care except the Faith Based Christian zionazis??? > Why are there so many terrorist nests/mosques and islamist > foundations in the western world but there are no hindu temples, > churches, or synagogues in Saudi Arabia specially in Mecca? > The west must force the damned arabs to open up to other religious > followers or shut down their islamic centers and their arab > organizations in their own.  London & Paris has already become like > Mecca & Medina. > It is up to the people in the west to force their reps to do > something about this issue.  That is the first step to open up the > closed society of the savage islamist arabs. > Let’s do it guys.

Response:

> Why should anyone care except the Faith Based Christian zionazis???

Because ALL non-Muslims are the enemies (and targets) of Muslims. Not just Christians and Jews. In fact even Muslims can be the enemies of Muslims. That’s what happens with Islam. The cult of hate, blood, and war. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Why are there so many terrorist nests/mosques and islamist foundations in > the western world but there are no hindu temples, churches, or synagogues > in Saudi Arabia specially in Mecca? > The west must force the damned arabs to open up to other religious > followers or shut down their islamic centers and their arab organizations > in their own.  London & Paris has already become like Mecca & Medina. > It is up to the people in the west to force their reps to do something > about this issue.  That is the first step to open up the closed society > of > the savage islamist arabs. > Let’s do it guys.

Response:

Dude, Saudi Arabia is the only Muslim-majority country (out of about 40 in the world) which totally bans all non-Muslim places of worship (and bans all non-Wahhabi mosqees, for that matter). — SAUDIA OMNIS IN PARTES TRES DIVIDENDA EST!  Free Arabia by splitting the Saudi tyranny into its three natural parts: Hejaz-alHarameyn, Nejd-Wahhabistan, and Gulf-Petrolia. Murderers are not Martyrs! http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/

Response:

> Dude, Saudi Arabia is the only Muslim-majority country (out of about > 40 in the world) which totally bans all non-Muslim places of worship > (and bans all non-Wahhabi mosqees, for that matter).

So them tire heads must change their attitudes.

Response:

> Why are there so many terrorist nests/mosques and islamist foundations in > the western world but there are no hindu temples, churches, or synagogues > in Saudi Arabia specially in Mecca? > The west must force the damned arabs to open up to other religious > followers or shut down their islamic centers and their arab organizations > in their own.  London & Paris has already become like Mecca & Medina. > It is up to the people in the west to force their reps to do something > about this issue.  That is the first step to open up the closed society of > the savage islamist arabs.

This sounds rather like our constant argument in alt.mexico, that Mexico expects the U.S. to allow its entire population into the country to live and work, while Mexico fiercely defends its borders against immigrants and all but forbids foreigners from working in its precious country (unless you have a useful skill like money laundering or election rigging .  Similarly, moozlum countries expect the U.S. to accept their people and allow them free exercise of their religion, while forbidding foreigners from freely exercising their religion in their precious countries.  Any criticism of this one-way arrangement is racist, of course.

Response:

Why should anyone care except the Faith Based Christian zionazis???

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Why are there so many terrorist nests/mosques and islamist foundations in > the western world but there are no hindu temples, churches, or synagogues > in Saudi Arabia specially in Mecca? > The west must force the damned arabs to open up to other religious > followers or shut down their islamic centers and their arab organizations > in their own.  London & Paris has already become like Mecca & Medina. > It is up to the people in the west to force their reps to do something > about this issue.  That is the first step to open up the closed society of > the savage islamist arabs. > Let’s do it guys.

Response:

Why are there so many terrorist nests/mosques and islamist foundations in the western world but there are no hindu temples, churches, or synagogues in Saudi Arabia specially in Mecca? The west must force the damned arabs to open up to other religious followers or shut down their islamic centers and their arab organizations in their own.  London & Paris has already become like Mecca & Medina. It is up to the people in the west to force their reps to do something about this issue.  That is the first step to open up the closed society of the savage islamist arabs. Let’s do it guys.

Response:

Question:

"I think that the government has successfully proved that any service member has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal."     — Lt. Cmdr. Robert Klant, presiding at Pablo Paredes’ court-martial     In a stunning blow to the Bush administration, a Navy judge gave Petty Officer 3rd Class Pablo Paredes no jail time for refusing orders to board the amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard before it left San Diego with 3,000 sailors and Marines bound for the Persian Gulf on December 6th. Lt. Cmdr. Robert Klant found Pablo guilty of missing his ship’s movement by design, but dismissed the charge of unauthorized absence. Although Pablo faced one year in the brig, the judge sentenced him to two months’ restriction and three months of hard labor, and reduced his rank to seaman recruit.     "This is a huge victory," said Jeremy Warren, Pablo’s lawyer. "A sailor can show up on a Navy base, refuse in good conscience to board a ship bound for Iraq, and receive no time in jail," Warren added. Although Pablo is delighted he will not to go jail, he still regrets that he was convicted of a crime. He told the judge at sentencing: "I am guilty of believing this war is illegal. I am guilty of believing war in all forms is immoral and useless, and I am guilty of believing that as a service member I have a duty to refuse to participate in this War because it is illegal."     Pablo maintained that transporting Marines to fight in an illegal war, and possibly to commit war crimes, would make him complicit in those crimes. He told the judge, "I believe as a member of the armed forces, beyond having a duty to my chain of command and my President, I have a higher duty to my conscience and to the supreme law of the land. Both of these higher duties dictate that I must not participate in any way, hands-on or indirect, in the current aggression that has been unleashed on Iraq."     Pablo said he formed his views about the illegality of the war by reading truthout.org, listening to Democracy Now!, and reading articles by Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, Naomi Klein, Stephen Zunes, and Marjorie Cohn, as well as Kofi Annan’s statements that the war is illegal under the UN Charter, and material on the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals.     I testified at Pablo’s court-martial as a defense expert on the legality of the war in Iraq, and the commission of war crimes by US forces. My testimony corroborated the reasonableness of Pablo’s beliefs. I told the judge that the war violates the United Nations Charter, which forbids the use of force, unless carried out in self-defense or with the approval of the Security Council, neither of which obtained before Bush invaded Iraq. I also said that torture and inhuman treatment, which have been documented in Iraqi prisons, constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and are considered war crimes under the US War Crimes Statute. The United States has ratified both the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, making them part of the supreme law of the land under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.     I noted that the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires that all military personnel obey lawful orders. Article 92 of the UCMJ says, "A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States…." Both the Nuremberg Principles and the Army Field Manual create a duty to disobey unlawful orders. Article 509 of Field Manual 27-10, codifying another Nuremberg Principle, specifies that "following superior orders" is not a defense to the commission of war crimes, unless the accused "did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the act ordered was unlawful."     I concluded that the Iraq war is illegal. US troops who participate in the war are put in a position to commit war crimes. By boarding that ship and delivering Marines to Iraq – to fight in an illegal war, and possibly to commit war crimes – Pablo would have been complicit in those crimes. Therefore, orders to board that ship were illegal, and Pablo had a duty to disobey them.     On cross-examination, Navy prosecutor Lt. Jonathan Freeman elicited testimony from me that the US wars in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan also violated the UN Charter, as neither was conducted in self-defense or with the blessing of the Security Council. Upon the conclusion of my testimony, the judge said, "I think that the government has successfully proved that any service member has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal."     The Navy prosecutors asked the judge to sentence Pablo to nine months in the brig, forfeiture of pay and benefits, and a bad conduct discharge. Lt. Brandon Hale argued that Pablo’s conduct was "egregious," that Pablo could have "slinked away with his privately-held beliefs quietly." The public nature of Pablo’s protest made it more serious, according to the chief prosecuting officer.     But Pablo’s lawyer urged the judge not to punish Pablo more harshly for exercising his right of free speech. Pablo refused to board the ship not, as many others, for selfish reasons, but rather as an act of conscience, Warren said.     "Pablo’s victory is an incredible boon to the anti-war movement," according to Warren. Since December 6th, Pablo has had a strong support network. Camilo Mejia, a former Army infantryman who spent nine months in the brig at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for refusing to return to Iraq after a military leave, was present throughout Pablo’s court-martial. Tim Goodrich, co-founder of Iraq Veterans against the War, also attended the court-martial. "We have all been to Iraq, and we support anyone who stands in nonviolent opposition," he said. Fernando Su

Question:

It’s interesting to see how some on the rightg are starting to distance themselves from old Pat because they don’t like what he’s saying, but he’s right IMO. MR. RUSSERT:  Pat Buchanan, you have analyzed this book in the latest issue of The American Conservative.  You write:  "Only democracy can pave the way to true peace and security.  This is the message of Sharansky’s `Case for Democracy,’ which the president has embraced and encouraged all to read.  ut what is often true is not always true, and U.S. foreign policy, which is to protect U.S. vital interests and the peace and freedom of Americans, cannot be rooted in the idealism of an ex-Soviet dissident.  …Sharansky notwithstanding, democracy is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of America’s peace and security, nor even of Israel’s." Explain. MR. PAT BUCHANAN:  All right.  Well, let’s take Israel’s situation. Mr. Begin signed an agreement to give back the Sinai to Egypt with Anwar Sadat, who is the successor of a military dictator, Nasser.  He was not a Democrat. The Israeli government signed an agreement with Hafez al-Assad, a dictator of the worst kind, for a truce on the Golan Heights, which has held.  What I am saying is this, Tim.  You do not need a democratic government in order to achieve a success. In Mr. Bush’s first term, he cut a deal with Qaddafi, state sponsor of terror whereby Qaddafi would give up his weapons of mass destruction, his support for terror in return for the United States letting him out of the penalty box of sanctions.  Qaddafi remains a state sponsor of terror.  He was.  But we cut a deal with him, and it was a successful deal on the part of the president of the United States.  He is to be commended for it.  That is realism in foreign policy.  It is not idealism, but it is realism. MR. RUSSERT:  Prescription for endless war? MR. BUCHANAN:  Certainly it is.  Look, the United States of America–I dissent strongly from my friend.  The United States of America has always been free and always been secure.  There have been despotisms from time in memorial. There are 22 Arab states, not one of which is democratic, and the United States has not been threatened by any of them since the Barbary pirates. In my judgment, what happened on 9/11 was a result of interventionism. Interventionism is the cause of terror.  It is not a cure for terror. The idea that the president of the United States, as he said in his inaugural, is going to help democratic institutions in every region in every nation on earth is a formula for permanent war, Tim.  And look, the president of the United States has no constitutional authority to do this.  Where in the Constitution do we get the right to intervene in the internal affairs of countries that do not threaten us and do not attack us?  If they don’t, their internal politics are their own business.  As Quincy Adams says, "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.  She is the champion of freedom everywhere, but the vindicator only of her own." MR. RUSSERT:  The president said that on September 11th, "Freedom came under attack." MR. BUCHANAN:  The president of the United States was profoundly mistaken. He has misdiagnosed the malady.  He has misdiagnosed the reason for the attack, Tim.  The United States was not attacked because we are free.  Bin Laden was not attacking the Bill of Rights.  We were attacked because the United–over here because the United States’ military and political presence is massive over there.  Bin Laden in his fatwah, his statement of declaration of war on the United States, said the infidels were standing on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia. They want us out of the Middle East.  They don’t care whether we have a separation of church and state. MR. RUSSERT:  Do you agree with that?  Were we attacked for our ideals, our freedom… MR. BUCHANAN:  We brought down the shah and we got the ayatollah.  You bring down that Saudi monarchy, you destabilize that regime and Howard Dean, an Arab Howard Dean, is not going to rise out of the wreckage. That country is a nation whose people now admire and respect bin Laden, not George Bush.  We cannot make the enemy the best of the good.  Tim, look, we have had occasions, the last great crusade for democracy was Woodrow Wilson going across the sea with an army to make the world safer.  We brought down all the monarchs and we got instead Lenin and Stalin and Mussolini and Hitler.

Response:

Wow.  He does have a clue.  I don’t know if I agree with everything he said, but he does make some very good points. What I’d really like to know….(but I’m sure never will)…is if it’s really mismanagement, lousy judgment, and all around bumbling that got us into the current mess, or….heaven forbid….it’s a deliberate plan of action?  If it is deliberate, and every action has been taken on purpose, including the deceptions, then every American should fear for our future. Gee….what a choice….either our current leadership are bumbling fools, or they’ve been lying to the world, and manipulating all of us.   That really is what it all boils down to. Which is it, LV? Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >It’s interesting to see how some on the rightg are starting to distance >themselves from old Pat because they don’t like what he’s saying, but >he’s right IMO. >MR. RUSSERT:  Pat Buchanan, you have analyzed this book in the latest >issue of The American Conservative.  You write:  "Only democracy can >pave the way to true peace and security.  This is the message of >Sharansky’s `Case for Democracy,’ which the president has embraced and >encouraged all to read.  ut what is often true is not always true, and >U.S. foreign policy, which is to protect U.S. vital interests and the >peace and freedom of Americans, cannot be rooted in the idealism of an >ex-Soviet dissident.  …Sharansky notwithstanding, democracy is >neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of America’s peace and >security, nor even of Israel’s." >Explain. >MR. PAT BUCHANAN:  All right.  Well, let’s take Israel’s situation. >Mr. Begin signed an agreement to give back the Sinai to Egypt with >Anwar Sadat, who is the successor of a military dictator, Nasser.  He >was not a Democrat. The Israeli government signed an agreement with >Hafez al-Assad, a dictator of the worst kind, for a truce on the Golan >Heights, which has held.  What I am saying is this, Tim.  You do not >need a democratic government in order to achieve a success. >In Mr. Bush’s first term, he cut a deal with Qaddafi, state sponsor of >terror whereby Qaddafi would give up his weapons of mass destruction, >his support for terror in return for the United States letting him out >of the penalty box of sanctions.  Qaddafi remains a state sponsor of >terror.  He was.  But we cut a deal with him, and it was a successful >deal on the part of the president of the United States.  He is to be >commended for it.  That is realism in foreign policy.  It is not >idealism, but it is realism. >MR. RUSSERT:  Prescription for endless war? >MR. BUCHANAN:  Certainly it is.  Look, the United States of America–I >dissent strongly from my friend.  The United States of America has >always been free and always been secure.  There have been despotisms >from time in memorial. There are 22 Arab states, not one of which is >democratic, and the United States has not been threatened by any of >them since the Barbary pirates. >In my judgment, what happened on 9/11 was a result of interventionism. >Interventionism is the cause of terror.  It is not a cure for terror. >The idea that the president of the United States, as he said in his >inaugural, is going to help democratic institutions in every region in >every nation on earth is a formula for permanent war, Tim.  And look, >the president of the United States has no constitutional authority to >do this.  Where in the Constitution do we get the right to intervene in >the internal affairs of countries that do not threaten us and do not >attack us?  If they don’t, their internal politics are their own >business.  As Quincy Adams says, "America does not go abroad in search >of monsters to destroy.  She is the champion of freedom everywhere, but >the vindicator only of her own." >MR. RUSSERT:  The president said that on September 11th, "Freedom came >under attack." >MR. BUCHANAN:  The president of the United States was profoundly >mistaken. He has misdiagnosed the malady.  He has misdiagnosed the >reason for the attack, Tim.  The United States was not attacked because >we are free.  Bin Laden was not attacking the Bill of Rights.  We were >attacked because the United–over here because the United States’ >military and political presence is massive over there.  Bin Laden in >his fatwah, his statement of declaration of war on the United States, >said the infidels were standing on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia. >They want us out of the Middle East.  They don’t care whether we have a >separation of church and state. >MR. RUSSERT:  Do you agree with that?  Were we attacked for our ideals, >our freedom… >MR. BUCHANAN:  We brought down the shah and we got the ayatollah.  You >bring down that Saudi monarchy, you destabilize that regime and Howard >Dean, an Arab Howard Dean, is not going to rise out of the wreckage. >That country is a nation whose people now admire and respect bin Laden, >not George Bush.  We cannot make the enemy the best of the good.  Tim, >look, we have had occasions, the last great crusade for democracy was >Woodrow Wilson going across the sea with an army to make the world >safer.  We brought down all the monarchs and we got instead Lenin and >Stalin and Mussolini and Hitler.

Response:

And, noob, this surprises you because, lemme guess, you have not read any book by Pat Buchanan, watched him on television, or know anything about him. It’s nothing new that he opposed going in to Iraq, and he virtaully recited passages from two of his books during that interview. Maybe you need to read a broader range of opinions so you aren’t surprised into revealing your naivete to the world like this.

Response:

You’re right -fishead, Buchanan has been against the war in Iraq from the start.  He’s one of the few "conservatives" that are correct IMO. Going into Iraq was a deliberate plan of action taken by Bush et. all. On Sept 12, 2001 Bush was talking about getting Iraq even though there was absolutely NOTHING linking Saddam to Al Quada.  9/11 was the opportunity the neo-con’s were looking for – they couldn’t have been happy.  Another Pearl Harbor made going to war a piece of cake. Mr Soul

Response:

> You’re right -fishead, Buchanan has been against the war in Iraq from > the start.  He’s one of the few "conservatives" that are correct IMO.

There you go again. There are many people with conservative views who were not exactly gung-ho for going into Iraq this time. Not few. Remember, any elective war has to be ’sold’, and in a post 9/11 world, we have a heightened concern for despots who have programs of WMD, and who may trade in them with whomever can pony up the money. Korea is the latest example…shouldn’t we be concerned? Were you against Gulf War I? Well, it was the right thing to do, but it still required political salesmanship. Remember this? "This war is about one thing…jobs." Well, that wasn’t a great quote, but Bush Sr. was a better statesman than his son has demonstrated.  If W were as good a statesman as his dad, and felt that he had the time to do it, IMO he would have gotten the same coalition together for Gulf War II as I, and we’d probably be better off, doing the exact same thing as we are today. France, Germany, and Russia had one eye on the money, though, as you may have heard. There was a general agreement that Saddam was attempting to reconstitute his nuke program, no doubt he had an axe to grind with the U.S., no doubt violated the terms of the cease fire after Gulf War I (17 times IIRC, but also ordered AA to lock on our fighters policing the no-fly zone). Saddam was a secularlist, but he had met with Al Qaeda operatives in the past, reportedly paid them some amount of money, $40,000 IIRC (CBS or CNN from interview with one of Saddam’s former mistresses). Saddam knows what a proxie is, and he was most certainly *not* afraid to use one.

Response:

Kinda like what Reagan/Bush did with Noriega and Saddam, drugs for weapons? Good bye Ollie North….

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> You’re right -fishead, Buchanan has been against the war in Iraq from > the start.  He’s one of the few "conservatives" that are correct IMO. > There you go again. > There are many people with conservative views who were > not exactly gung-ho for going into Iraq this time. Not few. > Remember, any elective war has to be ’sold’, and in a post > 9/11 world, we have a heightened concern for despots who > have programs of WMD, and who may trade in them with whomever > can pony up the money. > Korea is the latest example…shouldn’t we be concerned? > Were you against Gulf War I? Well, it was the right thing > to do, but it still required political salesmanship. > Remember this? "This war is about one thing…jobs." > Well, that wasn’t a great quote, but Bush Sr. was a better > statesman than his son has demonstrated.  If W were as good a > statesman as his dad, and felt that he had the time to do it, > IMO he would have gotten the same coalition together for Gulf War > II as I, and we’d probably be better off, doing the exact same > thing as we are today. France, Germany, and Russia had one eye > on the money, though, as you may have heard. > There was a general agreement that Saddam was attempting > to reconstitute his nuke program, no doubt he had an axe > to grind with the U.S., no doubt violated the terms of the > cease fire after Gulf War I (17 times IIRC, but also ordered > AA to lock on our fighters policing the no-fly zone). > Saddam was a secularlist, but he had met with Al Qaeda operatives > in the past, reportedly paid them some amount of money, $40,000 > IIRC (CBS or CNN from interview with one of Saddam’s former > mistresses). Saddam knows what a proxie is, and he was most > certainly *not* afraid to use one.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Wow.  He does have a clue.  I don’t know if I agree with everything he > said, but he does make some very good points. > What I’d really like to know….(but I’m sure never will)…is if it’s > really mismanagement, lousy judgment, and all around bumbling that got > us into the current mess, or….heaven forbid….it’s a deliberate plan > of action?  If it is deliberate, and every action has been taken on > purpose, including the deceptions, then every American should fear for > our future. > Gee….what a choice….either our current leadership are bumbling > fools, or they’ve been lying to the world, and manipulating all of us. > That really is what it all boils down to. > Which is it, LV? > Mike

Hey Mike, I’ve got four letters for ya…  :) "PNAC" http://www.sundayherald.com/27735 Bush planned Iraq ‘regime change’ before becoming President By Neil Mackay A secret blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure ‘regime change’ even before he took power in January 2001. The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a ‘global Pax Americana’ was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld’s deputy), George W Bush’s younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney’s chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America’s Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The plan shows Bush’s cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: ‘The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.’ The PNAC document supports a ‘blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests’. This ‘American grand strategy’ must be advanced for ‘as far into the future as possible’, the report says. It also calls for the US to ‘fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars’ as a ‘core mission’. The report describes American armed forces abroad as ‘the cavalry on the new American frontier’. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must ‘discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role’. The PNAC report also: l refers to key allies such as the UK as ‘the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership’; l describes peace-keeping missions as ‘demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations’; l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA; l says ‘even should Saddam pass from the scene’ bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently — despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops — as ‘Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has’; l spotlights China for ‘regime change’ saying ‘it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia’. This, it says, may lead to ‘American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China’; l calls for the creation of ‘US Space Forces’, to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent ‘enemies’ using the internet against the US; l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons — which the nation has banned — in decades to come. It says: ‘New methods of attack — electronic, ‘non-lethal’, biological — will be more widely available … combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes … advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool’; l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a ‘world-wide command-and-control system’. Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: ‘This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks — men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war. ‘This is a blueprint for US world domination — a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.’ Web report: Iraq 15 September 2002 more stuff  http://www.pnac.info/ See, Clinton was too smart to take over Iraq.  And so was Bush Sr.- he KNEW there was no exit strategy.  I beleive he even wrote about it in his book. Bush Jr. was different.  Not only is he easily manipulated by Cheney and his buddies, but taking out Saddam Hussein was also personal to him.  As he blurted out in a PR event in Texas years ago, referring to a failed assasination attempt on his father by Saddam when Bush Sr. was in the middle east,  " He tried to kill my daddy!" Yep, just the guy for the PNAC. I expect LV to freak out, but the fact remains that the whole world knows about the PNAC- no matter how much 51% of the country likes Bush, the facts remain. And I will NOT waste my time fighting about them here. That is a fact. StratMatt – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->It’s interesting to see how some on the rightg are starting to distance >themselves from old Pat because they don’t like what he’s saying, but >he’s right IMO. >MR. RUSSERT:  Pat Buchanan, you have analyzed this book in the latest >issue of The American Conservative.  You write:  "Only democracy can >pave the way to true peace and security.  This is the message of >Sharansky’s `Case for Democracy,’ which the president has embraced and >encouraged all to read.  ut what is often true is not always true, and >U.S. foreign policy, which is to protect U.S. vital interests and the >peace and freedom of Americans, cannot be rooted in the idealism of an >ex-Soviet dissident.  …Sharansky notwithstanding, democracy is >neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of America’s peace and >security, nor even of Israel’s." >Explain. >MR. PAT BUCHANAN:  All right.  Well, let’s take Israel’s situation. >Mr. Begin signed an agreement to give back the Sinai to Egypt with >Anwar Sadat, who is the successor of a military dictator, Nasser.  He >was not a Democrat. The Israeli government signed an agreement with >Hafez al-Assad, a dictator of the worst kind, for a truce on the Golan >Heights, which has held.  What I am saying is this, Tim.  You do not >need a democratic government in order to achieve a success. >In Mr. Bush’s first term, he cut a deal with Qaddafi, state sponsor of >terror whereby Qaddafi would give up his weapons of mass destruction, >his support for terror in return for the United States letting him out >of the penalty box of sanctions.  Qaddafi remains a state sponsor of >terror.  He was.  But we cut a deal with him, and it was a successful >deal on the part of the president of the United States.  He is to be >commended for it.  That is realism in foreign policy.  It is not >idealism, but it is realism. >MR. RUSSERT:  Prescription for endless war? >MR. BUCHANAN:  Certainly it is.  Look, the United States of America–I >dissent strongly from my friend.  The United States of America has >always been free and always been secure.  There have been despotisms >from time in memorial. There are 22 Arab states, not one of which is >democratic, and the United States has not been threatened by any of >them since the Barbary pirates. >In my judgment, what happened on 9/11 was a result of interventionism. >Interventionism is the cause of terror.  It is not a cure for terror. >The idea that the president of the United States, as he said in his >inaugural, is going to help democratic institutions in every region in >every nation on earth is a formula for permanent war, Tim.  And look, >the president of the United States has no constitutional authority to >do this.  Where in the Constitution do we get the right to intervene in >the internal affairs of countries that do not threaten us and do not >attack us?  If they don’t, their internal politics are their own >business.  As Quincy Adams says, "America does not go abroad in search >of monsters to destroy.  She is the champion of freedom everywhere, but >the vindicator only of her own." >MR. RUSSERT:  The president said that on September 11th, "Freedom came >under attack." >MR. BUCHANAN:  The president of the United States was profoundly >mistaken. He has misdiagnosed the malady.  He has misdiagnosed the >reason for the attack, Tim.  The United States was not attacked because >we are free.  Bin Laden was not attacking the Bill of Rights.  We were >attacked because the United–over here because the United States’ >military and political presence is massive over there.  Bin Laden in >his fatwah, his statement of declaration of war on the United States, >said the infidels were standing on the

… read more »

Response:

It was still pretty dumb to attack the only country in the "axis of evil" that didn’t have a nukes program. — Phil Wilson

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> You’re right -fishead, Buchanan has been against the war in Iraq from > the start.  He’s one of the few "conservatives" that are correct IMO. > There you go again. > There are many people with conservative views who were > not exactly gung-ho for going into Iraq this time. Not few. > Remember, any elective war has to be ’sold’, and in a post > 9/11 world, we have a heightened concern for despots who > have programs of WMD, and who may trade in them with whomever > can pony up the money. > Korea is the latest example…shouldn’t we be concerned? > Were you against Gulf War I? Well, it was the right thing > to do, but it still required political salesmanship. > Remember this? "This war is about one thing…jobs." > Well, that wasn’t a great quote, but Bush Sr. was a better > statesman than his son has demonstrated.  If W were as good a > statesman as his dad, and felt that he had the time to do it, > IMO he would have gotten the same coalition together for Gulf War > II as I, and we’d probably be better off, doing the exact same > thing as we are today. France, Germany, and Russia had one eye > on the money, though, as you may have heard. > There was a general agreement that Saddam was attempting > to reconstitute his nuke program, no doubt he had an axe > to grind with the U.S., no doubt violated the terms of the > cease fire after Gulf War I (17 times IIRC, but also ordered > AA to lock on our fighters policing the no-fly zone). > Saddam was a secularlist, but he had met with Al Qaeda operatives > in the past, reportedly paid them some amount of money, $40,000 > IIRC (CBS or CNN from interview with one of Saddam’s former > mistresses). Saddam knows what a proxie is, and he was most > certainly *not* afraid to use one.

Response:

Yikes.  I’ve read suggestions that such a plan existed, but haven’t seen it laid our quite like the way you did.  Thank you!  It’s very informative and explains PERFECTLY the actions of the current administration.  Those of you who have read what I’ve been saying know this is what I’ve been talking about (more or less, but not in such detail) for months!  It all adds up now. Among my co-workers, we’ve long said that Cheny is the one really running the show.  C’mon….he’s former CIA.  Once you’re a member of that club, you’re always a member.  So now, we have an actual agenda. Anyone with half a brain….and I’m talking world events here, not "we’re gonna kick some butt" mentality….anyone able to see the implications of such a philosophy and attempts to put it into action just has to see that it’s a major disaster, just waiting to happen. Attempts to claim otherwise, are naive…..at the very least. We’ve got to get the message out on this one…because it’s clear that the media is chicken to even touch it. Having read all of this….I now have no doubt that some very powerful people made sure that Bush would get 4 more years to push this plan as far as possible. Heaven help our country, and our poor soldiers who are bearing the brunt of this horrible, horrible policy!!!! This does it.  You Busheviks…..if this is what you really want for our country….you make me sick. Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Wow.  He does have a clue.  I don’t know if I agree with everything he >said, but he does make some very good points. >What I’d really like to know….(but I’m sure never will)…is if it’s >really mismanagement, lousy judgment, and all around bumbling that got >us into the current mess, or….heaven forbid….it’s a deliberate plan >of action?  If it is deliberate, and every action has been taken on >purpose, including the deceptions, then every American should fear for >our future. >Gee….what a choice….either our current leadership are bumbling >fools, or they’ve been lying to the world, and manipulating all of us. >That really is what it all boils down to. >Which is it, LV? >Mike >Hey Mike, I’ve got four letters for ya…  :) >"PNAC" >http://www.sundayherald.com/27735 >Bush planned Iraq ‘regime change’ before becoming President >By Neil Mackay >A secret blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush >and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure >’regime change’ even before he took power in January 2001. >The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a >’global Pax Americana’ was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), >Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld’s deputy), >George W Bush’s younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney’s chief of >staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America’s Defences: Strategies, >Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by >the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century >(PNAC). >The plan shows Bush’s cabinet intended to take military control of the >Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: ‘The >United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf >regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the >immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force >presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam >Hussein.’ >The PNAC document supports a ‘blueprint for maintaining global US >pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the >international security order in line with American principles and >interests’. >This ‘American grand strategy’ must be advanced for ‘as far into the >future as possible’, the report says. It also calls for the US to ‘fight >and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars’ as a ‘core >mission’. >The report describes American armed forces abroad as ‘the cavalry on the >new American frontier’. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document >written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must ‘discourage advanced >industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a >larger regional or global role’. >The PNAC report also: >l refers to key allies such as the UK as ‘the most effective and efficient >means of exercising American global leadership’; >l describes peace-keeping missions as ‘demanding American political >leadership rather than that of the United Nations’; >l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA; >l says ‘even should Saddam pass from the scene’ bases in Saudi Arabia and >Kuwait will remain permanently — despite domestic opposition in the Gulf >regimes to the stationing of US troops — as ‘Iran may well prove as large >a threat to US interests as Iraq has’; >l spotlights China for ‘regime change’ saying ‘it is time to increase the >presence of American forces in southeast Asia’. This, it says, may lead to >’American and allied power providing the spur to the process of >democratisation in China’; >l calls for the creation of ‘US Space Forces’, to dominate space, and the >total control of cyberspace to prevent ‘enemies’ using the internet >against the US; >l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons >of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons — >which the nation has banned — in decades to come. It says: ‘New methods >of attack — electronic, ‘non-lethal’, biological — will be more widely >available … combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, >cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes … advanced forms of >biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform >biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool’; >l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes >and says their existence justifies the creation of a ‘world-wide >command-and-control system’. >Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the >leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: ‘This is garbage from >right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks — men who have never >seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like >Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war. >’This is a blueprint for US world domination — a new world order of their >making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to >control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister >should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.’ >Web report: Iraq >15 September 2002 >more stuff  http://www.pnac.info/ >See, Clinton was too smart to take over Iraq.  And so was Bush Sr.- he >KNEW there was no exit strategy.  I beleive he even wrote about it in his >book. >Bush Jr. was different.  Not only is he easily manipulated by Cheney and >his buddies, but taking out Saddam Hussein was also personal to him.  As >he blurted out in a PR event in Texas years ago, referring to a failed >assasination attempt on his father by Saddam when Bush Sr. was in the >middle east,  " He tried to kill my daddy!" >Yep, just the guy for the PNAC. >I expect LV to freak out, but the fact remains that the whole world knows >about the PNAC- no matter how much 51% of the country likes Bush, the >facts remain. >And I will NOT waste my time fighting about them here. >That is a fact. >:) >StratMatt >>It’s interesting to see how some on the rightg are starting to distance >>themselves from old Pat because they don’t like what he’s saying, but >>he’s right IMO. >>MR. RUSSERT:  Pat Buchanan, you have analyzed this book in the latest >>issue of The American Conservative.  You write:  "Only democracy can >>pave the way to true peace and security.  This is the message of >>Sharansky’s `Case for Democracy,’ which the president has embraced and >>encouraged all to read.  ut what is often true is not always true, and >>U.S. foreign policy, which is to protect U.S. vital interests and the >>peace and freedom of Americans, cannot be rooted in the idealism of an >>ex-Soviet dissident.  …Sharansky notwithstanding, democracy is >>neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of America’s peace and >>security, nor even of Israel’s." >>Explain. >>MR. PAT BUCHANAN:  All right.  Well, let’s take Israel’s situation. >>Mr. Begin signed an agreement to give back the Sinai to Egypt with >>Anwar Sadat, who is the successor of a military dictator, Nasser.  He >>was not a Democrat. The Israeli government signed an agreement with >>Hafez al-Assad, a dictator of the worst kind, for a truce on the Golan >>Heights, which has held.  What I am saying is this, Tim.  You do not >>need a democratic government in order to achieve a success. >>In Mr. Bush’s first term, he cut a deal with Qaddafi, state sponsor of >>terror whereby Qaddafi would give up his weapons of mass destruction, >>his support for terror in return for the United States letting him out >>of the penalty box of sanctions.  Qaddafi remains a state sponsor of >>terror.  He was.  But we cut a deal with him, and it was a successful >>deal on the part of the president of the United States.  He is to be >>commended for it.  That is realism in foreign policy.  It is not >>idealism, but it is realism. >>MR. RUSSERT:  Prescription for endless war? >>MR. BUCHANAN:  Certainly it is.  Look, the United States of America–I >>dissent strongly from my friend.  The United States of America has >>always been free and always been secure.  There have been despotisms >>from time in memorial. There are 22 Arab

… read more »

Response:

Hey….I am a person who will admit when they’re wrong.  I have not listened to him, read his writings, etc.  I do remember that he opposed the war, but not much else.  I will read more now! BTW, my initial response was meant to include just a hint of sarcasm….sort of like "whad’ya know?!?!"  But now, that may have been misdirected, as well. I’ll read more about the guy and keep an open mind….for what it’s worth. But mainly, I have to read more about this "master plan" of sorts.  As I said in my other note….I’d heard of such a plan, but never seen any sort of real evidence that it did actually exist. Can’t wait for LV’s opinion on THAT!! (grin) Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > And, noob, this surprises you because, lemme guess, you have not read > any book by Pat Buchanan, watched him on television, or know > anything about him. > It’s nothing new that he opposed going in to Iraq, and he > virtaully recited passages from two of his books during that > interview. > Maybe you need to read a broader range of opinions so you aren’t > surprised into revealing your naivete to the world like this.

Response:

>Can’t wait for LV’s opinion on THAT!!

Get over it you losers!  Who cares about Pat B – he’s a loser!  The terrorists in Iraq – they’re losers! LV (NOT)

Response:

Question:

…it’d be running Rodney King style, 24/7 on every leftist media outlet in the northern hemisphere.  As it is, though… nada. Dan Rather, where are you?  Kinko’s, perhaps? Democrats Gone Wild! Posted: October 13, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Michelle Malkin

Question:

Hi, I’m looking for a quiet diesel genset with automatic transfer switch (and exercising, etc) in the 10-15WK range, any reccomendations? Thanks!

Response:

> Hi, > I’m looking for a quiet diesel genset with automatic transfer switch > (and exercising, etc) in the 10-15WK range, any reccomendations? > Thanks!

Indoor or outdoor? Pretty much you need to pick an manufacture and then ask questions about critical silencers. Which are always extra.  Insulated housings will cut noise as well. More extra bucks. I did an outdoor Pink Floyd concert and they had two shipping containers 10X30 behind the stage producing 2000 kw each. V-8 Rolls Royce engines, monsters that they were. I could touch the container and tell it was running. There was no noise at all.

Response:

Well, our Detroit Diesel meets your requirements with the exception of quiet. We are adding a muffler this week, so maybe that will meet your goals. Will keep you posted. The auto transfer switch, for $126, came from backwoods solar. Keep watch at www.green-trust.org for the unfolding story. — Steve Spence http://www.green-trust.org

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi, > I’m looking for a quiet diesel genset with automatic transfer switch > (and exercising, etc) in the 10-15WK range, any reccomendations? > Thanks!

Response:

>I did an outdoor Pink Floyd concert and they had two shipping containers >10X30 behind the stage producing 2000 kw each…

Really? >V-8 Rolls Royce engines, monsters that they were.

About 10,000 horsepower? Nick

Response:

>Indoor or outdoor?

Indoor might be interesting, can they be cooled thru a couple of basement windows near the corner of a foundation?

Response:

Vibration would be a good reason not to install indoors. Ours is 50′ from the house. We will be putting a greenhouse over it (free heat). Muffler should quiet it so we can’t hear it indoors. — Steve Spence http://www.green-trust.org

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Indoor or outdoor? > Indoor might be interesting, can they be cooled thru a couple of > basement windows near the corner of a foundation?

Response:

Question:

> A new AC Nielsen poll indicates that at least 85 percent of us are not > eating the recommended minimum servings fruits and vegetables a day. > The current recommendations include two to four servings of fruit, and > three to five servings of vegetables daily (a typical serving size is > three-fourths cup of juice, a medium apple or a half-cup of chopped > vegetables). Nearly half of those questioned ate just one or two > servings of produce per day. Only 12 percent said they eat the > suggested five or more servings, and three percent said they eat no > produce at all.

I belong to the 12% group. but it also comes down to eating other healthy food, not eating too fat, not drinking too much alcohol, exercising enough, etc.. greetings patricia

Response:

A new AC Nielsen poll indicates that at least 85 percent of us are not eating the recommended minimum servings fruits and vegetables a day. The current recommendations include two to four servings of fruit, and three to five servings of vegetables daily (a typical serving size is three-fourths cup of juice, a medium apple or a half-cup of chopped vegetables). Nearly half of those questioned ate just one or two servings of produce per day. Only 12 percent said they eat the suggested five or more servings, and three percent said they eat no produce at all. Despite public service campaigns such as "5 A Day For Better Health", this survey also suggests that most people don’t know how many fruits and veggies they are supposed to eat. Sixty percent thought eating one to four servings was enough for a healthy diet; twenty percent said one or two servings was enough. It is obvious most people are falling seriously short of the five to nine servings of varied produce recommended by nutrition experts and government agencies. Read more: Google News http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.wisc… All the best, Ed Torres

Response: