Google Custom Search

Saturday, December 09, 2006

LIBERTY ALERT!! Gun Owners Beware!

This is an urgent Liberty Alert. Gun owners beware. Get ready. January is coming, and the Democrats are set to strip you of your Constitutional right to own and carry firearms. Gun Owners of America has issued an alert to the fact that the Brady Campaign for banning guns is lying in wait for the Democrats to take control so that they can unleash their unconstitutional, rights-robbing, liberty-hating garbage on the American public. Read the following article reprinted from the Gun Owners of America website, and act!

The Barbarians Have Taken The Hill
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151

The Brady Bunch is already licking their collective lips in anticipation of the new Congress being seated. Visit the Brady Campaign's website and you will see talk of a "momentum shift" in our nation's capital that will "make it hard for the gun lobby to weaken gun laws and creates opportunities for passage of common sense [sic] gun proposals." Indeed, the attack has already begun.

Brady Bunch Attacking GOA
Earlier this month, the Brady Campaign asked the Federal Election Commission to investigate GOA's practice of posting its candidate ratings on the Internet. Millions of gun owners rely on these ratings, and that is something the Brady Bunch would like to halt.

In 2002, the Bradys rejoiced when Congress passed the Incumbent Protect Act, stating that "now the gun lobby's stranglehold on Congress will be broken." Indeed, they want to make it illegal for GOA to tell gun owners what their legislators are actually doing.

But it should not surprise anyone that a group which doesn't understand the Second Amendment does not understand First Amendment freedoms as well.

Realize that we are going to need your help more than ever in 2007. Because of this recent Brady assault, we could be looking at a very costly court battle that could eventually go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Gun Owners is not going to back down, however, from the Brady Campaign's intimidation tactics. We realize that these candidate ratings are extremely important, for they force your legislators to stay in the light.

But the Brady Bunch wants to keep you in the dark! They don't want you to know the truth. The more they can hide what anti-gun legislators are doing, the greater their ability to take away your guns.

Oh sure, they say they just want to take guns out of the "wrong hands." Yeah right. If that were true, then why don't they support legislation to repeal the DC gun ban?

The answer is obvious, they support the DC gun ban, and they want to export it to the rest of the country. Do you remember them joining with us to work for the DC gun ban's repeal? Of course not! Do you remember seeing them on our amicus brief to strike down the recent San Francisco handgun ban? No way! They support gun bans, despite all their claims for only supporting "common sense" gun restrictions.

For them, "common sense" gun control means that only the police and the military have free access to guns... just like in England.

GOA Supporting Bill To Repeal National Parks Gun Ban
Well, GOA is going to stand in their way, even if it means that we have to fight a lone battle for gun owners, as we did earlier this year when we were the ONLY gun group in Washington opposing the McCarthy gun grab.

Even now, there is still work to be done. GOA helped Sen. George Allen (R-VA) draft legislation to repeal the gun ban in national parks. (Two other Virginia groups -- Virginia Gun Owners and VCDL -- did a lot of heavy lifting on this issue as well.) There is little time left for this legislation to pass, so gun owners should call Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) at 202-224-3344 (or fax him at 202-228-1264) and ask him to fast track the Allen bill (S. 4057).

Big Threat Posed By Democrat Anti-gun Congress
But the real challenge to our gun rights is that we will have to spend a good bit of the next two years fighting defensive battles, as we will see the following types of legislation:

* Bans on ammunition
* Expansion of the Brady data base to include the names of countless, law-abiding gun owners
* A re-authorization of the semi-auto gun ban (a ban which President Bush is on record as supporting!)
* A prohibition on gun shows
* A gun ban that will prohibit any handgun from being sold which can not be "personalized" -- thus preventing loved ones from using a spouse's firearm in an emergency.
All of these ideas were introduced by Democrat congressmen this past year. With their new majority, you can expect these bills -- and others -- to start moving quickly.

Stopping Brady Expansion Just Got Much Tougher
Because of your efforts, GOA was able to single-handedly kill the Brady expansion this year. The bill was introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and was expected to pass easily. It was considered to be "non-controversial" because pro-gun lobbyists in Washington were telling legislators they could vote for the bill.

But congressmen didn't hear that from Gun Owners. You can read the details in our upcoming newsletter, to find out just how we fought the lone battle to kill this pernicious piece of legislation.

The December issue of The Gun Owners will encourage those of you who are already receiving our newsletter. However, you should realize that the attacks on our gun rights are about to escalate, as a result of the new Congress that was just elected.

With only GOA opposing this insidious gun grab, it is going to be a lot harder to stop in the new Congress.

GOA Needs Your Support!
As you can see, GOA is going to need a huge war chest over the next two years, if we are going to stay in the fight and protect your Second Amendment rights -- as well as GOA's ability to keep you and the public informed.

The FEC court battle alone could cost thousands upon thousands of dollars. In real terms, we could be fighting battles at every level of the federal government -- in the legislative, judicial and executive branches. (Don't think for a moment that President Bush -- who is himself a supporter of the semi-auto gun ban -- is going to lift a finger to help us.)

We look forward to the fight, but we can't fight these battles without YOU. Our members are our strength. It is because of you that one legislative office told us this year: "Oh s--t! We got a lot of postcards and e-mails from GOA members."

That answer right there explains why the McCarthy gun grab is dead for the year! It is because of your hard work.

So will you continue to stand with us?

Please say that you will by going to and signing up or renewing your membership. A $20 membership with Gun Owners of America is the best bargain in town. For a mere nickel a day, you will be helping to preserve your gun rights for future generations.

Or maybe you've been with us for a while and you want to make the ultimate contribution to the organization that is standing firm on the front lines. Would you consider becoming a Life Member of Gun Owners?

In addition to getting our newsletter, The Gun Owners, special reports, legislative action updates and all the other regular benefits of membership, Life Members will also receive a certificate -- suitable for framing -- identifying you as a GOA Life Member, a unique lapel pin, and a wallet card that only Life Members and Senior Staff at GOA are allowed to carry.

Maybe you've never received our informative newsletters and legislative alerts (with postcards). If that's the case, you can start receiving those right away by signing up today with a $20 contribution -- or more, if you can afford it.

Your contribution will NOT be wasted.

Senator David Vitter of Louisiana has said that: "Gun Owners of America is one of the most effective and important political organizations in this country.... [They] can mobilize gun owners from all across America, uniting them into a single powerful voice that politicians in Washington dare not ignore."

We've been fighting for your rights, without compromise, for more than 30 years!

But we need you now more than ever. We need you to say that you will stand with us and work together to protect the rights that have helped keep our nation free for so long.

Thank you in advance for your support!

Hastert at War with Democrat Over National Christmas Tree

Now that the Democrats have won control of Congress an old controversy has reared its ugly head once again over what to call the Capitol Christmas Tree. Republican Dennis Hastert and his colleagues restored the original name to the tree when the Party gained control of Congress, after years of being called 'The Holiday Tree' during the 1990s under the Democrats. Hastert mandated that the tree rightfully be referred to as 'the Capitol Christmas Tree.'

This year the Democrats, who are set to move into the majority in Congress in January, returned to their practice of calling the tree a 'Holiday Tree.' Technically, however, Republicans are still in the majority until this session is adjourned. And Hastert quickly engaged the Democrats in a war of words over the tree at the annual lighting ceremony at the U.S. Capitol.

Senator Patty Murray, D-Wash., was chosen to deliver a speech at the lighting ceremony since the Pacific Silver Fir is from her home state of Washington. Never once did Murray refer to the tree as a Christmas tree. Instead she opted for the former manner in which the Democrats referred to the tree, twice making reference to the 'Capitol Holiday Tree.'

Interestingly enough, the master of ceremonies who introduced Murray referred to the tree as 'the Capitol Christmas Tree,' and Murray's speech was immediately followed by the National Presbyterian School Chorus singing, 'O Christmas Tree.'

Democrats, in their tireless efforts to ignore history and tradition in order to be fully politically correct, fall all over themselves to avoid using the dreaded term

When outgoing Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert rose to speak, he referred to the tree exclusively as 'the Capitol Christmas Tree' and used the term 'Christmas' at least a dozen times, as if to indicate to Murray that despite her reluctance to have the despicable 'C' word roll from her mouth, there are still some Americans left who are not afraid to own and affirm the history and traditions that make this season of the year unique.

You can rest assured that when Democrats come back to power in January, the powers that be will renew their war on Christianity with a vengeance. As the Party that gave us the very first Muslim Congressman in history, the Democrats apparently have no shame in affirming anti-Jewish and anti-Christian sentiment in their relentless march toward neutralizing anything religious in the public square, that is, unless you are Muslim.

Friday, December 08, 2006

The Legacy of Jeane Kirkpatrick

It is with sadness that I note the passing of Jeane Kirkpatrick, President Ronald Reagan's outstanding Ambassador to the United Nations. When Reagan appointed Kirkpatrick to the post in 1981, she was a Democrat. Kirkpatrick came of age back when Democrats stood for liberty, patriotism, anti-communism, and strong defense.

In the 1970s Kirkpatrick increasingly became disillusioned with the Democrat Party and grew harshly critical of their foreign policy decisions, particularly under ex-
President Jimmy Carter who oversaw a great weakening of our national defense in an era when to do so put America at great danger.

These were the days of the Cold War. For at least a decade prior to the 1981 election, the word that best described our foreign policy toward the Soviet Union was 'detente,' that ominous concept that accepted the fact that both the U.S. and the Soviets had nuclear weapons, that any first strike would ignite a nuclear war that would result in the destruction of most of the globe, and thus, neither nation would seek to outright win the Cold War.

Enter Ronald Reagan.

Reagan rejected detente and the inherent pessimism in its precepts. Rather than becoming resigned to the fact that we would forever be held in a standoff with a superpower that was shooting down airliners and murdering its own political dissidents, Reagan insisted that America build up its military resources in such a sweeping manner as to make it impossible for the Soviets to keep up.

With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1981 the United States embarked on a course to win the Cold War outright. Reagan would accept nothing less. Defense spending skyrocketed. Reagan also proposed his now infamous 'star wars' plan, which was ridiculed at the time but has proved to be an idea ahead of its time which sent the Soviet Union into a frenzy of frightened fury.

With the Soviet Union increasingly losing the support of its citizens due to a disastrous economic policy that left most of the country impoverished, Soviet leaders could hardly keep with the demands created by Reagan's massive military buildup. Thus, within a few short years the Soviet Union collapsed.

At the center of the Reagan revolution, which had every bit as much to do with foreign policy as libertarian domestic policy, was one Jeane Kirkpatrick. At the U.N. Kirkpatrick became a formidable spokesperson for American interests and anti-communist ideology. She took the Soviets to task on the floor of the U.N. for failing to inform their own people of their decision to shoot down a domestic passenger airliner.

In 1984 Kirkpatrick delivered a speech before the Republican National Committee which would be hailed as a masterful rhetorical vehicle by which she would introduce into the modern vernacular the terms 'San Francisco Democrat' and 'blame America first.' Even then Kirkpatrick recognized the danger of the growing tendency of certain sectors within the country that would blame America first for every single woe of the world while failing to call foreign governments to accountability. At the forefront of this dreadful movement were, as Kirkpatrick called them, 'San Francisco Democrats.'

As a lifelong Democrat, Kirkpatrick felt she had every right to issue such scathing indictments against her own party. However, by 1985 she had had enough. She became a Republican.

Following her resignation as U.N. Ambassador, Kirkpatrick would continue to serve her country as an advisor to Senate Republicans and as a professor at Georgetown University.

It is not to be overlooked that John Bolton, our most recent U.N. Ambassador, looked to Kirkpatrick as his beloved mentor. Kirkpatrick's unabashed, patriotic, pro-American philosophy could be readily seen in Bolton. It is a disgrace to the country that Democrats blocked a vote on Bolton by filibuster and then indicated that the new Congress would not allow a vote on the nomination, resulting in Bolton's resignation.

Joseph Biden's claim that Democrats did not filibuster to block a vote on Bolton is a lie. The record is there for anyone to see.

My feelings grow melancholic as I contemplate Bolton's departure from the U.N. at roughly the same time as the death of Jeane Kirkpatrick. Not only is the country itself now deprived of the unsurpassed wisdom and courage of Kirkpatrick, but a void is being created at the U.N. as the voice of Bolton is silenced.

Be assured that those of us who remember Jeane Kirkpatrick with great fondness and who value John Bolton's courageous stand for liberty will not allow to be forgotten the principles that guided both of these remarkable American patriots.

Today's America NOT What Founders Had in Mind

Saluda, NC (TLS). The wisdom of Walter Williams far surpasses most of what we find in modern academia in America. I have cited his columns before on The Liberty Sphere, and once again my love for this country behooves me to provide you with yet another sample of brilliance from the pen of Dr. Williams.

I would have missed this particular column had I not been in the Saluda area today. I like to get a sampling of local newspapers while in the area, and I found this column by Williams printed in 'The Spartanburg Herald,' the main daily paper for Spartanburg, SC, which is about 30 miles south of Saluda.

While my love for this Republic led me to offer this column, it is with a deep sense of grief that I do so, for its words provide a heavy indictment against modern American society. As Dr. Williams points out, the U.S. government of today is clearly NOT what the Founders had in mind, and the tragedy of it all is that most Americans seem to be happy about it.

Enough said. Here is the Williams column:

Today's government isn't exactly what Founders had in mind
by Walter Williams
Creators Syndicate

Unlike today's Americans, the Founders of our nation were suspicious, if not contemptuous, of government. Consider just a few of their words.

James Madison suggested, 'All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.'

Thomas Paine observed, 'We will find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry and grasping at the spoils of the multitude...It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute.'

John Adams reminded, 'You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.'

Thomas Jefferson gave us several warnings that we've ignored: First, 'The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.' Second, 'The greatest calamity which could befall us would be submission to a government of unlimited powers.' And third, 'Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.'

In response to what Jefferson called an 'elective despotism,' he suggested that 'The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.'

With sentiments like these, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison became Presidents. Could a person with similar sentiments win the presidency today? My guess is no. Today's Americans hold such liberty-oriented values in contempt, and any presidential aspirant holding them would have a zero chance of winning office.

Today's Americans hold a different vision of government. It's one that says Congress has the right to do just about anything upon which it can secure a majority vote. Most of what Congress does fits the description of forcing one American to serve the purposes of another American. That description differs only in degree, but not in kind, from slavery.

At least two-thirds of the federal budget represents forcing one American to serve the purposes of another. Younger workers are forced to pay for the prescriptions of older Americans; people who are not farmers are forced to serve those who are; nonpoor people are forced to serve poor people; and the general public is forced to serve corporations, college students and other special interests that have the ear of Congress.

The supreme tragedy that will lead to our undoing is that so far as personal economic self-interests are concerned, it is perfectly rational for every American to seek to live at the expense of another American. Why? Not doing so doesn't mean he'll pay lower federal taxes. All it means is that there will be more money for somebody else.

In other words, once Congress establishes that one person can live at the expense of another, it pays for everyone to try to do so. You say, 'Don't you believe in helping your fellow man?' Yes, I do. I believe that reaching into one's own pockets to help his fellow man is both laudable and praiseworthy. Reaching into another's pockets to help his fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

The bottom line: We love government because it enables us to accomplish things that if done privately would lead to arrest and imprisonment. For example, if I saw a person in need, and I took your money to help him, I'd be arrested and convicted of theft. If I get Congress to do the same thing, I am seen as compassionate.

This vision ought to bother the Christians among us, for when God gave Moses the commandment, 'Thou shalt not steal,' I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless you get a majority vote in Congress.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Pearl Harbor and Modern American Society

As I have stated before on The Liberty Sphere, modern Americans by and large are not worthy to tie the shoes of the brave men and women who fought in WWII. I stand by that assessment on this day in which we remember the attack on Pearl Harbor 65 years ago, which launched America's involvement in the war.

On Sept. 11, 2001 America was once again attacked, this time on our own soil in a civilian rather than a military area. Thus, 9/11 is actually worse, much worse, than the attack we suffered at Pearl Harbor.

Yet note the stark difference in the way America responded.

In the 1940s America amassed an army of soldiers that became the envy of the entire world. The entire country was united in the effort, which lasted for years. At the height of the war Americans suffered 8000 casualties per month as contrasted to the 50 or so per month we suffer in Iraq. Citizens made sacrifices. EVERYONE had a personal investment in our winning that war.

Today, Americans are demonstrating how far we have descended into the abyss of cowardice, pacifism, and near-treasonous ideology. Not only have we lost our resolve to see a mission through until it ends in victory, but we elect turncoats to control Congress in the middle of wartime. Murtha, Conyers, Pelosi, and company have all made comments that would have resulted in their being drawn and quartered in the Press during WWII. Today they are hailed as heroes.

Imagine if FDR had been urged by people in his own party to open up talks with Hitler or Japan while our servicemen and women were being slaughtered? Imagine FDR's Secretary of Defense going to Berlin, touring Auschwitz, and sitting down at the table to negotiate only 4 million Jewish exterminations rather than 7 million. How many, would you say, would be an acceptable number?

Yet today Democrats insist that we negotiate with terrorists. How many lives lost to terrorism are acceptable? The Baker gang wants Israel to give up the Golan Heights to lure Syria to the table. Can you imagine ANYONE in the U.S. Congress in 1943 suggesting that France should give up Paris to Hitler as long as he leaves London alone?

What about sitting down at the negotiation table with Japan and telling them they can have Hawaii if they promise not to attack San Francisco?

The fact that such things were so foreign to the thinking of Americans during WWII is a stark indictment on modern American society. When a nation rises so high, as we did during WWII, it has a long, long way to fall.

We have fallen almost to the point of no return.

Not only did Americans succeed in electing to office a gang of collectivist pacifists who think the notion of an American victory in Iraq is despicable, but we also elected to Congress a Muslim Democrat who is obviously no more loyal to the U.S. Constitution than Al Qaida. He wants to be sworn into office with his hand on the Quoran, which specifically states that Muslims are forbidden from swearing allegiance to anything other than Allah.

Thus, when it comes to his service to his country, the Constitution will always take a back seat to the Quoran. This puts him in lockstep with the very people who are killing Americans overseas. Yet where is the outcry against him? Where are the demands that he not be allowed to take office?

Make no mistake, our brave servicemen and women who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan have done a magnificent job. They would make our forefathers proud. They deposed a barbarian dictator. Iraq had its very first democratic elections in its history. Much good has been accomplished that you never hear in the media. A handful of insurgents are causing the ruckus in a 20-mile radius of Baghdad. Yet our politically correct media, along with their comrades at arms in the Democrat party, have hamstrung our efforts at every single point. They have turned public opinion against the effort.

And this brings me back to my original point. American society, not our troops, has changed. We have no backbone, no courage, no tenacity, no patience to see it through. Our troops are to be praised. Our citizens are not worthy to tie their shoes or the shoes of the WWII least not until we make it clear to our politicians we demand to win and nothing less.

The battle-cry, 'throw the bums out,' can surely be resurrected in a fury in 2008.

URGENT! Write This Letter To Your Senators

This is an urgent Liberty Sphere alert. The time is now to write to your Senators urging them to vote AGAINST accepting The Iraq Study Group Report.

The vote in the Senate will take place within the next 36 hours. The window of opportunity to let your voice be heard on this abominable document will be a short one.

This means that time is of the essence. Copy and paste the sample letter below, sign your name, or compose your own letter, and send to your Senators. The web address at the end of this post will give you the names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of every U.S. Senator.

Remember, my friends, the Baker gang refuses to use the word 'victory' or 'win' in its report because those terms are supposedly 'inflammatory.' This is precisely what General Tommy Franks said last evening in an interview with Sean Hannity.

Since when is it 'inflammatory' for America to WIN or emerge VICTORIOUS from a war?

Is this not the whole point?

Apparently not anymore. The Left, the socialists, the collectivists who control the mainstream media, academia, and now, Congress, have succeeded in making America ashamed for even THINKING about victory.

They should be resoundingly CONDEMNED.

The following is a model letter you may use to write your Senators, if you wish. Please act, and act quickly, on behalf of your country.

Dear Senator ____________,

I understand that within a few days you will be asked to vote on a resolution supporting the Iraq Study Group's report. I have considered the report, and I deeply object to much of its ill-conceived content. A few sections of the report are simply unconscionable.

Many of the consultants who contributed to this report are partisans in the Arab Israeli conflict. Many others are known for their anti-Israel attitudes.

I object strenuously to the notion that Israel has anything to do with the conflict in Iraq, or has any role to play in its resolution. Israel should not be as a bargaining chip to appease terrorists resolved to murder Americans in Iraq in any case. Israel has nothing to do with the conflict in Iraq, and its citizens are in no way responsible for the outcome there.

There is no doubt that the American effort in Iraq has gone badly, and that much in the U.S. and allied strategy needs to change.

But tying these policy decisions to what happens in Israel is foolish, and dangerous.

Please reject this report.

Thank you,

___________________________(your name)

Note: Many thanks to Pamela Geller Oshry over at Atlas Shrugs for providing the basic structure of the preceding letter.

To find your Senators' addresses and phone numbers, go here:

Why the Iraq Study Group Report is Discredited

The report of the Iraq Study Group (known on The Liberty Sphere as 'the Baker gang') was made public this morning. Talk radio, television news channels, and bloggers have had a feeding frenzy all day as pundits and news watchers weigh in on the issues raised by the report.

I will not attempt a thorough, point by point analysis of the Baker gang report. Others have done this admirably, and some not so admirably. The nation and lawmakers on Capital Hill, as well as the President, will debate the recommendations for days and weeks to come.

However, there are three provisions within the report that indicate to me that the entirety of the Baker gang study is suspect. In fact, these three statements alone are enough to discredit the entire report.

It is time for Baker, Hamilton, O'Connor, Pinetta and company to go back into retirement. Good riddance.

First of all, the report stipulates a time-frame for pulling our troops back. This is simply unconscionable. To publicly indicate a time-table for the beginning of our scale-back simply plays into the hands of Jihadists who will now bide their time until we start leaving. The terrorist insurgency will now simply wait, building up their strength and resources, until we begin to limit our military presence. This is nothing less than disastrous for Iraq, for our mission, and ultimately for America's future.

Second, the report, as expected, urges the United States to open talks with Syria and Iran as a means to 'stabilize the region.' This is sheer lunacy. Both are terrorist states. Iran wishes to annihilate Israel. Iran's President denies that the Holocaust ever occurred. We may as well open up talks with Charles Manson on how to improve the nation's prison system.

According to Arab sources who monitor Middle Eastern websites and news reports, Syria is viewing the Baker gang report as a triumph. To quote the Syrians, 'This proves that our policies are working and that we are now being recognized as the major force and influence in the region.'

Can we all join together and scream a collective 'THANK-YOU' to Baker, Hamilton, Meese, O'Connor, Pinetta, and company for playing right into the hands of the single largest state sponsor of terrorism?

Third, the most damning of all the provisions of the report is the suggestion that Israel give up the Golan Heights to Hamas as a means of luring Syria to the negotiation table. As reported to you here on The Liberty Sphere last week, this was expected as a major provision of the report. But to see it in print and talked about seriously on television and radio gives one pause to consider the nauseating fact that America has been so sullied and brainwashed by the Left that it has now become fashionable to denigrate one of our staunchest allies in the world.

The fact that Baker, Pinetta, Hamilton, and even O'Connor would put their name on such an abomination is to be expected. But Edwin Meese? This is the real shocker.

Israel is but a tiny fraction of the land in the Middle East, which is overwhelmingly Muslim. The fact that Muslims want it all is ample proof that no amount of negotiation or appeasement will ever be enough to satisfy them. They want it all. They want Israel...all of it. And, they want the entire world.

This one provision alone is enough to toss the entirety of the Baker gang report into the garbage as 'dead on arrival.' In fact, I am sickened that these supposedly intelligent men and women would even think about such an atrocity as to suggest that our allies give up part of their land to lure a terrorist state to the negotiation table.

It is for these reasons that I see no reason for any consideration to be given at all to the Iraq Study Group report. It has been totally discredited. The thinking of its members is tainted, their judgment skewed.

Time to hunker down, do whatever we need to do to win, and get the job done. Victory, complete victory, for America is the only acceptable outcome.

Thus, to the has-beens from another era who were brought out of retirement to bless us with their overwhelming wisdom, let me say, BE GONE! AWAY WITH YOU! GET THEE FROM HENCE! Time to put your minds to something a bit more in line with where you are at a friendly game of shuffle board.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

SUPREME COURT WATCH--Justice Breyer's Dangerous Judicial Philosophy

As I reported to you on The Liberty Sphere prior to the November midterm elections, a critical component in the prospect of losing Congress to Democrats would be the Supreme Court. For Republicans to sit out the election, which they did, would mean the possibility of losing the Supreme Court to reckless extremists who exhibit an alarming disregard for 'original intent.'

Original intent is that philosophy of jurisprudence that places a premium on the intent of the Founding Fathers in including provisions in the U.S. Constitution. In other words, judges cannot simply make up laws based upon personal preferences or opinions, or even the 'will of the people.' In a Constitutional Representative form of government, the will of the people is held in check by certain guiding principles outlined by the Founders that protect individual rights.

The other option is 'open interpretation,' which downplays the role of original intent. This is the guiding philosophy of jurisprudence held by Justice Stephen Breyer, who is a Clinton appointee. Breyer has admitted he outright rejects original intent as a guiding philosophy, and this is precisely why he is a danger to the Republic.

The process of interpreting the Constitution is not as intricate a task as progressivists like Breyer wish people to think. We have the writings of the Founders which spell out in great detail their intent, such as 'The Federalist Papers.'

Without the original intent of the Founders as THE guiding principle, every single freedom and liberty we have come to enjoy as Americans is subject to the Court's nullification.

The following is David Limbaugh's excellent article on Justice Breyer and those like him, who form a most dangerous threat to the country.

Justice Breyer's dangerous jurisprudence
By David Limbaugh
Tuesday, December 5, 2006

Many conservatives reportedly chose not to vote in November to protest the Republican Party's abandonment of conservative principles. One potential consequence of that boycott could be a forfeiture of the chance to finally secure a majority of "originalist" justices on the Supreme Court.

Granted, it was going to be tough enough for President Bush to win confirmation for another conservative nominee to the court in the face of a militant minority should a vacancy occur, but now that the Democrats have control it will be virtually impossible.

This is something disgruntled conservatives should contemplate before sitting the next one out. It is also something Republicans should consider before abandoning conservative principles to the point of alienating their base.

Chris Wallace's "Fox News Sunday" interview of Justice Stephen Breyer is a sobering reminder of the impact of the elections on the judiciary. Wallace asked Breyer about his book, "Active Liberty," released a year ago in which Breyer supposedly defended his practice of rejecting "originalism" in constitutional interpretation.

In the book Breyer wrote, "Since law is connected to life, judges, in applying a test in light of its purpose, should look to consequences including contemporary conditions, social, industrial and political, of the community to be affected."

In my book, I noted that Breyer admitted he frequently makes decisions about a law's constitutionality using standards other than merely interpreting the text of the Constitution or the Framers' intent.

Breyer said, "I tend to emphasize purpose and consequences. Others emphasize language, a more literal reading of the text, history, and tradition -- believing that those help you reach a more objective answer."

I documented how Breyer's judicial approach plays out in his decisions. For example, he defended supporting patently inconsistent rulings in two separate cases involving Ten Commandments displays in front of courthouses in Kentucky and Texas based on the likely consequences of the Court's rulings.

Because the Texas monument had been on display for many years without incident he voted that it was constitutional. But the display before the Kentucky courthouse was much newer and likely to cause religious conflict, so he voted that it was unconstitutional.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist with a law degree to recognize that Breyer usurps legislative authority in rendering judicial decisions on such a basis. It is the prerogative of legislators, not judges, to weigh a law's impact on the community.

Who can reasonably deny that Breyer's approach diminishes the predictability and reliability of the law and the rule of law? It makes Breyer, in effect, a policy maker -- an arrogant, unelected and unaccountable one, at that -- rather than a judge.

If the Ten Commandments cases don't rock your boat, consider the real life application of Breyer's judicial philosophy to free speech -- a liberty every red-blooded American purports to cherish.

Breyer admits that he voted to uphold the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, though he acknowledges that regulating campaign expenditures amounts to regulating speech "because no one can run for office and have his message heard without money. So the First Amendment is involved."

But looking at consequences again, Breyer concludes he doesn't want the rich donors' speech to "drown out everybody else's. So maybe we have to do something to make that playing field a little more level in terms of money."

In other words, Breyer consciously suppresses speech selectively to ensure that all speech is equally projected. Breyer is simply imposing his political views through constitutional interpretation, seeking -- as liberals do -- to guarantee equality of outcomes rather than opportunities.

If you're still not alarmed, just think how Breyer's reasoning could be applied in other cases. We all know that liberals -- longing for the days of the liberal media monopoly -- have been frustrated over their inability to compete in the marketplace of ideas via talk radio. Especially with the failure of "Air America" to mitigate conservative dominance and level the talk show playing field, liberals are salivating at the prospect of reinstituting the "Fairness Doctrine" to emasculate conservative talk through the coercive power of government in a way the free market stubbornly refuses to do.

Though I have long been aware of the liberals' dark conspiracy to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine to shut up their political opponents -- just read leftist websites if you don't believe me -- I didn't fear the scheme, believing it couldn't pass constitutional muster.

But after reading Breyer's spooky thought processes on constitutional jurisprudence, I realize I was way too sanguine. Conservatives must never underestimate how important the composition of the courts is to the preservation of the Constitution and our liberties.

Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Shocking Revelation! Muslim Congressman's Loyalty to U.S. in Question

One of the consequences of the Democrat takeover of Congress is that they gave us the first Muslim member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Rep.-Elect Keith (Hakim-Mohammad) Ellison, D-Minn., has raised a furor of controversy over his request to take his oath of office on the Quran rather than the Bible.

Now, according to WorldNetDaily, there is growing evidence to question Ellison's loyalty to America and to the U.S. Constitution. In a shocking expose' of Ellison's loyalties and memberships, including a consideration of who is backing him, not only should his loyalty to U.S. Constitution be questioned but Americans should be wary of his fitness for office.

As a Congressman, Ellison will have access to many of the nation's classified documents in the war on terror. And, as you will see in the expose' below, his religion forbids any expression of loyalty to any government that does not base its laws on the Quran--a chilling prospect in the growing worldwide Jihad.

Here is the article:

© 2006

The first Muslim member of Congress is linked to a radical Islamic school of thought that requires loyalty to the Quran over the U.S. Constitution, WND has learned.

Rep.-elect Keith (Hakim-Mohammed) Ellison, D-Minn., has drawn fire for asking to take the constitutional oath on the Quran rather than the Bible at a swearing-in ceremony next month.

The Constitution specifies that members of Congress shall be bound by an oath to support the constitutional law of the land. In the oath, Ellison will be required to swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ... without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion."

Critics argue he has conflicting loyalties, while Ellison insists he's a patriot.

But within days of being elected, Ellison held a workshop on politics for a group closely affiliated with a radical Islamic school that preaches no Muslim can pledge loyalty to the Constitution or make laws outside the laws of the Quran, which the school's leaders assert is the "supreme law" of the land, trumping all man-made laws including the U.S. Constitution.

A black convert to orthodox Sunni Islam, Ellison spoke to the North American Imams Federation, or NAIF, at the group's Nov. 19 conference in Minneapolis.

His talk flowed into a breakout session listed on the agenda simply as "American Open University," according to the conference program. It turns out the university is a "distance-learning" center based in Alexandria, Va., and known to local law enforcement as "Wahhabi Online."

Later that day, Ellison met with NAIF's president, Omar Ahmad Shahin, who lectures at the same American Open University. (He also met at the time with New York imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.) The radical Islamic school trains many of NAIF's more than 150 members, who control mosques across America.

American Open University supports Sharia, or Islamic law. And its founder and chairman, Jaafar Sheikh Idris, has denounced the U.S system of democracy as "the antithesis of Islam" and argued no man has the right to make laws outside Allah's laws expressed in the Quran.

"There is a basic difference between Islam and this form of democracy," he says. "The basic difference is that in Islam it is [Allah's] law as expressed in the Quran and the Sunna that is the supreme law within the limits of which people have the right to legislate.

"No one can be a Muslim who makes or freely accepts or believes that anyone has the right to make or accept legislation that is contrary to that divine law," Idris adds. "Examples of such violations include the legalization of alcoholic drinks, gambling, homosexuality, usury or interest, and even adoption."

Conversely, laws prohibiting polygamy and domestic violence also violate the Quran.

Further, he maintains that no Muslim elected to Congress or the White House can swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution and still be a Muslim.

"No Muslim could become president in a secular regime, for in order to pledge loyalty to the constitution, a Muslim would have to abandon part of his belief and embrace the belief of secularism – which is practically another religion. For Muslims, the word 'religion' does not only refer to a collection of beliefs and rituals, it refers to a way of life which includes all values, behaviors and details of living," Idris says. "Separation of religion and state is not an option for Muslims because it requires us to abandon [Allah's] decree for that of a man."

He further explains: "Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides Muslims through every detail of running the state and their lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the laws of [Allah]."

Also, he asserts that "there is absolutely no compromise: Any belief that contradicts Islam is false."

Backed by CAIR

Ellison's campaign was backed by the Washington-based lobby group Council on American-Islamic Relations, a partner organization to American Open University-affiliated NAIF. CAIR held fundraisers for Ellison, a civil-rights lawyer and one-time acolyte of Louis Farrakhan who admits to making anti-Semitic remarks in the past (under various alias including Keith Hakim, Keith Ellison-Muhammad and Keith X Ellison).

CAIR's founder has argued the Quran should replace the Constitution as the highest authority in the land. The group's director of communications, moreover, has expressed his desire to see the U.S. become an Islamic state. CAIR is an offshoot of the Islamic Association for Palestine, a suspected front for the terrorist group Hamas.

Pundit Dennis Prager and other critics have demanded Ellison take the constitutional oath on the Bible, arguing the constitution derives its authority from the Bible, not the Quran. If Ellison puts his hand on the Quran, Prager says he would be in effect nullifying his oath and undermining "American civilization."

"He should not be allowed to do so," he asserted in a recent column.

Another critic, Glenn Beck of CNN, questioned Ellison's loyalties. "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies," he asked Ellison on a recent show.

"There's no one who is more patriotic than I am," Ellison replied. "And so, you know, I don't need to prove my patriotic stripes."

Others point out Ellison has shown a pattern of disrespect for U.S. laws, raising the question whether he's qualified to make law. Failure to pay his taxes resulted in liens on his home. Failure to pay more than 40 parking and traffic tickets has twice led to suspension of his Minnesota license. He's also racked up hefty fines from campaign finance violations and defended the leader of a cop-killing gang.

Red flags

In addition to CAIR, the NAIF-affiliated American Open University, however, has raised a number of red flags at the FBI, including the fact that:

It's founder and chairman, Jaafar Idris, is a Sudanese radical on the Saudi payroll who was recently deported for visa fraud and spreading extremism in America. Idris, like NAIF's Shahin, studied Islam in Saudi Arabia and Sudan and says he has "great respect" for the father of the purist Wahhabi movement followed by Osama bin Laden – Saudi theologian Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

A co-founder of the school, Salah As-Sawi, is a professor at Al-Azhar in Egypt, a bastion of the dangerous Muslim Brotherhood, which gave rise to Hamas and al-Qaida. In fact, American Open University is a fully accredited satellite campus of Al-Azhar. As-Sawi worked with Idris at the Institute of Arabic and Islamic Sciences in Washington, a propaganda center set up by the Saudi Embassy to spread Wahhabism in America. It was raided after 9/11 and is still under surveillance by federal authorities.

Alumni of the "university" include convicted members of the Virginia Jihad Network, who trained to kill American troops overseas.

The school has received funding from a suspected al-Qaida front that has expressly advocated suicide attacks and using airliners as weapons. The Islamic Assembly of North America, or IANA, is bankrolled by the Saudi religious minister who stayed at the same Washington-area hotel as the hijackers the night before they attacked the Pentagon. (He feigned a heart attack when FBI agents tried to question him and was subsequently evacuated with other Saudi officials on White House-approved escape flights after 9/11.)

A former CAIR official, Bassem Khafagi, headed IANA. He pleaded guilty to terror-related charges and was deported after 9/11.

Last month's NAIF conference program outlining Ellison's session, titled "Imams and Politics," says Muslim involvement in Western politics is a "sensitive" issue.

"Imams must be able to provide Muslims with the proper guidance and educate them on the etiquettes [sic] of any political involvement within the Islamic context," the program says. "Questions also arise on whether imams and Islamic centers should be involved in politics at all and what the extent of this involvement should be."

Transcripts of his talk and the subsequent breakout session on American Open University were not made available to the public.

Wall Street Journal on the 6 Muslim Imams--Why Are They Not IN JAIL?

The Wall Street Journal printed today what many of us have been thinking all along since the 6 Muslim imams terrorized a U.S Airways flight in Minnesota, resulting in their being banned from the flight. WHY HAVE THEY NOT BEEN ARRESTED?

In the aftermath of 9/11 we have been told repeatedly that even joking about 'carrying a bomb' or 'being a terrorist,' and the like would be enough to be charged with a crimes and placed under arrest. Yet here we have six young Muslim men, speaking Arabic, denigrating the United States, praising Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, who are allowed to roam free.

True, it was admirable for U.S. Airways to ban them from flying. The passengers on the flight to insisted that they be banned are heroes. But this is not enough. They should be charged with a crime, arrested, and detained.

Here is the quote from the Journal today:

"It is nothing short of obscene that the six religious leaders -- fresh from attending a conference of the North American Imams Federation, featuring discussions on 'Imama and Politics' and 'Imams and the Media' -- chose to turn that airport into a stage and that airplane into a prop in the service of their need for grievance theater in order to advance the provocative agenda of these imams in, of all the inappropriate places after 9/11, U.S. airports." The question is why haven't they been arrested?

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Report: 100 Million Jihadists in the World

The following is Daniel Allott's excellent expose on violence within Islam. While most pundits assure us that violent Jihadists represent a minority of the Muslim religion, a mere 10% of Muslims would mean there are 100 million Jihadists in the world. Most estimates indicate that of the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, 10% are willing to participate in terror...that translates to 100 million Jihadist terrorists.

Islam and violence
By Daniel Allott
Published December 4, 2006

Following Pope Benedict'sremarks on the relationship between faith and violence, a quiet conversation emerged. It highlighted a central question as the West increasingly attempts to engage the Muslim world: Is Islam especially prone to violence? So far, much of the conversation has focused on the violent reactions of some Muslims to the pope's previous comments. But, there's disturbing proof that a far deeper culture of violence pervades much of the Islamic world.

In a recent survey on global conflict, Monty Marshall and Ted Burr of the Center for International Development and Conflict Management found that of the 24 major armed conflicts taking place worldwide in 2005, more than half (13) involved Muslim governments or paramilitary groups on one or both sides of the fighting. What's more, among six countries with "emerging armed conflicts," four are predominantly Muslim and another, Thailand, involves a Muslim separatist movement.

Messrs. Marshall and Burr also rated 161 countries according to their capacity to avoid outbreaks of armed conflicts. Whereas 63 percent of non-Muslim countries were categorized as "enjoy[ing] the strongest prospects for successful management of new challenges," just 18 percent of the 50 Muslim nations included were similarly designated. In addition, Muslim nations (those with at least 40 percent Muslim population) were two-and-a-half times more likely than non-Muslim nations to be considered "at the greatest risk of neglecting or mismanaging emerging societal crises such that these conflicts escalate to serious violence and/or government instability."

This evaluation reveals the glaring reality that violence is a fact of life in many Muslim nations. But is Islam itself the impetus? Consider that a recent Pentagon intelligence analysis found that most Muslim terrorists say they are motivated by the Koran's violent commands. The September 11 hijackers and London transit bombers made martyrdom videos in which they recited the Koran while talking of "sacrificing life for Allah." British authorities also recovered martyrdom videotapes in the foiled transatlantic sky terror plot. Shamil Basayev, architect of the 2004 Beslan school massacre in Chechnya, referred to himself as "Allah's slave." Meanwhile, Genocidal Sudanese dictator Gen. Omar Bashir recently swore "three times in the name of Allah" that he would never allow international troops to enter Darfur. And the list goes on.

While Western liberals often insist that foreign occupation is at the root of Islamic violence, they conveniently ignore the fact that when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked, and the World Trade Center was on two separate bloody occasions, no such occupation was taking place.

We simply cannot overlook extremist interpretations of religion as a significant part of the problem when terrorists yell, "God is great!" as they decapitate their victims or blow themselves up in a crowded market.

But the Muslim world's support of faith-based violence is not limited to governments and their non-state proxies. Consider a June Pew Global Attitudes poll that showed a majority of Muslims in Jordan, Egypt and Nigeria, as well as roughly a third in France, Spain and Great Britain, felt violence against civilians can be justified in order to defend Islam. Worse, a July 2005 poll found 22 percent of British Muslims said last summer's rush-hour bombings of London's metro system, which killed 52 people, were justified because of Britain's support for the war on terror. This included 31 percent of young British Muslims.

Some Muslims' appetite for destruction is not surprising given the ability of prominent Muslim leaders to foment hatred of the West. Following Pope Benedict's September comments, Imams across the Middle East and North Africa issued fatwas for his death. Similar threats were made in advance of the pope's visit to Turkey. Meanwhile in France, the Interior Ministry has announced that Muslims are waging an undeclared "intifada" against police, with attacks injuring an average of 14 officers a day. There are bright spots, of course. Several thousand Muslims in Kismayo, Somalia recently publicly protested the arrival of an al Qaeda-backed Islamic militia. But while experts assure us only a small percentage (perhaps 10 percent) of Muslims are willing to participate in terror, with 1.2 billion Muslims globally, that's more than 100 million jihadists.

The most revealing aspect of the Islamic world's reaction to Pope Benedict's September remarks was that what enraged many of those who reacted violently was not the suggestion that Islam is violent, but rather the implied criticism of that violence. The West must recognize these violent outbursts for what they are: calculated acts of outrage meant not to refute but to intimidate non-Muslims into not speaking up at all. Last month, when a priest from the Syriac Orthodox Church in Mosul, Iraq was captured, his church complied with kidnappers' demands to post signs denouncing the pope's comments on Islam. The police found the priest's decapitated body days later.

On the initial day of his highly anticipated visit to Turkey, Pope Benedict urged religious leaders to "utterly refuse to sanction" any form of violence in the name of faith. Sadly, with so many in the Islamic world agreeing that Westerners must "convert or die," all signs point to more violence ahead.

Daniel Allott is a writer and policy analyst for American Values.

Walter Williams Blasts Academics

Institutions of higher learning in America today have become adept at benefitting from the capitalistic society's monetary support while indoctrinating students in anti-American sentiment. Academia is also the source of much of the politically correct 'diversity training' that threatens to unravel the common fabric that holds the nation together. Williams, as a black academic, takes the world of academia to task for these failings in this startling and eye-opening article.

Racial Diversity at the Expense of Intellectual Diversity
by Walter Williams (November 24, 2006)

Article website address:

Summary: When academics call for diversity, they're really talking about racial preferences for particular groups of people, mainly blacks.


There are some ideas so ludicrous and mischievous that only an academic would take them seriously. One of them is diversity. Think about it. Are you for or against diversity? When's the last time you said to yourself, "I'd better have a little more diversity in my life"? What would you think if you heard a Microsoft director tell his fellow board members that the company should have more diversity and manufacture kitchenware, children's clothing and shoes? You'd probably think the director was smoking something illegal.

Our institutions of higher learning take diversity seriously and make it a multimillion-dollar operation. Juilliard School has a director of diversity and inclusion; Massachusetts Institute of Technology has a manager of diversity recruitment; Toledo University, an associate dean for diversity; the universities of Harvard, Texas A&M, California at Berkeley, Virginia and many others boast of officers, deans, vice-presidents and perhaps ministers of diversity.

George Leef, director of the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy in Raleigh, N.C., writes about this in an article titled "Some Questions about Diversity" in the Oct. 5 issue of "Clarion Call." Mr. Leef suggests that only in academia is diversity pursued for its own sake, but there's a problem: Everyone, even if they are the same ethnicity, nationality or religion, is different. Suppose two people are from the same town in Italy. They might differ in many important respects: views on morality, religious and political beliefs, recreation preferences and other characteristics.

Mr. Leef says that some academics see diversity as a requirement for social justice — to right historical wrongs. The problem here is that if you go back far enough, all groups have suffered some kind of historical wrong. The Irish can point to injustices at the hands of the British, Jews at the hands of Nazis, Chinese at the hands of Indonesians, and Armenians at the hands of the Turks. Of course, black Americans were enslaved, but slavery is a condition that has been with mankind throughout most of history. In fact, long before blacks were enslaved, Europeans were enslaved. The word slavery comes from Slavs, referring to the Slavic people, who were early slaves. White Americans, captured by the Barbary pirates, were enslaved at one time or another. Whites were indentured servants in colonial America. So what should the diversity managers do about these injustices?

When academics call for diversity, they're really talking about racial preferences for particular groups of people, mainly blacks. The last thing they're talking about is intellectual diversity. According to a recent national survey, reported by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni in "Intellectual Diversity," 72 percent of college professors describe themselves as liberal and 15 percent conservative. Liberal professors think their classrooms should be used to promote a political agenda. The University of California recently abandoned a provision on academic freedom that cautioned against using the classroom for propaganda. The president said the regulation was "outdated."

Americans, as taxpayers and benefactors, have been exceedingly generous to our institutions of higher learning. That generosity has been betrayed. Rich Americans, who acquired their wealth through our capitalist system, give billions to universities. Unbeknownst to them, much of that money often goes to faculty members and programs that are openly hostile to donor values. Universities have also failed in their function of the pursuit of academic excellence by having dumbed down classes and granting degrees to students who are just barely literate and computationally incompetent.

What's part of Williams' solution? Benefactors should stop giving money to universities that engage in racist diversity policy. Simply go to the university's website, and if you find offices of diversity, close your pocketbook. There's nothing like the sound of pocketbooks snapping shut to open the closed minds of administrators.

About the Author: Born in Philadelphia in 1936, Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.

Copyright 2005-1997 Capitalism Magazine. All rights reserved.

Monday, December 04, 2006

The Best Christmas Music of All Time--the Top 25

Let me be among the first this holiday season to wish you all a MERRY CHRISTMAS! Say it loud, say it often, say it clear. The politically correct hate it. So, put it in their faces every chance you get (and yes, I intend to wish my Jewish friends a Happy Hanukkah).

When it comes to Christmas music there are some 'must-haves' for your collection. I'm sure I am going to inadvertently leave out a few, but in my view this list contains the very best Christmas music ever recorded, most of which is still available from various retail and online sources.

So, let's get to it...the best Christmas music of all time.

1. (Tie) 'O Holy Night' by Andy Williams, recorded 1965.
'Ave Maria' by Perry Como, recorded in 1957, updated version 1983.

2. Handel's 'Messiah' recorded by Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra and
the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, 1970.

3. 'The Little Drummer Boy' original version, Harry Simeon Chorale, 1950s

4. 'Mary's Boy Child' by Evie Tournquist, 1976.

5. 'God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen' recorded a capella, The Cathedral Quartet, 1985.

6. (Tie) 'I'll Be Home For Christmas' recorded a capella, The Florida Boys, 2000
'I'll Be Home For Christmas' by Perry Como

7. 'White Christmas' by Bing Crosby

8. 'Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire' by Nat King Cole

9. (Tie) 'Sleigh Ride' by Amy Grant
'Sleigh Ride' by Arthur Feidler and the Boston Pops

10. 'Santa Claus Is Coming to Town' by Frank Sinatra

11. 'Silent Night' recorded a capella, The Florida Boys, 2000

12. 'The Bells of St. Mary's' by Bing Crosby

13. 'I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day' by Bing Crosby

14. 'There's No Place Like Home for the Holidays' by Perry Como

15. 'Do You Hear What I Hear?' by Re'Generation, 1975

16. 'Jesu Bambino' by Re'Generation, 1975

17. 'I Wonder as I Wander' by Perry Como

18. 'Have a Holly, Jolly Christmas' by Burl Ives

19. 'What Child Is This?' by the Harry Simeon Chorale

20. 'Jolly Old St. Nicholas' by the Ray Conniff Singers

21. 'Go Tell It On the Mountain' by the Harry Simeon Chorale

22. 'O Come All Ye Faithful' by Nat King Cole

23. 'Beautiful Star of Bethlehem' by Flatt and Scruggs

24. 'Frosty the Snowman' by Perry Como

25. 'Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer' by Gene Autry

I will add that if you can find anything by the Robert Shaw Chorale, get it. This world-renown choral group, under the direction of the quintessential maestro Robert Shaw, produced some of the finest music ever recorded, most of it a capella. I did not list any one song by Robert Shaw simply because everything he ever recorded was top-notch, particularly his Christmas recordings. These are true collector's items.

Bolton's Despicable Treatment by Democrats

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton has resigned. President Bush has accepted his resignation. Bolton, who had been denied an up or down vote by filibustering Democrats, was a recess appointment by Bush as a means to get around the deadlock.

The blocking of a confirmation vote by Democrats in Congress was a tactic employed by children in the sandbox who didn't know how to react to being in a minority in both Houses of Congress and losing the Presidency two elections in a row. 'If I can't get my way, I'll just take my toys and go home,' is the attitude exhibited by these spoiled brats of liberalism, except unfortunately they did not go home. They stayed and filibustered a simple up or down vote, not only for Bolton but for many other Bush appointees.

So, what is this talk about bipartisanship and 'cooperation across the aisle'? What is all this nonsense Pelosi spouts about 'we want to work cooperatively with the President'?

Bull. The simple fact is the Democrats are lying through their teeth, and their actions with regard to Bush appointees is ample proof. If they are so overwhelmed with the need for 'bipartisanship,' then why would they not allow a vote on Bolton? If they are so self-righteously sanctimonious about 'cooperating with the President,' then what about their six-year long threat of filibuster to block at least a half dozen Bush appointees, including Bolton?

If they don't like the Bush nominations, they could have simply voted against them. But these obstructionist decided not to allow a vote at all...the minority controlling the majority.

Two can play this game. It is time for Bush and company to come out swinging against these hypocrites. Tell the American people what Pelosi, Kennedy, Biden, and company have done and name names. Then let the American people decide if this is truly cooperation and bipartisanship.

In addition, Republicans are a minority only by a very slim margin. They should block each and every measure the Demos bring to the floor. They should use every single tactical means in their arsenal to thwart the ultra-extremist agenda of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry, John Conyers, Ted Kennedy, and the rest of the socialist thugs who now run Congress. If that means filibuster, then so be it. This is how the Democrats operated when they were in a minority. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

John Bolton was without doubt the finest, most courageous U.N. Ambassador this nation has ever had. His voice was one of reason in the midst of a cesspool of criminals, tyrannical thugs, dictators, and commies that now occupy leadership positions in the U.N. This organization has gradually become one of the most corrupt entities on earth, not to mention the fact that they allow wolves in the henhouse by putting nations such as Cuba and Syria on its human rights committees.

I wouldn't be surprised if one day the U.N. decides to name a free speech and free press award after Fidel Castro.

Bolton stood for liberty, honesty, integrity, and honor within this corrupt cesspool, fearlessly taking up for America's interests in the world when it seemed at times as if every nation on earth with the exception of Great Britain was against us.

For this he was vilified, demonized, harassed, and taunted by this country's liberals and their comrades at arms in Cuba, North Korea, Iran, France, and Belgium. His treatment by the Democrats was truly despicable. Their actions were anything but bipartisan and cooperative. We should use every means available to thwart and block every single proposal they launch in the new Congress. They deserve ZERO cooperation.

Sunday, December 03, 2006

Russian Poisoning Plot Thickens--The Litvinenko-Terrorist Link

As I reported to you on The Liberty Sphere last week, the poisoning of ex-Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko is much more than what meets the eye. I suggested to you right here that this story has links to the world of Islamic terrorism. Apparently, that initial hypothesis has gained some converts among investigators.

Joseph Farah's 'G-2 Bulletin' is reporting today that the ex-spy-turned-Muslim may have been involved in a plot to smuggle the deadly radioactive substance Polonium 210 to terrorist groups who are willing to pay millions of dollars for just one gram.

Scotland Yard is now investigating possible links between Litvinenko and Islamic terrorist groups, according to the London Sunday Express. It is feared, according to Yard sources, that Litvinenko may have been helping Al Qaida and other terrorist groups obtain substances with which to make dirty bombs.

According to the Express, Britain's secret intelligence service, the M16, has learned that Al Qaida was prepared to offer 3 million dollars per gram for Polonium 210, the deadly substance that killed Litvinenko. This was reported in the 'G-2 Bulletin' last week.

According to G-2, Litvinenko's friend Mario Scaramella now says the late spy helped smuggle radioactive material from Russia to Switzerland in 2000. Litvinenko was also known to have sympathies with Chechen rebels, seeking to break away from Moscow and create an independent Muslim state.

G-2 further reports that Litvinenko's conversion to Islam was announced by his next-door neighbor, moderate Muslim and Chechen dissident Akhmed Zakayev, who revealed: "He was read to from the Koran the day before he died and told his wife that he wanted to be buried in accordance with Muslim tradition."

While the British government has insisted there is no cause for panic, MI6 and Britain's internal security service, MI5, have jointly launched a top-priority investigation on how further quantities of Polonium 210 could be smuggled by Al-Qaida.

The investigation began a week ago in Peshawar, Pakistan, which hosts a joint MI6/CIA surveillance operation supported by America's National Security Agency satellite surveillance.

G-2 recounts the following chain of events which alerted officials to the possible Al-Qaida/Litvinenko link:

'Using the latest cyber-technology, the intelligence officers in Peshawar picked up a short-burst transmission from somewhere in Peshawar's Old Town. It was in response to a call that appeared to have come from beyond the towering Khyber Pass, possibly from Afghanistan.

'The call was automatically recorded on one of the computers in the offices the MI6/CIA team share.

'Just as automatically, it was dispatched down the line through cyberspace to GCHQ, the British Government Headquarters in the Cotswold town of Cheltenham. Simultaneously it reached America's NSA at Fort Meade, Md.'

As I reported to you early on in this story of international intrigue, it is way too early to assume that Russian President Vladimir Putin or the Kremlin have any link to the poinsoning. While it may well yet be discovered that there is, indeed, such a link, it appears at this point that the now-deceased ex-spy may have deliberately pointed the finger at Putin as a diversionary tactic designed to hide his plot to sell Polonium 210 to Islamic terrorists, on top of the fact that Litvinenko would consider Putin a lethal enemy to the Chechan plot to break away from Moscow and establish an independent Muslim state.

The fact that Litvinenko had converted to Islam and had links to Jihadists is very telling.

So, once again, stay tuned. The plot continues to thicken. And with each passing day Muslim extremists are increasingly implicated.

Federalism and National Security

The term 'federalism,' as it has been used historically, is that benchmark of the U.S. form of government that denotes the U.S. as a federation of sovereign states. The Constitution deliberately limits the power of the federal government, reflecting the values of the Founding Fathers. The vast majority of the power should be closest to the people, at the local and state levels.

Ever since 9/11 the federal government has assumed all of the responsibility for national security. That responsibility has been handed over to the Department of Homeland Security. There is no doubt that the department is needed and that it has a vital task. However, realistically speaking, the task with which it has been charged is simply too mammoth for it to handle alone. And indeed, a federal agency was never meant to be endowed with boundless power in the first place.

For this reason, a very interesting phenomenon has occurred which could be the start of a new movement in America, i.e., state and local governments stepping up to the plate and filling in the gaps at the federal level in the Department of Homeland Security.

A meeting took place recently in Charleston, South Carolina that denotes a grassroots initiative for greater control of national security at the local and state level. Over 200 government leaders, business leaders, emergency responders, and academics from five southeastern states met for a regional council meeting as part of a new non-profit organization called 'The National Council on Readiness and Preparedness.'

According to James Gilmore, former governor of Virginia and chairman of the National Council, securing America requires everyone to take a role, not just the Department of Homeland Security. Gilmore stated, 'By creating the Department of Homeland Security they captured homeland security and took it to themselves--the federal government did. It's not enough. Much has been accomplished but the simple core of what has to be done is a complete community of involvement, and that has not been done.'

Ideas gathered at meetings such as this will go into a blueprint for securing communities, said Gilmore, who was tapped by Congress to head a counterterrorism panel from 1999 to 2004. This blueprint will address not only national security with regard to terrorism but also port security in the event of natural disasters, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and the like.

Another attendee of the meeting, Charleston, South Carolina mayor Joseph P. Riley, stated, 'Every family needs a plan, so that if there is a hurricane or an earthquake or a terrorist event, people are in shape--mentally in shape about what they have to do.'

A non-profit organization that helps state and local governments find their rightful place on the front lines of securing the nation is long overdue. It is to be hoped that the National Council on Readiness and Preparedness will be a major first step in seeing the concept of federalism at work in the task of national security.

Remember the 6 Muslim Imams

Remember the six Muslim imams who were removed from a U.S. Airways flight in Minneapolis, supposed for simply 'saying their evening prayers,' as the mainstream press reported?

Now they are demanding prayer rooms for Muslims to be set up in all major airports in the U.S.

The entire matter appears to be a setup for publicity and sympathy. A passenger on board the plane who witnessed the entire scenario stated that she believes the imams pulled the 'prank' to get attention. The woman, who refuses to give her name for fear for her life, granted an interview for Fox News, in which she stated that the imams were definitely acting in a suspicious manner.

From the testimony of witnesses on the plane and inside the terminal before boarding, the imams did everything in the book to raise suspicion. They were overheard speaking about 'Saddam Hussein,' and they referenced the war on terror in angry, inflammatory language. They spoke of the United States in derogatory terms. Further, only one of the imams checked any luggage, and all bought only one-way tickets.

Once inside the aircraft, the imams split up into teams of two, with two sitting at the front of the plane, two in the middle, and two at the back.

It sounds like to me these six jokers watched the film 'United 93' and emulated the plan of the terrorists on 9/11 when they boarded the planes involved in the attacks. The entire matter has hoax written all over it.

But what is the game-plan?

As I have been reporting to you on The Liberty Sphere, the march of Islam into Western society is occurring on many various levels, one being a concerted effort to immigrate to the nations of western Europe and gradually reach near-majority status. It seems that another plan of attack is to highlight Americans' skiddishness about any behavior that recalls the actions of terrorists in order to somehow make a statement against 'profiling' and to gain some sort of concession from the society on the basis of 'religious freedom.'

In other words, just as the terrorist front organization, the Council on American-
Islamic Relations (CAIR) is doing with regard to free speech, the imams are doing with freedom of religion, i.e., use our very Constitution against us. In the name of freedom of speech and religion, Muslim extremists can gain a foothold in American society, supposedly immune from any scrutiny on the basis of the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.

However, this is not about free speech or freedom of religion. If it were about that alone, there would be no problem whatsoever. Even cultists are allowed to operate here freely as long as no one is harmed. When people are harmed, the entire ballgame changes.

The march of Islam is not about religion exclusively but political power. Islam is as much a political ideology as a religion, and it is the political ideology that is very dangerous. This ideology maintains that ANYTHING is acceptable, including lying, cheating, deceiving, using children as suicide bombers, and the like, as long as the cause is advanced...and that cause is world domination.

For this reason, the call by the imams that they be given prayer rooms at airports should be outright rejected. Are there Hindu prayer rooms designated too? Who else gets a prayer room at an airport just for them?

In addition, Americans should throw their support behind U.S. Airways. Buy their tickets when you fly. Write to them stating that you applaud the manner in which these Islamic jokers were treated when they were acting so strangely.

And then, the biggest thing you can do to stop the spread of this scourge is to contact law enforcement, security agencies, airport officials, etc, and encourage the continued use of profiling as a means of protecting precious American lives.

It was not 80 year old Christian grandmothers, or 60 year old Jewish physicians, who hijacked planes and used them as missiles to kill 3000 Americans. They were Muslims. Young Muslim men of Middle Eastern descent should continually be closely monitored. But now that extends to all age groups and genders within the Islamic extremist world.

After all, these are the people who will use babies, 5 year old girls, and 20 year old mothers to blow up crowds of people in suicide bombings.

Yes, remember these 6 Muslim imams. That is, remember them long enough to see to it that ALL of their demands are summarily rejected.