Friday, March 28, 2008
HUMA ABEDIN, NOT HILLARY ANSWERS THE RED PHONE IF IT RINGS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AT THREE IN THE MORNING
With Obama's Moslem family roots on his father's side for generations and his early Moslem upbringing and schooling the Democrats are fielding, as close as they can get, the most MOSLEM influenced candidates they can find.
Read more - LOTS MORE - on the Clintons below by an author who knows them VERY well and claims to have fread every book written about them
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Is HUMA ABEDIN a de facto LESBIAN PROSTITUTE for Hillary Clinton?
Who funds Huma's extravagrant lifestyle of different designer clothes every day? How in the world did Huma Abedin buy a $649,000 condominium
(on 9-18-06) while working for peanuts for Hillary and after starting out as an intern, just like Monica Lewinsky, in 1996?
If Huma is so hot and sexy, where is her husband, boyfriend or fiance?
FROM ROBERT MORROW CLINTON EXPERT AUSTIN, TX 512-306-1510
Gennifer Flowers once asked wild Bill if Hillary was a lesbian (really bisexual as she was screwing BOTH of her law partners Vince Foster and big-lipped Webb Hubbell, who is probably the biological father of big-lipped Chelsea):
"There's something you need to know. I've been hearing tales around town that Hillary is having another thing with a woman." I watched his face to see his reaction, and couldn't believe it when he burst out laughing. I was stunned! I asked him what was so funny.
"Honey," he said, "she's probably eaten more pussy than I have." Bill said he had known for a long time that Hillary was attracted to women, and it didn't really bother him anymore. His first clue came from her lack of enjoyment of sex with him.
She didn't like to experiment and insisted on the missionary position and nothing else. Because she wasn't enjoying herself; neither was he. Sex with her became a duty; nothing more."
[Flowers, Passion and Betrayal, p.42]
In fact, Bill would often respond to his buddies who questioned his massive amounts of affairs by saying "Hillary has eaten more pussy than I have."
Huma Abedin sure is pretty. Ok, where is her boyfriend, husband, fiance or significant other? In my opinion, Huma is in a lesbian relationship with Hillary.
If Hillary were not rich and powerful, do you think Huma would be spending all that time with that bitter, old, angry, fat-ass, battle-axe Hillary? Does Bill like to hang around Hillary?
Here is what James Carville says about Huma:
"Have you seen Huma?" asked James Carville, the former advisor to President Clinton. "Her appearance is just like, 'Hoh my God!' She takes your breath away. She's an unbelievably, stunningly gorgeous woman.
Nobody in that position can be that good-looking; it just doesn't happen." He added that she is also "damn smart."
Good point, Carville. Now if Huma is so hot, gorgeous and sexy, where is her MAN? You know, husband, boyfriend, fiance. According to you, it seems like it would be very easy for her to "snatch" one.
This is the same James Carville who said about Paula Jones: "Drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you might find" after pervert Bill had exposed himself to, degraded and humiliated Paula. Here is what Philippe Reines, Hillary's press secretary says about Huma:
"I'd call Huma one in a million," said Mrs. Clinton's press secretary, Philippe Reines, "but that would mean there are 5,999 others in the world just like her, and there simply aren't. She is truly one of a kind, one in a billion.
We are all in awe of her poise, grace, judgment, intellect and her seemingly endless reserve of kindness, patience and energy."
Good point, Philippe. If Huma is so hot, why don't YOU ask her out? If Huma Abedin is that super duper, don't you think one of you boys in the Clinton campaign would be all over that? Or what that not be cool if Huma Abedin was a de facto LESBIAN PROSTITUTE, best friend and sexual lover for Hillary?
Bull dyke Hillary is probably having a lesbian affair with her aide Huma Abedin
And they have probably been a lesbian "item" for many years now. Here are some links:
The gossip blog Big Head DC reported an anonymous confirmation of the rumor by an official in the Justice Department in November, 2007:
We're still a bit incredulous on this one, but a top level U.S. Department of Justice official is telling Big Head DC that Michael Musto's rumor about Hillary Clinton fooling around with one of her top female aides Huma Abedin is based in reality!
"I am close enough to Hillary and Huma to tell you that this 'rumor' is true," the official says. "It is well known inside her campaign that Hillary and Huma are an item.
"If you call Hillary's residence in DC first thing in the morning, Huma answers the phone," the official continues. "Same thing late at night and on the road. It's a closely guarded secret that Hillary's inner circle guards at all costs."
[Big Head DC, November, 2007]
Who is funding Huma Abedin's lifestyle? Looks like Hillary's "lipstick lesbian" to me
Huma (age 32 in 2007) as recently as March, 2006 was making a base salary UNDER $30,000 per year, perhaps with a $10,000 (maybe) bonus from Hillary.
Huma's parents were university professors and I do not think she comes from family wealth. Huma's dad died when she was age 17. Huma went to work in the White House as an intern in 1996 and for 10 years she has worked for peanuts.
She is now Hillary's traveling chief of staff and "body person" and not getting paid a whole lot to do that. So HOW IN THE HELL did Huma make enough money to afford to buy a condominium for $649,000 on 9-18-06?
On that salary she can't afford the mortgage payments and if you work for peanuts for 10 years, you definitely don't have the assets to pay CASH for an expensive condominium.
And how does Huma afford to wear different designer clothes every day from the likes of Oscar de la Renta, Catherine Malandrino, Charles Nolan, Prava?
How does she pay for her weakness for Marc Jacobs bags? I think that Hillary is her Sugar Momma and Huma Abedin is her lovely lesbian lollipop.
Hillary's Mystery Woman: Who is Huma? By Jason Spencer of the New York Observer, 4-1-07:
Huma is an attractive 32 year old lady (2007). James Carville raves about how pretty Huma is. So where is Huma's boyfriend, fiancé or husband?
And where have these guys been the last 5 or 10 years? There are probably a lot of men who would like to go out with an intelligent, well dressed, attractive lady with style.
So where are these men?? It is puzzling unless Hillary and Huma Abedin have been in a lesbian relationship for years. That is my guess.
More links on lesbo Hillary:
Bill Clinton confirms it: Hillary is a lesbian:
"She's probably eaten more pussy than I have."
[Gennifer Flowers, Passion and Betrayal, p.42]
People ask: Is Hillary a lesbian? Yes. More precisely she is a bisexual, although some folks would describe her as more of an anger-filled, androgynous witch at this point. In Arkansas, back in the 1970's, folks thought for sure Hillary was a lesbian.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and acts like a duck ... it's a duck! Hillary made a point of dressing down, had an abusive, sewer mouth like a sailor or drill sergeant and tolerated, even covered for Bill's gargantuan womanizing.
There have been many, many "rumors" over the years about Hillary being a lesbian. She is a lesbian; more precisely Hillary is a bisexual. Hillary was screwing her law partners Webb Hubbell; she even once said to the Clinton inner circle "I gotta get in Rose ... I'm gonna fuck Hubbell."
[Why the Clintons Belong in Prison, MelroseLarry Green, p.270].
I have every book EVER written on the Clintons and in my opinion Chelsea is probably the seed of Webb Hubbell, NOT Bill Clinton. Probably. Both Webb Hubbell and Chelsea have unusually big lips; Bill does not.
Secondly, after Hillary was screwing Webb Hubbell, she had a long and very intense affair with Vince Foster who was Hillary's lover, best friend, teacher, confidant and most importantly emotional husband while wild Bill was out screwing every woman within a 15 foot radius.
A lot of people think Hillary was some sort of a victim of Bill and Monica and she "stood by her man." What they are going to find out is Hillary is a bisexual who has had many affairs with women, probably had Chelsea with Webb Hubbell and definitely was screwing Vince Foster her closest friend.
One reason Vince Foster committed suicide in July, 1993 was because Hillary shunned him when they got to Wash, DC and would not even talk with Vince the last month as he was spiraling down into a suicidal depression.
After a couple of Wall Street Journal editorials about him, Foster was mortified that his very long affair with Hillary might become public.
Hillary's response: give the stiff arm to Vince, rejecting him in his time of greatest need as he spiraled down into a suicidal meltdown. Vince was so depressed he could barely function and was like a walking zombie at work in the White House.
His wife Lisa was mad at him 90% of the time. He was under intense work pressure, unable to solve all the legal problems that Hillary and Bill get into every 5 minutes. Worst of all, Vince's longtime girlfriend, lover and emotional wife Hillary was rejecting him, refusing to talk with Vince the last three weeks of his life as he spiraled down a black hole of depression to his death.
Vince he blew his brains out on July 20, 1993. Another victim of Clinton black widow spiders.
Gennifer Flowers wrote a book, Passion and Betrayal, which came out in 1995. Bill Clinton emphatically and very clearly told Gennifer that Hillary was a lesbian.
So, is Hillary a lesbian? Gennifer Flowers describes Bill's response when Gennifer asked Bill if Hillary were a lesbian:
"There's something you need to know. I've been hearing tales around town that Hillary is having another thing with a woman." I watched his face to see his reaction, and couldn't believe it when he burst out laughing.
I was stunned! I asked him what was so funny.
"Honey," he said, "she's probably eaten more pussy than I have." Bill said he had known for a long time that Hillary was attracted to women, and it didn't really bother him anymore. His first clue came from her lack of enjoyment of sex with him.
She didn't like to experiment and insisted on the missionary position and nothing else. Because she wasn't enjoying herself; neither was he. Sex with her became a duty; nothing more."
[Flowers, Passion and Betrayal, p.42]
In fact, Bill would often respond to his buddies who questioned his massive amounts of affairs by saying "Hillary has eaten more pussy than I have."
Hillary was also outed at the "1993 March on Washington for Lesbian Gay and Bisexual Rights and Liberation" rally which was held on 4-25-93. [By the way, Bill had raped Juanita Broaddrick on the same day April 25th fifteen years earlier in 1978. Hillary helped to cover up that rape.]
Nancy Pelosi read to the gay marchers a letter of support from Bill:
At some point a lesbian activist stood on the main stage on national TV CSPAN - in front of thousands of homos - joyfully outed Hillary as a fellow lesbian! She said:
"I'm going to tell you a secret. Hillary Clinton has had a lesbian affair. At last we have a First Lady in the White House that we can fuck!"
[Texe Marrs, Big Sister is Watching You, p.52]
Later Rush Limbaugh had a field day discussing this on his radio show … with NO denials from the White House (as if it would matter).
Republican insider Jack Wheeler had reported very early in the Clinton Administration that his Secret Service sources were telling him that Hillary was a full blown bisexual. Jack Wheeler said:
"My sources indicate that Hillary Clinton is bisexual and fools around more than her husband. The stories you hear from the Secret Service, detailed to guard her, are mind boggling … It is Hillary that is pushing the White House's homosexual agenda."
[Jack Wheeler, Strategic Investment newsletter, 2-10-93]
Wheeler was saying this a mere 20 days into the first Clinton Administration back in 1993 and before the April gay rights rally. Of course, the folks back in Arkansas had known since the 1970's that Hillary was a switch hitter.
Also, then there was a prominent Washington, D.C. veterinarian who was visiting the White House to treat Socks the cat and "had opened the wrong door and discovered Hillary locked in a passionate embrace with another woman." [State of a Union, p. 218] The person spreading this story was a Bill loyalist who had defended him to the max during impeachment.
Back in Arkansas in the early days, when Paul Fray had confronted Hillary with the lesbian "rumors" about her, Hillary tellingly did not deny them and only responded "Fuck this shit." [State of a Union, p.219]
"You will never believe what the motherfucker did now, he tried to rape some bitch!" - Hillary Clinton, spring 1978, referring to Bill's rape of Juanita Broaddrick
THE BOTTOM LINE: HILLARY IS IRRESPONSIBLE WITH POWER
[From Robert Morrow Clinton expert 512-306-1510 Austin, TX]
Hillary knew about and helped to cover up Bill's rape of Juanita Broaddrick (4-25-78). Hillary found out about it through the grapevine and came running into a room with a handful of Bill's inner circle and says "You will never believe what the motherfucker [Bill] did now, he tried to rape some bitch!" according to Larry Nichols who was in the room.
Hillary and Bill hate Larry Nichols. They hate Larry Nichols because he, as a member of the Clinton inner circle for 10 years from the late 70's to the late 80's, knows the Ugly Truth about Hillary and Bill and he has revealed some extremely ugly and embarrassing things about them.
HILLARY AND BILL: THE ULTIMATE IN WHITE TRASH
Larry Nichols SWEARS that Hillary and Webb Hubbell were having an affair and that Chelsea is probably the seed of Webb Hubbell, NOT Bill Clinton. Larry Nichols tells about the time in early 1978 when Bill was having a meeting with his inner circle of supporters. Hillary barges in - "Hillary yelled "Bill, what are you doing?" Bill replied "Hill, I'm gonna run for governor!"
Without missing a beat Hillary said "Well I gotta get in Rose ... I'm gonna fuck Hubbell!" [Melrose Larry Green, Why the Clintons Belong in Prison, p. 270]
After screwing Webb Hubbell (probably), Hillary then began having an affair with Vince Foster who became her best friend, lover, confidant, teacher and most importantly, emotional husband. James Carville, Hillary's close friend, say this about Paula Jones who pervert Bill had exposed himself to in May, 1991
"Drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you you'll find." Hillary and Bill are 2 Yale-educated lawyers who have chosen to live a wildly dysfunctional Jerry Springer lifestyle for 36 years.
Hillary and Bill are the ultimate in white trash.
CHELSEA IS PROBABY THE SEED OF WEBB HUBBELL, NOT BILL CLINTON
Check out post #207 on this FreeRepublic web link to see a photo of the strikingly similar Webb Hubbell and Chelsea:
Webb and Hillary sure have left a lot of clues over the years that Chelsea is the seed of Webb and not Bill. Webb and Chelsea have BIG lips; Bill has thin lips. I am one of the top experts on the Clintons in the USA (world) and in my opinion Chelsea is probably the seed of Webb Hubbell.
DANNY WILLIAMS IS PROBABLY THE ONLY OFFSPRING THAT DEADBEAT DAD BILL EVERY HAD. MOM IS BOBBIE ANN WILLIAMS. DEADBEAT DAD IS BILL CLINTON.
Among Bill's hundreds of affairs ranging from 5 Miss Arkansas, a possible date rape of Liz Ward Gracen, he was also picking up crack whores from the projects with Buddy Young driving Bill and the girls to his mother's cabin, where Bill would have cocaine fueled sex orgies with crack whores.
Both Bobbie Ann Williams, Gennifer Flowers and Juanita Broaddrick (who Bill raped) all say Bill does NOT use condoms. Bill paid Gennifer Flowers $200 to have an abortion in Jan. 1978 after he got her pregnant [read about it in Gennifer's book Passion and Betrayal]
There is no question that Bill was having sex with Bobbie Ann Williams and I think that it is very likely that No Condom Bill is the deadbeat dad of Danny Williams, the only child Bill has every sired [Chelsea is probably the seed of Webb Hubbell, NOT Bill Clinton.]
Article on Danny Williams
[pictures of Bobbie and Danny Williams, from a racist web page) God bless Danny Williams!]
HILLARY AND BILL WERE DIVORCED FROM THE DAY THEY WERE MARRIED
Bill was literally making out with another woman - kissing her on the mouth and fondling her breasts - in the bathroom at the "wedding" reception of Hillary and Bill on 10/11/75. A longtime friend of the Clintons saw
"Bill passionately kissing a young woman.
He was fondling her breasts. I was so shocked I just closed the door quickly and quietly. They never knew I saw them." [Bill and Hillary, p. 150]
The reality is Bill was having tons of affairs with women before, during and after they got "married" and Hillary was completely aware of this.
Only a psychological cripple, someone with a very low self esteem, would marry Bill. Bill married a campaign manager and chief of staff, not a wife.
BILL HAS HAD HUNDREDS OF AFFAIRS WITH WOMEN
Not just 5, 6 or 7 affairs. Or even 50, 60 or 70. But hundreds of women from crack whores to affairs with 5 Miss Arkansas and a possible date rape of Miss America Elizabeth Ward Gracen in 1983. Judy Stokes, who was a good friend of Liz Gracen, thinks Bill raped Liz Gracen.
Bill has been screwing hundreds of women before, during and after his "marriage" with Hillary. Bill was even fucking the night manager at the McDonald's in Little Rock. She said his penis was "iddy biddy" but that Bill was a wild man for oral sex ...[I can only imagine the yeast flying ...]
BILL IS A RAPIST, PERVERT AND SERIAL SEXUAL PREDATOR;
HILLARY HAS COVERED FOR BILL EVERY STEP OF THE WAY
Bill raped Juanita Broaddrick in 1978. He probably raped Eileen Wellstone in 1969 while he was a Rhodes Scholar. Bill probably raped or date raped [same thing] Liz Ward Gracen while she was Miss America in 1983.
There have been serveral other vicious sexual assaults with Bill biting the lips and bruising women. Bill exposed himself to Paula Jones in May, 1991 and told her to "Kiss it" when he dropped his britches and displayed his penis - "crooked, hard and gross" according to Paula Jones.
Bill also exposed himself to Carolyn Moffett in 1978 and told her to "Suck it." She ran out of the room. Here are 2 good links on Bill's LONG history of sexual violence:
VINCE FOSTER WAS HILLARY'S LOVER AND EMOTIONAL HUSBAND
Vince had a wife, Lisa, and three kids. Too bad for them, because Vince was obsessed with Hillary. Vince was the one who recruited Hillary to the Rose Law Firm in about 1976.
Then Hillary probably screwed Webb Hubbell and had Chelsea with him. Then Hillary reverted back to Vince as her main squeeze, best friend, lover, confidant, teacher and most importantly, emotional husband.
State troopers Larry Patterson and L.D. Brown report that Hillary was definitely screwing Vince Foster. Ditto Paul Fray and Mike Galster, who says it was an open secret in Little Rock.
HILLARY WAS SCREWING BOTH OF HER LAW PARNERS FOSTER & HUBBELL
Hillary was definitely screwing Vince. And I think it is very likely that Chelsea is the seed of Webb Hubbell, NOT Bill Clinton. This puts the Monica Lewinsky affair in a bit different light, doesn't it? Hillary is not a victim of Bill; Hillary is a partner in crime, accomplice and victimizer with Bill.
HILLARY IS A LESBIAN ... MORE PRECISELY, A BISEXUAL
Gennifer Flowers describes when Gennifer asked Bill if Hillary were a lesbian:
"There's something you need to know. I've been hearing tales around town that Hillary is having another thing with a woman." I watched his face to see his reaction, and couldn't believe it when he burst out laughing. I was stunned! I asked him what was so funny. "Honey," he said, "she's probably eaten more pussy than I have."
Bill said he had known for a long time that Hillary was attracted to women, and it didn't really bother him anymore. His first clue came from her lack of enjoyment of sex with him.
She didn't like to experiment and insisted on the missionary position and nothing else. Because she wasn't enjoying herself; neither was he. Sex with her became a duty; nothing more."
[Gennifer Flowers, Passion and Betrayal, p.42]
THE BOTTOM LINE: HILLARY IS IRRESPONSIBLE WITH POWER
Dear American Friend,
I have attached my "Hillary file" which is culled from the 205+ books and other media that I have on Hillary and Bill. The Clintons are thugs.
On the campaign trail in 2007 Hillary and Bill are play acting as the loving, respectful couple – singing each other's praises on stage and engaging in public affection as they troll for votes.
In order to understand Hillary and Bill, one must first understand the wildly dysfunctional Jerry Springer lifestyle they have lived for 36 years. Hillary has covered for Bill who not only has had HUNDREDS of women, but also perpetrated several rapes and vicious sexual assaults, often involving biting the lips of the women victims.
In order to cover up this Jerry Springer chaos, Hillary has often used Sopranos tactics: a secret police and criminal intimidation tactics to harass, intimidate and terrify Bill's sex victims and girlfriends.
WE'VE HAD ENOUGH "EXPERIENCE" WITH HILLARY;
CLINTON BLACK OPERATIONS MUST STOP
These tactics include the savage beating/almost murder of Gennifer Flower's neighbor (Gary Johnson – 6/26/92), criminal harassment campaigns on Kathleen Willey (1997-98 car vandalism, stole or killed her cat Bullseye, witness tampering), Liz Ward Gracen (who Bill probably raped  while she was Miss America – harassed/threats, 1997), Gennifer Flowers (break-ins, threats, 1992), Sally Perdue (car vandalism, threats, 1992), Bobbie Ann Williams (break-in), Christy Zercher (a flight attendant, groped 1992, break-in, 1994), Patrick Knowlton (extreme harassment campaign Oct. 1995; witness tampering), Suzi Parker (a journalist harassed off Arkansas tainted prison blood scandal 1999, fearing for her life), Connie Hamzy (lying campaign, 1991) and Juanita Broaddrick (raped by Bill 1978, break-in and IRS audit when she went public in 1998).
It is not a stretch to say that Hillary, Bill and Buddy Young may have organized the murder of their former contract employee Jerry Parks on 9/26/93 because he knew too much about the Clintons.
Hillary and Bill were well on the way to crucifying Monica Lewinsky as an unstable stalker, liar and fantasist - – and would have done so if Bill's semen had not been found on Monica's blue dress. Hillary's private eyes were already digging into Monica's past, when the real story was the Clintons' criminal track record.
Additionally, biographer Roger Morris describes a vicious sexual assault by Bill on a woman (around 1980) on p.238 in his book Parters in Power. Journalist Michael Isikoff details a extremely crude sexual advance by President Bill in 1996 on a lady married to a Democratic VIP on p.162 of his book Uncovering Clinton.
Additionally, pervert Bill exposed himself to Paula Jones in May, 1991 and also to Carolyn Moffet in 1979.
Other Clinton dysfunctions include Bill's cocaine addiction as governor, Hillary's lesbianism and the fact that Chelsea is probably the seed of Webb Hubbell, NOT Bill Clinton. Bill's only offspring is probably Danny Williams, the product of deadbeat dad Bill's cocaine-fueled sex orgies with (no condoms) drug-addicted street hooker Bobbie Ann Williams and her girlfriends back in 1983-84.
Bill paid $200 to Gennifer Flowers so she could have an abortion in Jan., 1978, just 3 months before Bill's double rape of Juanita Broaddrick on 4-25-78. Bill severely bit Juanita's lip to disable her during the rapes. Also, wild Bill, brother "Roger the Dodger" and best friend Dan Lasater were partying with high school girls and providing them cocaine when Bill was governor in the early 1980's.
And, of course, there is Hillary's long and intense affair with Vince Foster who was her emotional husband while Bill was screwing everything in sight. Hillary has a long record of fomenting domestic violence with Bill. The Secret Service, fed up with this insanity, leaked to the press Hillary smashing a lamp during an argument with Bill. Hillary has often thrown objects at victim Bill.
Hillary has used criminal tactics such as a secret police and illegal IRS audits to go after both political enemies and Bill's sex victims and girlfriends. It was probably Clintons' FBI who put a rotating harassment team of 25 people on Patrick Knowlton, a witness in the Vince Foster investigation, on October 26, 1995, and continuing for a week.
What the Clintons did to Patrick Knowlton was Clinton street fascism as well as witness tampering.
This was a prelude to the intimidation campaign waged on Kathleen Willey in 1997-98 before her deposition in the Paula Jones case. Paula Jones who Bill exposed himself to, rape victim Juanita Broaddrick, probable rape victim Liz Ward Gracen, and mistress Gennifer Flowers all got audited by Clintons' IRS in the late 1990's.
Floyd Brown's offices were burglarized in 1992 and only his Clinton files were stolen. Brown's private phone conversations were illegally wiretapped by Hillary's goon Jack Palladino.
Another one of Hillary's thugs, Anthony Pellicano is in jail in LA for the same kind goon tactics he did for the Clintons in 1992.
Clinton biographer Emmett Tyrrell also had his offices twice broken into and his NY apartment invaded once. The manuscript of Tyrrell's book Boy Clinton was stolen when he couriered it to Robert Novak for a blurb. Clintons thugs tried to intimidate 2 of Tyrrell's researchers in Little Rock.
Also, at least one independent counsel in the 1990's took to carrying a gun after being harassed by Clinton goons in yet another intimidation event.
HILLARY TREATS PEOPLE LIKE DIRT
LIKE THEY ARE "INVISIBLE"
Many people close to the Clintons describe Hillary as rude, vulgar and abusive, not just with staff and co-workers, but especially with Bill who she made a sport of ridiculing, according to L.D. Brown, Bill's favorite state trooper.
Hillary is well known for making mean, vicious and personally degrading comments often towards people who work for and with her. She probably got that from her dad Hugh Rodham, a deeply disturbed man.
Hillary and Bill are sociopaths, not unlike serial killers such as Ted Bundy. Seemingly personable and normal while brown nosing wealthy contributors or opinion makers, Hillary and Bill have no regard for the integrity and well being of others. They disregard rules and lie with practiced ease, not feeling guilt or empathy for others.
Bill is the kind of guy who can rape your sister upstairs and then come down to the living room and tell you what a great book he has read about women's rights.
Hillary is the kind of person who can be in the kitchen calling up a secret police to terrify your rape victim sister into silence, and then come out to the living room and ask what do you think about her latest speech on women's and children's rights.
Some of the goons that Hillary has used to cover up her and Bill's Jerry Springer lifestyle and criminal activity include Ivan Duda (1982), Jerry Parks (1980's), Jack Palladino (1992) and Anthony Pellicano (1990's).
Pellicano is now in JAIL in Los Angeles for the same kind of thug intimidation tactics that Hillary hired him for. Also, Buddy Young, the head of Bill's trooper detail and who Bill made #2 at FEMA, is additionally a dangerous criminal that Hillary and Bill has employed in their black operations. Terry Lenzer is also someone Hillary has used extensively.
Hillary will break your kneecap to get to the White House; the others will not.
Thank-you and have a great day!
Robert Morrow Clinton expert Austin, TX 512-306-1510
Sunday, March 16, 2008
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY (with AntiMullah editorial comments)
Leadership: In the name of human rights, Jimmy Carter gave rise to one of the worst rights violators in history — the Ayatollah Khomeini. And now Khomeini's successor is preparing for nuclear war with Israel and the West.
Profile In Incompetence: Fourth In A Series
When President Carter took office in 1977, the Iran of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a staunch American ally, a bulwark in our standoff with the Soviet Union, thwarting the dream held since the time of the czars of pushing south toward the warm waters of the appropriately named Persian Gulf.
Being an ally of the U.S. in the Cold War, Iran was a target for Soviet subversion and espionage. Like the U.S. in today's war on terror, Iran arrested and incarcerated many who threatened its sovereignty and existence, mainly Soviet agents and their collaborators.
This did not sit well with the former peanut farmer, who, on taking office, declared that advancing "human rights" was among his highest priorities. The Shah was one of his first targets.
As he's done with our terror-war detainees in Guantanamo, Carter accused the Shah of torturing some 3,000 "political" prisoners.
(Alan Note: Actual figure from Amnesty International was closer to 2,400 - mostly Tudeh Communists and Soviet supporting Marxist-Islamists).
He chastised the Shah for his human rights record and engineered the withdrawal of American support.
The irony here is that when Khomeini, a former Muslim exile in Paris, overthrew the Shah in February 1979, many of these 3,000 were executed by the ayatollah's firing squads along with 20,000 pro-Western Iranians.
According to "The Real Jimmy Carter," a book by Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute: "Kho-meini's regime executed more people in its first year in power than the Shah's Savak had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years."
The mullahs hated the Shah not because he was an oppressive dictator. They hated him because he was a secular, pro-Western leader who, in addition to other initiatives, was expanding the rights and roles of women in Iran society.
Alan Note: recently one of the pro-Mossadegh and Tudeh (Communist) party Iranian leaders openly stated: "we were not attacking the Shah for freedoms for the people but for freedom for us to import and install our foreign (Soviet) philosophies without fear and impediment).
Under Khomeini, women returned to their second-class role, and citizens were arrested for merely owning satellite dishes that could pick up Western television.
Khomeini established the first modern Islamic regime, a role model for the Taliban and jihadists to follow.
And when the U.S. Embassy was stormed that November and 52 Americans taken hostage for 444 days, America's lack of resolve was confirmed in the jihadist mind.
On Nov. 4, 1979, some 400 Khomeini followers broke down the door of the embassy in Tehran, seizing the compound and the Americans inside. The hostage takers posed for the cameras next to a poster with a caricature of Carter and the slogan: "America cannot do a damn thing."
(Alan Note: unpublicized intelligence at the time indicated that the hostage taking was arranged by Jimmuh the idiot Carter with Khomeini aides, like Yazdi, Bani-Sadr and Ghotbzadeh, who were U.S. aligned and attached to Khomeini by Carter, to ensure his re-election, when he (Carter) conveniently arrangd their release just before voting took place. Ronald Reagan found out about it, blocked the plot and arranged the release AFTER the election).
Indeed, America under Carter wouldn't do much. At least not until the 154th day of the crisis, when Carter, finally awakening to the seizure of U.S. diplomats and citizens on what was legally American soil, broke off diplomatic relations and began planning economic sanctions.
When Carter got around to hinting about the use of military force, Khomeini offered this mocking response: "He is beating on an empty drum. Neither does Carter have the guts for military action nor would anyone listen to him."
Carter did actually try a military response of sorts. But like every other major policy action of his, he bungled it. The incompetence of his administration would be seen in the wreckage in the Iranian desert, where a plan to rescue the hostages resulted in the loss of eight aircraft, five airmen and three Marines.
(Alan note: information obtained from post-Shah Iranian military and inteligence sources and more evidence from Americans, who were involved or on scene, all point to the so-called hostage rescue in fact being a failed arms delivery to Afghanistan, ("Green Belt" contain Soviets project) where the Soviets shot and disabled one of the C130's bringing in weapons.
Leaving Carter to either declare war on the Soviets for this act of war or pretend it was something else. Yes, a failed hostage rescue, which was still not operational after something was cobbled together by a cabal of U.S. intelligence and military groups, which all wanted a part in the operation. But whose witches brew was still not fully cooked).
Among the core group of hostage takers and planners of the attack on our embassy was 23-year-old Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who learned firsthand the weakness and incompetence of Carter's foreign policy, one that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are now attempting to resurrect.
According to then-Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, Ahmadinejad was among the hostage takers and the liaison between them and prominent Tehran preacher Ali Khameini, later to become supreme leader of the Islamic Republic.
The Shah was forced into exile and on the run from Morocco to Egypt, the Bahamas, Mexico and finally Panama. In July 1979, Vice President Walter Mondale and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told Carter they had changed their minds about offering the Shah permanent asylum. Carter's spiteful response was: "F*** the Shah. I'm not going to welcome him here when he has other places to go where he'll be safe."
In October 1979, the Shah, gravely ill with cancer, was granted a limited visa for treatment at the Cornell Medical Center in New York. He would die in Cairo in July 1980, an abandoned American friend. Our enemies took notes.
If the Shah had remained in power, it isn't likely the Iraq-Iran War, with upward of a million casualties on both sides, a war that saw Saddam Hussein first use mass-murder weapons, would have taken place.
(Alan Note: Iraq had tried once before, in the time of the Shah, to invade Iran over the dispute of the Shatt-Al Arab river between the two countries. This lasted all of four days before Saddam Hussein's forces were driven out with their tails between their legs. Nothing like the eight years under Carter's Khomeini).
Nor is it likely there would have been a Desert Storm, fought after Hussein invaded Kuwait to strengthen his strategic position. That led to bases in Saudi Arabia that fueled Islamofascist resentment, one of the reasons given by Osama bin Laden for striking at America, the Great Satan.
Carter's Khomeini introduced the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families who would offer up their children as human bombs to kill as many Israelis as possible.
It was Carter's Khomeini who would give the world Hezbollah to make war on Israel and destroy the multicultural democracy that was Lebanon.
And perhaps Jimmy has forgotten that Hezbollah, which he helped make possible, killed 241 U.S. troops in their Beirut barracks in 1983.
The Soviet Union, seeing us so willingly abandon a staunch ally, invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, just six months after Carter and Russian leader Leonid Brezhnev embraced after signing a new arms-control treaty.
(Alan Note: the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office sent some 200 observers to monitor the Carter-Reagan election to note whether the Soviets would try to spend enough money to "buy" the election for their "mole" Jimmuh Carter).
And it was the resistance to the Soviet invasion that helped give birth to the Taliban. As Hayward observes, the fall of Iran, hastened by Jimmy Carter, "set in motion the advance of radical Islam and the rise of terrorism that culminated in Sept. 11."
Writer Christopher Hitchens recalls a discussion he had with Eugene McCarthy. A Democrat and former candidate for that party's presidential nomination, where McCarthy voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Carter in 1980.
The reason? Carter had "quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad (including the Soviets). He was quite simply the worst president we ever had."
Quite simply, we concur. Though he is the best SOVIET president America ever elected!
(Alan Note: And Carter's liberal, to the point of Communist/Socialist leanings, can be seen in his staunch ties and support of Cuba's Castro, Venezuela's Chavez, other South American leftist governments and his anti-America diatribe attacks on anything that confronts he terrorism he stupidly created.
He has a share in all the blood, still on his hands, of all innocents killed by those he actively helped put in place).
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Authorities confirmed that the fingers belonged to hostages Jonathon Cote , of Gainesville, Fla. ; Joshua Munns , of Redding, Calif. ; Paul Johnson Reuben , of Buffalo, Minn. ; Bert Nussbaumer of Vienna, Austria ; and Ronald J. Withrow , an American who was kidnapped separately from the others.
The first four men were security contractors with Kuwait -based Crescent Security and were captured in a brazen ambush of their 43-truck supply convoy in the southern Iraqi town of Safwan, near the Kuwaiti border, on Nov. 16, 2006 .
There was no word on a fifth contractor who was seized with them, John Young , of Kansas City . Contrary to Austrian news reports, none of the fingers belonged to him, authorities said.
Alan Note: this nasty LITTLE action has had a silver lining. Those who hear about it. even some who were dhimmis, are beginning to undersand and realise there is no negotiating, nor appeasing Islamists and an emotional backlash has started building up against JIhadists.
Remember "Jimmuh the idiot Carter" days when Iran had the US Embassy hostages? Remember how anything Iranian or possibly Mid-Eastern inside the USA was vilified and frequently physically attacked, including some Indians because they wore turbans?
That negativity, that emotional backlash has finally begun to develop and it would bode well for Moslems to begin to oppose the violent political Islamists before the reaction of Americans and also in many parts of Europe reaches a boiling point.
Just as Iraqis have begun to give up Al Qaeda and anti-American terrorsits, both Sunni and Shi'a varieties, Moslems in the USA and Europe should begin to give up the violent members of their societies to the authorities and prevent the catastrophe where they will be among the first to suffer. Not njust the kafirs.
Not sure? Look at what Moslems are doing to Moslems evrywhere, hurting their own kind as often or more frequently than kafirs.
Moslems have maimed and murdered more Moslems than everyone else put togheter. So sstart working toward your own survivals. You will not be spared if you allow the jihadiss to continue their violence.
The flames they throw at kafirs will also consume you in painful fire and death.
I have been calling on the West to come to its senses and stop being dhimmis, now I call on you - the world's "everyone" Moslems to protect your own BEST interests not those of the political jihadiss who care less for you than for their feeling of power - which they will NOT share with you.
Don't believe me? Look at the horrible, miserable plight of the populace of Islamic Iran for proof. You cannot pass it off as "shi'a on shi'a" when Iran is killing anyone and anything that stands in their way of power.
Having to feed half a million miserable street children and a couple of hundred thousand abandoned women in the city of Tehran streets, stands in their way - so they are ignored and left to die - or survive if they can.
Think you will be treated any differently? Wake up Moslems! Before it is too late for all of you.
REALIZE! It is the less educated masses that provide the cannon-fodder, suicidal power for Islam, not the better educated few.
Except those doctors and professors that strive for leadership through joining with the illterate and fanatical "unwashed masses" as their path to indulge their own desire for power and higher hierarchy.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Kosovo is largely viewed by those who are fighting the Jihad as a rogue state who's leaders are directly tied to Jihadist terrorism:
The West will live to regret its betrayal of the Serbs
An independent Kosovo offers a European foothold for jihadists, argues Hermann Kelly Gordon Brown's support for Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence should surprise and disappoint people in equal measure.
Surprise because, as Prime Minister, he failed to discuss the matter in any depth in the Parliament before he made this announcement. And disappoint because this ill-thought-out move breaks international law, creates a dangerous precedent and gives succour and hope to every crackpot secessionist group in the world.
This latest Government move has sent out the message that if secessionists fight hard enough or are successful in their work of ethnic cleansing, they will be rewarded at the EU diplomats, table.
Mr Brown is basically saying that the most violent bullyboy wins and the last military victor takes all; but what he should be telling the Albanians and the Serbs is that Kosovo's status should be resolved by negotiation and under international law.
The Government doesn't seem to realise what it is walking into in Kosovo. The Balkans area is covered by a volcanic range of simmering hostilities which have erupted and can erupt again at any time. Conflict is this area is not new, for hostilities between Christian Serbs and Albanians (the vast majority of whom are Muslims) have been ongoing in Kosovo for many centuries.
The peoples of this region have intermittently lived at peace and enmity for the best part of 500 years. No side in this affair has clean hands but that is no reason for the British Government to reward the latest and most successful perpetrator of ethnic cleansing in Europe, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA).
The Serbs have been in Kosovo since the seventh century. It is is the geographical cradle of their civilisation, attested to by the plethora of Christian monasteries and churches which dot its landscape. And what about the Serbs who lived here?
They have fought for centuries to defend European and Christian civilisation. It was at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 that they fought (70,000 of them to the death) to keep the Islamic Ottoman Empire from rolling over the rest of Europe. The Serbian people have been a bulwark against Islamic expansion into Europe for many centuries.
It was the Serbian people who opposed the aggression of Germany in the First World War and the rise of Nazism in World War II.
They made British victories possible but what thanks do they now get for their efforts? Betrayal by the Western elites who care little for their struggle, and revenge from Germany which now takes its opportunity to put the boot into the Serbs.
While some may point that 90 per cent of Kosovo are currently Albanian, after the Great War the majority of the Kosovan population were Serbian but they have been pushed out by violence or the threat of violence as well as being simply outbred by Albanian Muslims, who have the highest birthrate in Europe.
During the 1990s Albanian and Islamic militias crossed over the border from Albania into Kosovo, murdering and pushing out the Serbs while at the same time destroying their churches and monasteries. The 200,000 Serbs who have been pushed out of Kosovo in the past two decades must have their right to return vindicated in law and, in fact, before EU foreign ministers speak any more on the subject.
There needs to be a recognition that Serbia has also changed. The Communist war criminal Slobodan Milosevic is long gone and replaced by people who support democracy.
The United States is supporting Kosovan independence in the belief that the Kosovan people, who are mostly Muslim, support America, but it is very naïve to think that a majority Muslim population will love America for very long.
Eaten bread is soon forgotten; the Kosovans have taken what they can get from America and NATO and will no doubt look to Saudi Arabia and other Islamic states which already have a strong economic and religious interest in the new statelet.
The US government should remember that both the Mujahideen of Afghanistan and Saddam's henchmen in Iraq were happy to take dollars and arms when their interests dictated they do so.
Then, their power intact, they quickly turned on the United States. Indeed, the Afghans are currently shooting at American helicopters with US rocket launchers. Once the Albanian Muslims of Kosovo are secure in their state, just watch things swiftly change.
Kosovans are not a nation, so why should they have a nation state? Nor is it a multi-ethnic state where the rights of all are respected. It is small, economically unviable, unstable political entity which arouses great enmity from its neighbours and can act as a base for organised crime in the future.
Already Albania is a hub of drug trade, processing heroin from Afghanistan, and a centre for human trafficking for the purpose of prostitution; and if you want a cheap stolen Mercedes, Albania is also the place for you because it is a lawless centre of organised crime.
Another problem is that Kosovo has the potential to become a foothold in Europe for Islamic militants. Yes, Britain and America are facilitating the emergence of a base for radical Muslim jihadists right under their noses.
We know already that jihadists from Yemen and Chechnya have fought for the KLA and that Saudi Arabia has pumped huge amounts of money into building mosques and religious centres there.
Albanian militants sought to organise an attack on a US army base in New Jersey last year. Unless they are dealt with very differently there is a danger that Kosovo will become a beachhead of Islamic terrorism in Europe.
Al-Qaeda has already gained a position there and is unlikely to give it up for obvious strategic reasons. The American people will quickly find that betraying the Serbian people of Kosovo as a PR exercise in Islamic countries will backfire on them.
We know of Serbian anger over the loss of Kosovo, and can be sure that this dispute will come back again until resolved. The anger of a dispossessed Serbian people awaits us unless the situation is dealt with in a different fashion.
When a NATO commander ordered the British Army to prevent Russian planes from landing in the Kosovan capital in 1999 General Sir Michael Jackson refused, saying: "Sir, I'm not starting World War III for you."
Before Britain goes any further it is important to address some of the difficulties which will arise from Kosovo's break from international law. Otherwise this regional dispute will fester until the inevitable happens. The First World War began with a single shot in Sarajevo, just up the road from Kosovo.
Gordon Brown should learn from history or repeat its mistakes. He must swiftly change tack on Kosovo.
Hermann Kelly is an Irish journalist and author of Kathy's Real Story: A Culture of False Allegations Exposed
Sunday, March 9, 2008
MI5 are said to have homed in on the sleeper agents passing secrets from Scotland Yard to the terror group only in recent weeks.
The suspected spies are believed to have used methods similar to those employed by the IRA in the 1970s as they infiltrated the police and the Army in Northern Ireland.
All four are understood to be Asians living in London and are feared to have links both with Islamic extremists in Britain and worldwide terror groups - including al-Qaeda training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
MI5 chiefs reportedly believe the suspected moles have been planted as sleepers - agents under deep cover - to keep al-Qaeda informed of anti-terror raids planned by London's Metropolitan Police...
How’s that multicultural stuff working out for you, limey poofters?
USA Pot calling the EU kettle black? (smile)
At least some of them, like Denmark, are waking up and putting in some pretty strict laws, While liberal Holland, quaking in fear of Islamic unrest, is banning a documentary about the violent Koran. Not officially but by discouraging any Dutch TV stations from showing it.
Holland had some 50 Moslems a century ago, now has about ONE MILLION.
There are schools in Sweden that have NO native Swedish children in attendance, only Moslems.
Here in the USA the intense, well-funded (by the Islamists and specially Iran’s Mullahs) infiltration campaigns have put Islamist shills, lobbyists and Mullah operatives into very high places. They have yet - for the most part - attained their own high posts but are attached to them and have influence over them.
Huma Abedin (al Qaeda) with Hillary Clinton, a couple close to Deputy Defense Secrtary Gordon England, others in State congressmen’s staffs and lots more that keep a low profile and do their “job” to promote Islam and weaken/deflect any form of opposition to bringing in sharia (religious) law.
While Europe realizes what is happening and allows it as part of their liberal dhimmitude, here in the USA we are in denial and for the most part not aware of what is going on.
Thus permitting the “Islamic” political cancer to spread in our body politic. Unable to take action by the myriad laws and mindsets originally placed to protect US citizens but being openly abused by Islamic lobbyists like CAIR and others.
Note: CAIR has apparently lost their top tax free status which is now reduced to a lower rank which prevents them from political activity.
The Mullahs finance and support almost every Persian lanuage medium and use these for disinformation and political gain.
There is a Persian satellite TV system - originally requiring a subscription and set up fee - now offered free - beaming a multitude of Persian language programs into the USA. ( Free to the user because...? Someone is paying for the satellite costs. Want to guess who?
Easy, when you realize that programs like a channnel called Salaam, openly puts Mullahs on as the spokesperson and promotes the clerical viewpoints and talking points about the world.
Now we face ye another threat from the liberal left in our politics, ARAB American Obama. He does not qualify for African American by Federal standards which require ONE EIGHTH or 12.5% blood of the minority claimed. He has LESS than 7%.
I am no longer sure we are going to wake up in time to deal with it before the cancer kills us.
A look at Europe is the writng on the wall for what we are hurtling toward.
On the bright side, the US Admiral in charge of our Middle East military policies and stubbornly opposed to any attack on Iran, is on his way out and will be replaced by summer.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Synopsis: This book warns us that the escalating fragmentation of nations around the globe is the result of growing pluralism (simply put, communal diversity) within what used to be more homogeneous and conformist entities.
Pluralism is defined as "... referring to any federation, state, nation, unit, or community that is made up of diverse populations.
Diversity may be racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, sexual, or the result of any other of the myriad human characteristics or identities that might account for divisiveness."
Pluralism can lead to a crisis of identity. In America today, we have this pluralism in spades. Whether we realize it or not, we already have a crisis of identity. We are urged each day by the divisive Boomer power elites to 'celebrate our diversity.'
They have divided us along the lines of race, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, and class. Indeed, if it were not for the glue of a burgeoning economy, we would be seeing the rhetorical divisiveness turn to cold blooded civil war -- on a number of 'fronts.'
This book reveals how Bill Clinton and his 'New Totalitarians' have attempted to destroy America's trusted institutions, including the nation's military.
Unless this attempt is turned back, we will witness the collapse of our constitutional republic and with it our entire American civilization.
Find the 'real reason' why Bill Clinton committed ground troops to Bosnia. It had more to do with America than with Bosnia.
Learn of the 'eerie parallels' between the breakup of Yugoslavia and the breakdown of authority in the United States of America.
Who are those cultural elites, 'The New Totalitarians,' who would lead us to a chaotic disintegration. What are their tools?
Affirmative action programs gone awry are one cause of a complete breakdown of trust. Many other forces are at work here to undermine that which has been passed down to us by our Founding Fathers. Read about these forces in this important book.
Since publishing that book, we have seen the irresponsible use of our nation’s military to invade both Bosnia and Kosovo for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with our national security.
All in the name of ‘humanitarianism’ to eliminate the chimera of ‘ethnic cleansing.’ The civil strife between the Croat Catholics, Bosnian Muslims, and Serbian Orthodox Christians held absolutely no potential to harm America either economically or strategically.
The undertaking was motivated by idealistic Boomer generation counter-culture revolutionaries who used our military more for domestic political objectives than any real threat to our national security.
And in so doing, America turned its back on a World War II ally, the Serbian people, who were responsible for saving American airmen from the Nazis even at the risk of extermination by them. Whole villages were pillaged and the people slaughtered who harbored our airmen.
And we betrayed the progeny of those brave Serbs by bombing Kosovo ‘back to the stone age.’
We used our air power – to support the Muslim KLA ground troops -- to drive the Serbs out of Kosovo. Yes, to ravish a former ally. And now it is the Serbs in Kosovo who are being ‘ethnically cleansed.’
And now, both Bosnia and Kosovo are fertile recruiting and training grounds for Islamic terrorists of global reach. Kosovo is now about to become the first Salafist Islamic jihad state in the underbelly of Europe – the long-term strategic goal of al-Qaeda, that is to return to the power and glory of the ancient Muslim caliphate – with the support and sanction of misguided U.S. foreign policy."
Although Jerry Atkinson, the author of The New Totalitarians: Bosnia as a Mirror of America's Future, and I lived near each other in Virginia/Maryland, we first met at the Lord Byron Foundation conference in Chicago in 1997. The title of the conference was "America's Intervention in the Balkans."
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
by Ibn Misr
Geert Wilders Movie will be another blow, and the cheerful news is, more and more Dutch people are backing him.
A very remarkable, and political turning point statement, by the German Interior Minister and the Danish Prime Minister tells Muslims what could be interpreted:
Your intimidation, and your Koran commandments to subdue us and return us to your seventh century camel, goats, and sand's civilization, won't work.
Our populations are fed up with your extortions and your unending demand to make you privileged, according to your sick and empty supremacist hallucinations. The game is over.
Adapt, or else .... Call on all Germen and Danish people, to show their support to their officials by all means, to encourage them and let them know that "we"the people are behind them 100%.
Remember, only when they feel shame, they'll start rethinking the death cult they adhere to, and that would be the real success of our war on terror, when we help them use their brains, and realize that Mohammad put them in shame, not us.
We just show them what they have in their Islam. We only copy and paste. I would love to see Arab and Muslim countries boycotting: Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, England, Spain, Norway, Austria, Belgium, Australia, the USA, Canada, and all the kafirs, unclean, sons of apes and pigs countries , and watch them go back to raising camels and goats, and using their prophet medicine, and start to see the most shrinking religion in the world.
Remember, we always treated them, better than their Muslim brothers, that's why they came to the West. But they came with the Islam disease, not to benefit of a good life for them and their children, but to return us to the misery from where they came.
They came to emulate the deeds of what their bandit, caravan robber Mohammad, that they call the "most honorable of all prophet", who commanded them to do (in the Koran):
extortion, abduction of our women (including by deceiving them to marriage - this is a fatwa ), siphoning our social services and welfare, terrorizing us to subdue us, turn us to 2nd class citizens in our own countries, as they did it before in all the country they attacked and dominated, muzzle us, which amount to turn us to their Zombies, and dominate us with their gangsters practices embedded in their teaching.
BERLIN/ COPENHAGEN (AFP)
The German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schauble called Wednesday on "all European newspapers" to follow Denmark's example and publish the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) cartoons in defense of freedom of the press.
Speaking to weekly magazine Die Zeit in German, Schauble said: "Actually, all European newspapers should now print these caricatures, with the explanation:
We also find them lousy, but the use of press freedom is no reason to practice violence."In mid-February, 17 Danish newspapers reprinted a caricature of Prophet Muhammed in retaliation for a foiled plot by extremists to murder the cartoonist, the newspapers stood in solidarity under the banner of freedom of expression.
The German minister said he supported the decision of the Danish press.
"I have respect for the fact that Danish newspapers have now all printed the Muhammad caricatures, on the basis: we will not let ourselves be divided," Schaeuble was quoted as saying by Die Zeit.
The cartoons were originally published in 2006, with one depicting the Prophet wearing a turban with a lit bomb fuse. They caused uproar among Muslims around the world, who saw the cartoons as offensive and derogatory to the Prophet.
Since the republication, Sudan has called for a boycott of Danish goods, Jordanian media have protested, thousands of Bahrainis have demonstrated, and other protests have been held in Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia and Gaza.
Danish PM defends newspapersMeanwhile, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen defended the 17 Danish newspapers, insisting their aim was not to offend Muslims.
"It's important to explain that the media did not publish these drawings to hurt people's religious feelings, but because in a democratic regime with a free press, it's normal to be able to illustrate your story," Rasmussen told reporters.
Rasmussen said the current situation was "uncertain" following the protests, noting there were reports "that religious extremist circles were trying to exploit it" and that it was "difficult to predict" how the protests would evolve.
He added that Denmark had "learned from experience" from the 2006 crisis.
The government had set up "a very developed system to keep abreast of what is going on" to enable it to be "very proactive with governments in Muslim countries."
This graphic has been offensive to some Islamists but so has the video below it. Did that stop Islamists from their killing rampages? No. So why would they expect special treatment from those they attack and threaten to kill?
ISLAM IN ACTION!
Sunday, March 2, 2008
by Warner MacKenzie
Lying and cheating in the Arab world is not really a moral matter but a method of safeguarding honor and status, avoiding shame, and at all times exploiting possibilities, for those with the wits for it, deftly and expeditiously to convert shame into honor on their own account and vice versa for their opponents. If honor so demands, lies and cheating may become absolute imperatives.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle” An interpretation of the Arabs, p4]
“No dishonor attaches to such primary transactions as selling short weight, deceiving anyone about quality, quantity or kind of goods, cheating at gambling, and bearing false witness. The doer of these things is merely quicker off the mark than the next fellow; owing him nothing, he is not to be blamed for taking what he can.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle”, p38]
The word "Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing, precaution, guarding.” It is employed in disguising one's beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralising any criticism of Islam or Muslims.
Falsehoods told to prevent the denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned in the Qur'an and Sunna, including lying under oath in testimony before a court, deceiving by making distorted statements to the media such as the claim that Islam is a “religion of peace”. A Muslim is even permitted to deny or denounce his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of Islam, so long as he remains faithful to Islam in his heart. (See endnotes)
Like many Islamic practices, taqiyya was formed within the context of the culture of Arab tribalism, expansionary warfare, Bedouin raiding and inter-tribal conflict. Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse, confound and divide 'the enemy’.
A favoured tactic was ‘deceptive triangulation’; used to persuade the enemy that preparations for a raid were not aimed at them but at another tribe altogether. The fate in store for the deceived enemy target was an unexpected plunderous raid, enslavement of the women and death to the post-pubescent males.
The core foundation of hyper-masculine Arab culture is bound up in perceptions of "honour and shame". At all times, he (it's usually a male) must avoid having his face "blackened" by words or actions which are a slight upon, a challenge or affront to, his status in the family or broader social / tribal group.
To be open, frank and forthright or to make self-damning admissions in his dealings (particularly with the infidel enemy) is to leave himself open and vulnerable to humiliating shame and to the subsequent disrespect from his peers. Tongues will wag in the bazaar’s coffee shops and rumours will rapidly spread that so-and-so has lost his "manliness" and status. In short, he is no longer worthy of deferential respect; to an Arab, this is worse than death itself.
The higher one is placed in the social order (or rather, on how important the individual perceives himself to be), the more imperative it becomes to strenuously avoid “loss of face”. The male's perceived loss of honour and status, must be redressed and his face "whitened", i.e. his honour regained and restored, at any cost; even to the extent of (as in the honour killing of daughters) murdering the person “responsible” for causing the initial humiliation.
When taqiyya is used to avoid making an admission or concession it is simply an essential means of ensuring that ones honour and standing remain intact and untarnished. Blood feuds and vendettas, caused by an ancient humiliation of a long dead ancestor, can persist, fuelled and propelled by shame and honour, for generations.
Muhammad, who is promoted as every Muslim’s exemplar, set the precedent for vengeful retaliation when he ordered the murder of those who mocked or satirised him and, as he was an Arab, caused him potential loss of face. [See link, “Muhammad’s Dead Poets Society”]
Islamic spokesmen commonly use taqiyya as a form of 'outwitting'. The skilled taqiyya-tactician doesn’t want the matter at hand to be debated or discussed; so his opponent must be outwitted or preemptively outflanked by the use of taqiyya. The objective is to divert attention away from the subject through duplicity and obfuscation.
The claim is often made that difficulties in translating from Arabic to English makes the meaning of what they say or write difficult or impossible to convey….this is simply another subterfuge. Keysar Trad has repeatedly claimed that Sheikh Hilali’s obnoxious, inflammatory and misogynistic comments have been “mistranslated”, misquoted or “taken out of context”.
The aim of this ploy is to dilute or neutralise public opprobrium. The use of independent translators has, in the past, disproved his assertions. The Sheikh states what he believes to be correct according to Islamic precepts and his “interpreter” reconfigures the statement to make it palatable to the unwitting listener.
Consider the following statement by Mr. Trad on the February 24 2006.
Keysar Trad, president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, told Reuters that Australian Muslims
agreed with Costello's (Australia’s Treasurer, Peter Costello) sentiments about being good, law abiding citizens.
"But to continually single out the Muslim community like this is very unhelpful, it's very divisive and it does stir up Islamophobia”,
"We're proud to be Australian and our religion strongly stipulates that if you make an oath, whether it's an oath of citizenship or any other oath, that you honour it, abide by it."
However, the Prophet Muhammad seems to have a different idea on the subject.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427:
“By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. Then I do what is better and expiate my oath.' "
Role playing as the victim:
When placed under scrutiny or criminal investigation, (even when there is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence of guilt or complicity), the taqiyya-tactician will quickly attempt to counter the allegation by resorting to the claim that it is, in fact, the accused who are the 'the victims'. Victims of Islamophobia, racism, religious discrimination and intolerance. Currently, this is the most commonly encountered form of distraction and 'outwitting'….. Defence by offence.
Manipulative ambiguity and Semantics:
Sheik Hilali and the late Yasser Arafat are both on public record as (a) 'condemning' the 9/11 attacks, in ambiguous terms, to the Western media and (b) praising suicide bombings, or “ martyrdom operations”, to their Arabic speaking audiences .
Islamic spokesmen will rarely unequivocally condemn a specific act of terrorism and direct questions will be skillfully evaded.
(NB: because Muslims regard Islamic attacks as “jihad”, and not terrorism, their spokesmen can truthfully deny any support for terrorism.)
Interviewers would be better advised to ask the more precise question “do you believe in jihad against the unbelievers?
However, a direct question requiring a simple "YES" or "NO" reply is rarely forthcoming and is usually deflected by responding with a tangentially irrelevant rejoinder or, in an attempt to neutralise the original question, counter-challenging with another question such as “are you in favour of killing children in Iraq?”…..Touché and Checkmate!
Diversion, deflection and "tu quoque”:
Questions relating to the 9/11 terrorist attacks will usually be diverted by either making outrageously wild conspiracy claims “the CIA did it to give the U.S. an excuse to attack Muslims,… Mossad was the perpetrator… No Jews came to work at the World Trade Centre on September 11” etc. or by making an irrelevant counter reference to “the plight of the Palestinians”,.. Iraqis,.. colonialism,.. the crusades, or US foreign policy’s support for Israel” as the 'root causes' of terrorism.
Then, of course, there’s the ever popular, specious allegation that George Bush is a bigger terrorist than Osama bin Laden.
Diversionary “tu quoque” response ploys usually start with the words “but” or “what about…?” in an attempt to turn, and transfer an equal culpability back on their interlocutor.
Islamic spokesmen practice a form of taqiyya defined in psychology as 'cognitive denial' by repetitive and persistent demands of 'where is the evidence!' and 'prove it!' whenever there is Muslim complicity in terrorist acts, evidence, which they know very well, for security or legal sub-judice restraints, can not be disclosed. If indeed the “evidence” were to be publicly presented, they would then move on to the familiar “prejudicial to the defendant receiving a fair trial--grounds for a mistrial” default position.
Rather than admitting that a proposition concerning a subject under discussion can be partly true, an Islamic spokesman will flatly deny a claim or proposition in absolute terms. For example, "It is impossible to be a Muslim and a terrorist”; this semantic argument is purely a matter of definition, because radical Islamists don’t define their violent attacks as terrorism, but jihad. (i.e. holy war in the way of Allah) .
Another popular assertion is that 'Islam forbids suicide', which is true, but by virtue once again of definition, irrelevant, because suicide bombings are regarded as “martyrdom operations” and are therefore not forbidden, but on the contrary, admirable and praiseworthy. Muslim spokesmen are also fond of using extreme hyperbole.
Their refutations regularly include the word “percent”. e.g. “I am 150% certain that Jews orchestrated September 11”…. “I guarantee the accused is 200% innocent”.
Exploiting cognitive dissonance:
Islamic spokesmen regularly perplex and baffle interviewers and their audiences as they resort to double talk, 'clichés and platitudes' concerning Islam. A state of cognitive dissonance (i.e. holding two contradictory beliefs and attempting to resolve them) is therefore induced in viewers and readers as they attempt to mentally process the claim that Islam is a peaceful religion despite the indisputable evidence before them of Islamist involvement in terrorist acts or criminal conduct.
The Islamic 'defence' script:
Islamic spokesmen repeat the same predictable duplicitous clichés concerning Islam in Europe, as do their counterparts in Australia and America. They appear to follow a well prepared script as they repeat "Islam is tolerant and peace loving”.
In instances where they find themselves presented with, and cornered by, undeniable evidence that murderous radicals are indeed guilty as charged the spokesman will then fall back on the old chestnut that the culprits are only a “small minority” and not “true Muslims” anyway. Islamic spokeswomen use taqiyya when making the somewhat Orwellian claim that wearing the hijab, niqab, burqa etc. is “liberating” and “empowering”, and that, for reasons known only to them, these symbols of submissive exclusion offer them more freedom than Western women, thereby implying that women in Muslim countries are somehow 'freer' than women in the West.
This ruse is designed to preclude further examination into the well documented inferior status of females in Islamic societies. Being put on the spot, and having to admit their true obedient and subservient status, would be embarrassing and therefore shame inducing so resorting to denial and exaggerative taqiyya is their only option.
There’s a common and oft repeated lie that “Islam” means peace”, it doesn’t, it translates as “submission” (to Allah).
Islamic falsehoods are echoed uncritically by Western politicians and other apologist dupes, for example "A small group of fundamentalists have hijacked a great and noble religion”.
This timely, skilful, misleading and diversionary theme of the 'hijacking' of Islam was introduced into public, political and media discourse by an Islamic 'spokesman' in the United States shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and has become an “accepted fact” repeated, ad nauseum, ever since.
The "Islam has been hijacked” myth is now a clichéd media and political reference which serves to deflect attention from the empirical proof of a fourteen hundred year continuity of the doctrinal, political and religious nature of Islamic jihad.
A related theme that “a small minority of Muslims are engaged in terrorism” is utterly irrelevant as terrorism is always perpetrated by 'small minorities' or more accurately small groups or cells. Surveys consistently reveal that between 10-15% of all Muslims sympathise with the aims and methodology of this radical strain of Islam which has been “hijacked”. This means, that within an estimated world population of 1.2 billion Muslims, there are 120-180 million people prepared to fund, facilitate and in general, give moral and financial assistance to the jihadists….. “a small minority”?....you decide!
The indisputable truth is that there has been no “hijacking” of Islam. Islamic extremists can, and do, find ample inspiration, justification and encouragement for their violent ideology in the Quran and Hadith.
Taqiyya as impressions and perception management
Pathos and the tactical use of children:
Australian television viewers may recall that interviews with terrorist suspects raided by ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation) and AFP (Australian Federal Police) frequently featured women in hijabs holding small children or a crying baby as they plaintively protested their husband's innocence and attested to his innate piety, decency and kind-hearted nature.
Trembling fingers and quavering voices pointed out damage, disruption and disarray to the family home. In some interviews the suspect / father holds the child, whilst denying any involvement in, or knowledge of, radicalism .
Sheikh Hilali’s daughter, in a newspaper interview, played the taqiyya pathos card by claiming that, because the cold northern winter was imminent, her father was travelling to Lebanon to “hand deliver” thousands of blankets to “orphanages” and homeless victims of the war between Israel and Hizbollah.
In the same Israel /Hezbollah war, a photojournalist filmed a Lebanese man, strewing, for the purpose of emotional impact, the contents of a large cardboard box full of children’s stuffed toys amongst the wreckage and debris. This was obviously for the benefit of a large contingent of international TV film crews who were about to be taken on a guided tour of the bombed buildings later that morning.
Photos of carefully placed baby’s bibs and dummies (pacifiers) also appeared to be extraordinarily abundant on the internet, as were “staged” photos of a “body” being removed from the piles of collapsed concrete. One sequence of photos clearly shows the “body” in question, alive and well, walking around with his “rescuers” before and after the “retrieval” of his dusty, “lifeless body”. This is taqiyya by imagery!
The above are examples of taqiyya in the age of impressions and perception management and are designed to, dupe, play on the emotions of, and elicit sympathy from, the compassionate, unwitting public.
Taqiyya and the Deceptive definition of Jihad:
The contemporary political meaning of jihad is clear: it is “Jihad of the sword” and not the peaceful internal struggle for spiritual improvement as their spin-doctors would have us believe. Islamic fundamentalists consider jihad to be the sixth pillar of Islam, a binding duty and integral to the faith.
Claiming that Jihad is a subjective and psychological state to become a better person is taqiyya. In contemporary terms, Jihad means – HOLY WAR - against the unbelievers and it is in this context that Al Qaeda training manuals and other radical preachers use and refer to jihad.
The study of taqiyya is crucial to an understanding of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Its use ranges from the issuing of false terrorist threats, operational and strategic disinformation issued by Al Qaeda in the form of 'intelligence chatter' for the purpose of throwing national defence groups into confusion.
Terrorist in captivity resort to taqiyya during interrogation. It is most frequently used by Muslim 'spokesmen' whilst intentionally making misleading public statements concerning Islam and terrorism.
The Arabs have a story which exemplifies subtle, semantic dissimulation (taqiyya) perfectly. Legend has it that Mohammed’s nephew, son-in-law and future Caliph, Ali, was sitting on a stool outside his dwelling when one of his allies ran red-faced and gasping into the village and hid in Ali’s home. Perceiving that the man was being pursued, Ali promptly got up and sat on another nearby stool.
A few minutes later, a group of angry pursuers ran into the encampment and asked Ali if he had seen the man they were pursuing. Ali responded with the statement “AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN SITTING ON THIS STOOL I HAVE SEEN NO ONE”
This story demonstrates why nothing an Islamist says can be taken at face value. Every statement and utterance needs to be thoroughly analysed, or “unpacked”.
After yet another violent incident in Sydney, involving “Males of Middle-Easter Appearance”, a spokesman for the Muslim community appeared on a Sydney television evening newscast. In the brief soundbight he defensively declared “our religion teaches us that we must be kind to one another” ….and indeed it does, it simply depends on how we are to interpret the words “one another”, as these verses from the Quran demonstrate:
Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. – (Q 48:25)
Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.
Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers*. – (Q48:29)
So, was this spokesman lying?
Or was he telling the truth?
The answer is both, YES,… and NO! –Or, perhaps neither, and if
you are confused by this apparent contradiction?,. You’re meant to be, because he was practising taqiyya; ……where the devil is ALWAYS in the detail.
* The precise identity of the “unbelievers” in the above references requires no further explanation.
1. Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali says: "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it.
When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible." (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)
2. Bukhari Vol 3: 857 “Narrated Um Kulthum bint Uqba”:
That she heard Allah's Apostle saying, "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar."
3. Bukhari Vol 4: 269 “Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, "War is deceit."
4. Bukhari Vol 5: 668 “Narrated Zahdam:
“When Abu Musa arrived (at Kufa as a governor) he honored this family of Jarm (by paying them a visit). I was sitting near to him, and he was eating chicken as his lunch, and there was a man sitting amongst the people.
Abu Musa invited the man to the lunch, but the latter said, "I saw chickens (eating something (dirty) so I consider them unclean." Abu Musa said, "Come on! I saw the Prophet eating it (i.e. chicken)." The man said "I have taken an oath that I will not eat (chicken)" Abu Musa said."
Come on! I will tell you about your oath. We, a group of Al-Ash'ariyin people went to the Prophet and asked him to give us something to ride, but the Prophet refused. Then we asked him for the second time to give us something to ride, but the Prophet took an oath that he would not give us anything to ride.
After a while, some camels of booty were brought to the Prophet and he ordered that five camels be given to us. When we took those camels we said, "We have made the Prophet forget his oath, and we will not be successful after that." So I went to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle ! You took an oath that you would not give us anything to ride, but you have given us."
He said, "Yes, for if I take an oath and later I see a better solution than that, I act on the later and gave the expiation of that oath"
5. Bukhari Vol 6: 138 Narrated Aisha:
“That her father (Abu Bakr) never broke his oath till Allah revealed the order of the legal expiation for oath. Abu Bakr said, "If I ever take an oath (to do something) and later find that to do something else is better, then I accept Allah's permission and do that which is better, (and do the legal expiation for my oath ) ".
Saturday, March 1, 2008
This is one of those stories I hope is not true. When I wrote "An October Surrender?" about the apparent Hillabama outreach to Damascus, I was raising a question. I didn't know the answer, and I still don't know whether the Democrats are trying a preemptive surrender in the Middle East, even before the presidential election.
(See also "Samantha Power and Obama's Foreign Policy Team")
It just seemed odd that Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's calamitous National Security chief, is suddenly flying to Damascus along with money man Hassan Nemazee from the Clinton campaign. That follows Nancy Pelosi's trip to Bashir Assad in Damascus in April of 2007, and Steny Hoyer's meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt at the same time.
The Muslim Bro's are the wellspring of Sunni terrorism; the Iranians are the folks behind Shiite suicide bombers.
That's an awful lot of Democrats suddenly chorusing kumbaya with the people who spend their lives chanting "Death to America!" -- especially when none of the Democrats have a constitutional role in US foreign policy. It looks like amateur night in Damascus. Or do presidential campaigns always send out their own foreign diplomats these days? I thought we had a State Department for that.
But I didn't realize just how paranoid and enraged the Democrat foreign establishment has become. Not about our nation's enemies, but about Americans like you and me, plus anybody with an (R) before their name. My mistake.
We've known for thirty years about the October Surprise conspiracy theory, peddled by Jimmy Carter's White House official, Gary Sick.
I didn't know that Professor Sick's Middle East center at Columbia University now takes money from George Soros' Open Society Institute. Our good buddy the former Gyorgiy Schwartz is helping to fund the biggest White House conspiracy peddler of the past half century. Interesting, nicht wahr? I wonder what they teach their students over there.
I remember Madeleine Albright as SecState for Bill Clinton -- with highlights like waltzing with brutal dictator Kim Jong Il for the TV cameras, while tens of thousands of his starving subjects marched by in the street below. Albright was a moral disaster.
Not just intellectually wrong; she was deeply flawed morally. It's just incomprehensible how a well-informed diplomat could literally dance for the world's cameras with the most evil little SOB in the world, and never notice anything amiss. She knew that little SOB was killing hundreds of thousands of his people that year by deliberate starvation. She knew he was going for nukes.
Everybody in the world knew those things -- if they cared to know. It was the precise moral equivalent of dancing in public with Hitler or Stalin, right in the middle of the Holocaustor the Gulag. It was unspeakably shameful.
That brought to mind other examples of Democrat amnesia and denial in foreign affairs. Like Clinton advisor Anthony Lake, now on Obama's team, who became a laughingstock when he said he didn't think Alger Hiss was guilty of spying -- even after the Soviet archives were opened up.
Lake was supposed to become SecState, but lost all support on Capitol Hill when that report made the rounds. The Alger Hiss scandal was fifty years ago. Call it multi-generational denial on the foreign policy Left.
Zbigniew Brzezinski himself has been hotly denying the Carter Administration's plain responsibility for bringing the Mullahs to power in 1979 -- people who have been drilled from early childhood to hate us as corrupt infidels, and who were very, very clear about it to their followers before they ever came to power.
Apparently nobody in the Carter foreign policy apparatus did the most basic research on Ayatollah Khomeini, like reading his writings or listening to his sermons, which were circulating in Iranian bazaars on audio cassettes. Evidently they just never bothered to check on this guy.
The Shah of Iran was a vigorous modernizer and pro-American; the Mullahs are throwbacks to the tribal cruelty and savagery of the 7th century. Carter and his team couldn't tell the difference.
As Andrew Young, then Jimmy Carter's UN Ambassador said at the time, they just thought the Ayatollah was some kind of gentle saint, the Mahatma Gandhi of the Mysterious East.
Well, Khomeini went on to order the execution of thousands of his fellow revolutionaries belonging to the Mujahedeen Khalq, he established a torture regime, and he started his own Hitler Youth, the Basiji, who still specialize today in beating anti-regime demonstrators to a bloody pulp and in humiliating women for wearing un-Islamic dress. And hanging people by the neck off tow trucks.
Oh, yes, and the Ayatollah got into a major war with Saddam Hussein, which killed a million people. That's what the Jimmy Carterites achieved by enabling the Ayatollah to overthrow the Shah. Some saint. And yet, Calamity Jimmy Carter and Brzezinski still deny responsibility today, three decades later; and they still counsel patience, patience -- the regime is bound to become a liberal dream as soon as it gets nukes. Any day now.
So denial and selective amnesia are not new on the diplomatic Left. They've lost the crucial realism of Cold War liberals, who realized that we had real enemies in the world. Henry "Scoop" Jackson was a Democrat, but he didn't think Republicans were his worst enemies; he thought the Soviets and Red China were. Would any ambitious Democrat dare to say that in public today? Reality-based liberals were purged from the Party after 1968, just as Senator Joe Lieberman was purged a couple of years ago, for failing to toe the Party Line.
Madeleine Albright hasn't changed. Just recently she told a conference in Doha that "America's enemy is not ... Islamic terrorism, for terrorism is by its nature un-Islamic."
Has anybody told Osama?
What's that big gaping hole doing in downtown Manhattan where the Twin Towers used to stand? Sheikh Osama Bin Laden just misunderstood Islam! Maybe he will allow himself to be instructed on his religion by Ms. Albright.
How about Imad Mughniyeh, who blew up US Embassy in Beirut in 1983? He didn't know about the real Islam either?
How about the Prophet himself, who routinely practiced tribal genocide and mass rape as a praiseworthy method of desert warfare?
How about the famous Muslim head-chopping conquests of the Middle East, Persia, Turkey, Central Asia, India, Byzantium, Spain and Eastern Europe? Has Ms. Albright ever read a history book? Must have missed that class in college, I suppose.
Liberalism does incomprehensible things to people's minds.
However, I didn't know that Albright's latest book, timed to come out in January for the election season, strikes out at President Bush as "one of the worst presidents in American history."
This is the official word from a SecState with nothing but failure in her past. Albright is the longest-serving Democrat SecState alive, their highest-ranking diplomat. Around the world, all the other diplomats and kleptocrats are reading her book today to see where a Democrat president will take this country. In Moscow, Vlad "The Poisoner" Putin is reading it.
It's modestly titled "Memo to the President-Elect." In Tehran, Ahmadi-Nejad is having it translated into Persian for his bedtime reading. Oh, and that President-Elect in the title would be Ms. Albright's bosom buddy Hillary, or in the worst case, Barack Obama.
Albright's book is excerpted this week in the London Arab newspaper Dar Al-Hayat, according to the Syrian press agency SANA. The headline reads: "Albright: Bush is the worst President in American history."
Our sworn enemies must be rolling on the floor. (To them it's so funny that a woman is stabbing George W. in the back, and poor George just has to take it. Can't keep his own women in submission. What a joke!)
For a former SecState to strike out at an American President in this fashion in an anti-American foreign-language newspaper is simply unprecedented. No American diplomat would have done that in Pravda or Iztvestiya during the Cold War. But the lady is quoted by the Syrian press as writing that "... the war on (sic) Iraq was the biggest mistake in the history of US foreign policy." That will sure strengthen our troops who are in daily combat with child-murdering truck bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If a Democrat gets into the White House they will have no negotiating position left, because their highest-ranking expert, Ms. Albright, has just told the world what she will advise them to do: Surrender everything our soldiers have sacrificed to win.
Now ask yourself: If you were Ahmadi-Nejad, wouldn't you just ignore President Bush for the rest of 2008 and wait for a Democrat to get elected? Just go to the beach until November, and come back tanned and rested to bargain from strength when the pushovers are in power in the US.
The Islamofascists are the toughest bargainers in the world; their biggest fanatics never compromise -- never, never, never. They're taught to martyr themselves first.
Ayatollah Khomeini himself was ready to die when he realized he would have to stop the war with Iraq, which killed a million people.
Ahmadi-Nejad's favorite mob chant is "martyrdom is powerful." And Madame Albright has just given them exactly what they want, and published it in Dar Al-Hayat to make sure they notice our pathetic little white flag fluttering in the wind.
I'd forgotten that Ms. Albright has a paranoid streak, too. Four years ago, the Wall Street Journal reported,
"According to journalist Morton Kondracke, Albright was in the green room at Fox News Channel yesterday when "She said, 'Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?'
" Although Albright now says the remark was a "joke," Kondracke says that at the time, "she was not smiling," and other witnesses back him up: "Two makeup artists who prep the guests before their appearances also reported that Albright did not ask her question in a joking manner," Fox reports."
It's the Gary Sick fantasy again that Republicans are using war and our national enemies to manipulate US elections.
And then there's Senator John Kerry, who came out with the very same idea after he lost the election in 2004. He said that Osama Bin Laden's videotaped sermon in October of 2004 cost him the election. According to Geraldo Rivera, Kerry said that he lost because of "... that Usama tape - it scared them [the American people]."
How's that for paranoid? That must mean the Republicans were telling Osama to release his video just in time for the election. Who knew the Republicans had that kind of clout with Osama? It also means that Kerry thought American voters were too stupid to realize we were at war in 2004.
Now -- remember Algore the Prophet? As the New York Times wrote in 2004,
"In a withering critique of the Bush administration, former Vice President Al Gore on Sunday accused the president of betraying the country by using the Sept. 11 attacks as a justification for the invasion of Iraq."'He betrayed this country!'
Mr. Gore shouted into the microphone at a rally of Tennessee Democrats here in a stuffy hotel ballroom. 'He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place.'" (emphases added)
Four presidential elections and four conspiracy theories. It's not just Albright and Sick. This joke is wearing thin from too much repetition.
Apparently Professor Brzezinski, who is now off to Damascus representing the Obama campaign, must really believe the infamous October Surprise theory, which had Bush 41 flying to Paris in an SR-71 stealth plane for the sole reason of telling the Mullahs to keep their US diplomats chained up good and tight, until Ronald Reagan got elected. That's the only reason why Jimmy Carter was defeated in 1980, according to the Sick theory. That story sold nicely on the paranoid Left, but it was discredited in two separate Senate and House investigations in 1992 and 1993.
The trouble is that some of these folks -- maybe all of them? -- seem to believe that stuff. Jimmy Carter himself has never allowed reality to influence his own ideas about foreign policy, and today blames Israel (as well as Ronald Reagan) for his dismal performance in office.
When Speaker Pelosi flew off to see Bashir Assad, Carter publicly applauded. What's all that old constitutional nonsense about separation of powers again?
So we have a foreign policy establishment on the Left that explains its repeated failures by fantasies about Republican plots and conspiracies. That is appalling because we depend crucially on our diplomats being in touch with reality. Does it sound like these people are in touch?
If the foreign establishment of the Left routinely falls for paranoia, the United States is in big, big trouble. If they win the presidency in 2008, the Dems might sell out whatever American troops have won on the battlefield. After all, Islamic terrorists are not the real enemy, according to Ms. Albright.
But even if they don't win the election the Dems still have huge influence on the Federal bureaucracy: State, CIA, even the Pentagon. Any Republican president will be sabotaged, because those bureaucracies are staffed by the students and acolytes of the Left.
The left controls the New York Times and the Washington Post, which play the daily spin to American bureaucrats every morning with their breakfast coffee. The whole thing is like a giant dysfunctional family, split by murderous suspicions that are constantly played up by the opinion makers.
Perfectly normal people can learn how to be paranoid, as social psychologists have often shown. All they need is a psychological barrier between themselves and the real world, and it's even possible just to suggest such a barrier. Gossipers do it all the time by spreading distrust through slanderous stories.
Pathological social organizations are created by such reality barriers, all the way from small families to giant corporations. So you don't need to be clinically paranoid to be functionally paranoid, living in a hall of mirrors where suspicion is rife. Just look at the Kos kids and the Huffpost. Hell, just look at the NYT Op-Ed pages. These are not just wild-eyed radicals, howling at the moon, and shunned by all; they are mainstream Democrats.
The trouble with paranoids is that they act out of their fantasies, not reality. If the Democrats are indeed sending Brzezinski to negotiate with Assad and Iran and their tame gangsters, they could be motivated by that same set of imagined fears --- that the GOP Meanies are planning another October Surprise, which worked so well for Reagan and Bush I & II. In their minds, back-door negotiations with America's enemies got three Republican presidents elected in four different elections.
That's crazy -- but if you believe it, why not try some backdoor tricks yourself? It's is a whole different road to Damascus, just to protect yourself against your real enemies, the Republicans.
As I say, I hope it's not true.
All the same, keep a sharp eye out, just in case.