December 15, 2006
Ahmadmanjihad's Effective Strategy
In engaging his full scale Holocaust denial campaign (even to the extent of having held his global conference on the subject earlier this week), the Iranian president is embacing a multifaceted and highly effective strategy that demonstrates he is, indeed, no dummy (or perhaps he is, and the leaders of certain western countries are just dumber than he is), according to an on-point analysis by megaperceptive columnist Caroline Glick.
So why is the guy who is gunning for a new Holocaust belittling the last one?First of all, by doing so he empowers those Germans and friends of Germany who carried it out. By denying the Holocaust Ahmadinejad turns the Nazis into victims and so provides a space for them to express themselves after a sixty year silence. Indeed, in Germany neo-Nazism is a burgeoning political and social force that proudly parades its links to Iran.
The German fascist party NPD's followers demonstrated in support of Iran at the World Cup in Germany last spring. This week, Der Spiegel reported that attacks against Jewish children have increased markedly in recent years. Jewish children and their non-Jewish friends have been humiliated in anti-Semitic rituals unheard of since the Nazi era. "Jew" has become one of the most prevalent derogatory terms in use in Germany today.
Iran's adoption of Holocaust denial as an official, defiant policy gives legitimacy to this striking phenomenon. This is especially the case since Iran is blaming the Jews for silencing these poor fascists. In his same letter to Merkel Ahmadinejad wrote, "The perpetual claimants against the great people of Germany are the bullying Zionists that funded the Al Quds Occupying Regime with the force of bayonets in the Middle East."
of course does not limit his efforts to the Nazis. He is also setting the cognitive conditions for the annihilation of Israel for the international Left by presenting Israel's existence as a direct result of the Holocaust. As Iran's Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki said this week, "If the official version of the Holocaust is thrown into doubt, then the identity and nature of Israel will be thrown into doubt."
In short, Iran views Holocaust denial as a strategic propaganda tool. By downgrading the Holocaust, Iran mobilizes supporters and paralyzes potential opponents. Its coupling of the last Holocaust with the one it signals daily it intends to carry out, wins it support among the Nazis and the Sunnis alike. Its presentation of the Holocaust as a myth used to exploit Muslims wins its support in the international Left which increasingly views Israel as an illegitimate state. So by denying the Holocaust Iran raises its leadership profile both regionally and globally.
Indeed, even if the Left doesn't buy into Holocaust denial, it can still agree with Iran's conclusion that Israel has no right to exist. As Mottaki explained, "If during this [Holocaust denial conference] it is proved that the Holocaust was a historical reality, then what is the reason for the Muslim people of the region and the Palestinians having to pay the cost of the Nazis' crimes?"
Truncating,
Merkel and her fellow Germans have spent an inordinate amount of time over the past three years condemning the Nazi Holocaust. This week they even organized a special Holocaust condemning conference in response to the Iranian Holocaust denying conference.over the same time period, they have conducted negotiations with Teheran as part of the EU-3 that have enabled Iran to continue its nuclear progress; obstructed US efforts to levy sanctions on Iran; and maintained active trade relations with Iran. Merkel's government has continued the practice of providing loan guarantees to German firms doing business with Iran. In 2005, German-Iranian trade stood at about $5 billion.
Now, after three years of disastrous negotiations with the mullahs, Germany has finally come around to supporting the European draft sanctions resolution against Iran being debated in the UN Security Council. The problem is that the proposed sanctions are so weak that they will have no impact on Iran's ability to move on with its nuclear bomb program.The obvious fact that the sanctions will have no impact on Iran has not made a dent in Merkel's refusal to support military action against Iran under any circumstances - a refusal she reiterated while standing next to Israel's Prime Minister on Tuesday.
Yeah, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, that completely clueless waste of skin who is as much a threat to the future of Israel as is the Iranian President.
Olmert was apparently too busy admitting that Israel has nuclear weapons only to take back his admission hours later, absurdly praising Russian President Vladimir for his opposition to the "nuclearlization of Iran" which Putin is actively promoting, and promising to give Judea and Samaria to Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas to take issue with Merkel's statement. And that is a pity, because by taking issue with it, he would have gone far towards destroying the effectiveness of Iran's Holocaust denial strategy.
Posted by Seth at 05:38 AM | Comments (6) |
December 01, 2006
Heh....
.... so this is the oath all those new Democrats in the House of Representatives will take during their swearing-in ceremony, presided over by then new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
My question is, who will defend the Constitution against Nancy Pelosi and her leftist majority? And while I'm on the subject, since when do today's Democrats bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution? Am I missing something? Is there something someone's not telling me?
On another note, I sense even more hypocrisy here -- given their war against having any references to G-D being attached to anything of a governmental nature, won't these portsiders have any kind of problem with "So help me G-D"? I mean, Pelosi's friends in the 9th Circus didn't even want to keep G-D's name in the Pledge of Allegiance!
Well, at least one new Representative won't have that problem, he'll only have to say, "So help me Allah".
Posted by Seth at 03:03 PM | Comments (3) |
November 28, 2006
They Just Don't Quit
I can see no reason why liberals should even want to live in America, except to destroy this great country. There is no other conceivable purpose they could have for remaining here.
They should go to countries whose governments are structured more to their liking and leave this one alone.
Sure, they claim to respect our form of government, yet prove time and time again that they do no such thing -- if they did, they would permit it to work as it's supposed to.
For example, if a given decision is solely the responsibility of Congress and the President to reach agreement on, like the decision or not, that is the final word. Next time elect senators, representatives and/or a President who are more in tune with your own political agendas. If you fail to do this, well, guess what? This means that the majority of the citizens with whom you share this democracy disagree with your choice. Sorry, try again next election.
What do liberals do when they don't get their way? They weasel around Congress and take their case where it just flat out, plainly does not belong: To the courts. To leftist judges like those treasonous commie toilet cakes on the bench at the 9th Circus in San Francisco, or, if that doesn't work, to the Supreme Court.
The courts have no mandate to legislate, yet these self important, sleazy southpaw judges are permitted to get away with it both blatantly and regularly.
One such issue is the global warming farce. You know, the one that caused recent snow in Florida and seems to be adding density to Algore's "melting" Arctic ice mass (It's pretty easy to B.S. a few hundred million people when you know they're not very likely to climb into a boat and go up there to check for themselves).
The Supreme Court this week will begin hearing perhaps the most significant environmental case ever to reach its marbled halls — a dispute that could shape the future of U.S. policy on global warming.
This is not SCOTUS' mandate. It is not their job. It is not a Constitutional issue. It is purely a Congressional issue.
The Court's rightful response here, simply put, should be "Ees na' my yob, man!"
In 1999, when environmental groups originally petitioned the EPA, they argued that the Clean Air Act required EPA to regulate "any air pollutant" that could "reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."EPA denied the petition in 2003, saying even if the agency had the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, it would be inappropriate because there's no conclusive proof the gas hurts to the environment.
The agency cited a 2001 study by the National Research Council that concluded, "A causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established"Some climate scientists say that view contradicts the best evidence now available.
"The EPA position is untenable," said Andrew Dessler, an associate professor of climate science at Texas A&M University. "At the present time it is virtually certain that human emissions are warming the planet. The real question is how much warming we can attribute to emissions, and it's likely that most of the recent warming is due to human activity."
There they go again! ....it is virtually certain that human emissions are warming the planet.
Yoda: Virtually certain, they are!
....the best evidence now available.
And what the {pick an expletive} does that mean? They couldn't convict OJ with "the best evidence available"!
Excuse me, Andrew, but last time I looked, no one had proven anything of the kind! The only science that supports your theories is political science. Get any new research grants lately?
If SCOTUS does its job, it will simply opt not to rule on the issue and cite it as a matter for Congress, but after some of their more recent offerings of note, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Posted by Seth at 04:32 AM | Comments (19) |
November 27, 2006
This Is Too Funny
And here we have a sterling, totally blatant example of liberal hypocrisy in its finest hour, courtesy of none other than John Edwards, our former Vice Presidential candidate.
Posted by Seth at 10:22 AM | Comments (8) |
November 19, 2006
Murderous Exasperation
I was perusing the comment section at another blog yesterday and read a liberal's comment that made me thankful he and I were not in the same room -- had we been, I probably would have strangled the son of a bitch out of sheer frustration. My own comment, in reply to his, was as restrained as possible, I believe it remained within, though pushing the envelope, the boundaries of respect due the owners of that most excellent site.
I mean, these people (not the owners of said most excellent site, but liberals) are such -- such varmints!
Look.
They claim to be champions of human rights, for example. Here in America, human rights are honored more than they are anyplace else on earth. Freedom of speech? C'mon. Here, you can shout obscene jokes about the President from the rooftops if you feel like it.
In the Soviet Union, you'd have been hauled off to the Lubyanka, or perhaps Lefortovo Prison, in a heart beat, and not seen again for quite some time, if at all.
If they needed information they thought you might possess, there was none of this patty cakes BS like water boarding or playing loud music at you, they were somewhat more practical -- maybe running some electricity through your genitals, or shooting you up with interesting chemicals like lysergic acid mixed with amatol that might get you to babbling, but might also scramble your brains permanently. Then again, permanently might have only meant a couple of hours, anyway.
So what did American liberals do? They extolled the virtues of communism in all its grand superiority over capitalism, even as they enjoyed instant gratification at the local mall while Soviet citizens were standing in bitter cold, in four and five hour lines, to buy a potato.
North Vietnam, an oppressive communist regime, invades the south, and our country defends the South Vietnamese against the north and its VietCong terrorist apparat. Liberals at home fight tooth and nail against the conflict. They influence politicians, who influence the war effort itself, prolonging it by several years. They eventually succeed in getting our troops pulled out. They rejoice. Ho Chi Minh's communists sweep into South Vietnam and butcher hundreds of thousands of innocent people, then they enslave the country under said oppressive government.
Meanwhile, here in America, the liberals are celebrating their "victory". They could care less about the fates of those poor souls thousands of miles away, human beings they've helped murder as surely as if they'd been there, splattering brains across the ground.
In the 1990s, there was brutal conflict in the Balkans. Muslims were slaughtering Christian Serbs, and Milosevic's people were killing Muslims.
The EU, led by Germany, exploited the violence in order to get a foot in the door for influence in the Balkans. They altered intelligence reports and manipulated the media to paint a gruesome picture of Muslims being victimized via
"ethnic cleansing" by Milosevic's people. Peaceful, nonviolent Muslims, victimized!
Then-boss liberal Bill Clinton bought into it and got us into it, and we helped eliminate a lot of obstacles al-Qaeda and fellow travellers faced in the day-to-day ethnic cleansing operations they were engaged in over there.
Milosevic was arrested and tried for his "crimes" -- and died in custody five years later without ever being convicted of anything.
Muslims in the Balkans continue murdering Christian Serbs to this day.
Onward to Iraq, and to the global war we are waging to defend ourselves against the abolition of liberty under Islamic rule.
There we are again -- which side are liberals on?
The other side, of course, as usual!
America's enemies, any enemies, have never had a better friend than a liberal.
You want some liberal friends? Just declare war on the United States and they'll be coming out in droves to shake your hand or, if requested, stick their noses wherever you wish.
Liberals....
Certainly not on our side, ever, yet when you state this obvious truth, they will actually argue the opposite, as often as not with that smug smirk that brings out the strangler in many of us....
Posted by Seth at 04:48 AM | Comments (25) |
March 26, 2006
The French -- spit!
Despite their long has-been status as a country of importance, many French people continue to believe that they are a significant factor in the world of today.
These folks still think that their language should be a dominant language among others, and/or even that it should be accepted, period.
Jacques Chirac foolishly made this more than plain, as is evidenced in this post by my friend Raven at And Rightly So.
Speaking of France, another blog friend, GM, has more to say on the subject at GM's Corner.
Posted by Seth at 12:31 AM | Comments (2) |
March 25, 2006
McCain
Drew at Conservative Outpost gives on-the-money commentary on name only Republican and Presidential hopeful(perhaps wishful would be a better word)John McCain.
Posted by Seth at 11:16 PM |
December 28, 2005
Spitzer Revisited
Back in June, as a brand new blogger, I posted on Eliot Spitzer and conveyed my own disapproval of the self-seeking, ethically-challenged New York State Attorney General rather bluntly.
Columnist John Podhoretz' opinion of the man is apparently not all that different from my own, and he adds some good background, to boot.
Here's what the Times editorial endorsing him said in 1998: "Spitzer has misled the public about how his father's wealth was used to support about $9 million in loans that financed his campaigns in 1994 and 1998. His conduct may not be illegal, but it was clearly designed to circumvent laws that would have limited his father's direct contributions to the campaign. In normal circumstances, Mr. Spitzer's evasions would have made it impossible to endorse him for the state's top legal position."Pretty extraordinary, don't you think, in light of Spitzer's shameless pose as a heroic Mr. Clean, throwing the moneychangers out of the Wall Street temple?
Posted by Seth at 02:48 AM |
December 19, 2005
Hanging Out In The Aisle
Senator John McCain(R/D Arizona) is getting quite a bit of exercise, standing at center aisle and leaping from foot to foot, left side to right side, doing his almighty best to please both Democrats and Republicans. Boy, he really wants to be elected President.
In the end, of course, he'll find very few takers on either side.
Sen. John McCain disappointed Democrats on Capitol Hill on Sunday by defending the Bush administration's decision to use the National Security Agency to monitor a limited number of domestic phone calls in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Posted by Seth at 04:43 AM | Comments (2) |
