America Attacked 9 1 1
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
ChronWatch Writers' Blog: Lying About Middle Eastern Land
ChronWatch Writers' Blog: Lying About Middle Eastern Land: "One of the few things unchallengeable about the Middle East conflict is that it has virtually nothing to do with land. Arab countries already control 6,145,389 square miles of land. That is almost twice the land area of the United States, which is 3,537,438 square miles, and about the same as the land area of Russia. Israel, even when including all of the 'occupied territories' retained from the 1967 SIx Day War, controls less than 10,000 square miles.
The West Bank and the Gaza Strip comprise about 2300 square miles (a bit less when deducting Jerusalem and its suburbs from the account), which is about half the size of the Everglades. The Moonbats-against-Israel lobby wants us to believe that with 6,145,389 square miles, the Arabs want war and genocide, but with 6,145,389 plus 2300 more, then they will want peace. If Israel only trades “land for peace” with the land-deprived Arabs, and never mind that its abandonment of the West Bank would leave an Israel ten miles wide and waiting for the Arab armies to annihilate, then all will be well.
The 'anti-Zionists' want the world to believe that the entire Middle East war is due to the fact that those evil selfish Jews are unwilling to share their 10,000 square miles with the poor land-starved Arabs. But in reality, the obvious true cause of the Middle East war is the fact that the Arab world is unwilling to allow the Jews to control even a sixth of one percent of the territory of the Middle East. The Arabs, controlling more land than any other ethnic group on the planet besides the Russians, are simply unwilling to share even the tiniest sliver of the Middle East with the Jews.
If the 'anti-Zionists', for their part, get what they want, then there will be no Jews left alive in Israel."
The West Bank and the Gaza Strip comprise about 2300 square miles (a bit less when deducting Jerusalem and its suburbs from the account), which is about half the size of the Everglades. The Moonbats-against-Israel lobby wants us to believe that with 6,145,389 square miles, the Arabs want war and genocide, but with 6,145,389 plus 2300 more, then they will want peace. If Israel only trades “land for peace” with the land-deprived Arabs, and never mind that its abandonment of the West Bank would leave an Israel ten miles wide and waiting for the Arab armies to annihilate, then all will be well.
The 'anti-Zionists' want the world to believe that the entire Middle East war is due to the fact that those evil selfish Jews are unwilling to share their 10,000 square miles with the poor land-starved Arabs. But in reality, the obvious true cause of the Middle East war is the fact that the Arab world is unwilling to allow the Jews to control even a sixth of one percent of the territory of the Middle East. The Arabs, controlling more land than any other ethnic group on the planet besides the Russians, are simply unwilling to share even the tiniest sliver of the Middle East with the Jews.
If the 'anti-Zionists', for their part, get what they want, then there will be no Jews left alive in Israel."
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Great narative/comment on the changes that hath been wroght!
To venture into the Arab world, as I did recently over four weeks in Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan and Iraq, is to travel into Bush Country. I was to encounter people from practically all Arab lands, to listen in on a great debate about the possibility of freedom and liberty. I met Lebanese giddy with the Cedar Revolution that liberated their country from the Syrian prison that had seemed an unalterable curse. They were under no illusions about the change that had come their way. They knew that this new history was the gift of an American president who had put the Syrian rulers on notice. The speed with which Syria quit Lebanon was astonishing, a race to the border to forestall an American strike that the regime could not discount. I met Syrians in the know who admitted that the fear of American power, and the example of American forces flushing Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole, now drive Syrian policy. They hang on George Bush's words in Damascus, I was told: the rulers wondering if Iraq was a crystal ball in which they could glimpse their future.
The weight of American power, historically on the side of the dominant order, now drives this new quest among the Arabs. For decades, the intellectual classes in the Arab world bemoaned the indifference of American power to the cause of their liberty. Now a conservative American president had come bearing the gift of Wilsonian redemption. For a quarter century the Pax Americana had sustained the autocracy of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak: He had posed as America's man on the Nile, a bulwark against the Islamists. He was sly and cunning, running afoul of our purposes in Iraq and over Israeli-Palestinian matters. He had nurtured a culture of antimodernism and anti-Americanism, and had gotten away with it. Now the wind from Washington brought tidings: America had wearied of Mr. Mubarak, and was willing to bet on an open political process, with all its attendant risks and possibilities. The brave oppositional movement in Cairo that stepped forth under the banner of Kifaya ("Enough!") wanted the end of his reign: It had had enough of his mediocrity, enough of the despotism of an aging officer who had risen out of the military bureaucracy to entertain dynastic dreams of succession for his son. Egyptians challenging the quiescence of an old land may have had no kind words to say about America in the past. But they were sure that the play between them and the regime was unfolding under Mr. Bush's eyes.
Indeed, this is a spectacular meeting in time. The fact is that people everywhere want some same basic things, summed up by the Virginian Renaissance Man, Thomas Jeffeferson, thus: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As the world has modernized, the list of demands has grown, but the same basic rights underlie all. Thus, given an opportunity, the people will act.
Unfortunately, American power hasn't always been on the right side. For this, America is understanbly excoriated and suspected. But it is curious (though not to true liberals) that anti-Americanism is strongest in relatively peaceful societies that are yet repressed by nominal allies of the United Sates (e.g., Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia), and yet not quite as strong among the people abandoned by America when they sought to answer her bright call (the Shiites of Iraq).
This time, though, America might just be on the right side, and, at the very least, her intentions seem true and sincere. A glaring exception thus far, however, is in Uzbekistan. But that will not stop Lebanese activists from pursuing their own opportunity to try the democratic experiment, especially as America keeps an eye on, and continues to pressure, Syria.
Mr. Ajami even draws the obvious correlation with Europe at the end of the Cold War:
As I made my way on this Arab journey, I picked up a meditation that Massimo d'Azeglio, a Piedmontese aristocrat who embraced that "springtime" in Europe, offered about his time, which speaks so directly to this Arab time: "The gift of liberty is like that of a horse, handsome, strong, and high-spirited. In some it arouses a wish to ride; in many others, on the contrary, it increases the desire to walk." It would be fair to say that there are many Arabs today keen to walk--frightened as they are by the prospect of the Islamists coming to power and curtailing personal liberties, snuffing out freedoms gained at such great effort and pain. But more Arabs, I hazard to guess, now have the wish to ride. It is a powerful temptation that George W. Bush has brought to their doorstep.
Read the whole thing, and thank goodness for writers like Mr. Ajami!ef="http://awesternheart.blogspot.com/2005/05/bush-doctrine-creates-more-bush.html">A Western Heart
Monday, May 23, 2005
Contracts - "without prejudice"
Contracts - "without prejudice": "'Without Prejudice'
Contracts
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) recognizes that it is possible for anyone of us to be commercially coerced into signing a contract that we would not sign had we true free agency. The UCC provides that if we sign a contract under such adverse conditions, and if we do so “without prejudice” or “under protest,” then we preserve all our rights.
UCC, Section 1-207, states:
Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights
A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as 'without prejudice', 'under protest' or the like are sufficient.
If it is necessary to assert your rights in court, when the point is raised, here is a suggested testimony to offer when explaining what you meant when you claimed “without prejudice”:
“It indicates I have exercised the remedy provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code by which I might reserve the Common Law Right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that I have not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, that notifies all administrative agencies of government that I do not accept the liability associated with the compelled benefits of any unrevealed commercial agreement.”
The Uniform Commercial Code is Admiralty Law, which has come on shore. The “without prejudice” clause is the window which enables one to assert their 7th Amendment guarantee of access to the Common Law.
Some people are putting the words, “without prejudice” on everything they sign, above their signature. E.g. they are putting it on applications for driver's license, tax returns, voter registration, bank checks, gun purchases, marriage licenses, etc.
Anderson's UCC annotated part: can only reserve those rights which you have. Explicit about your domicile/citizenship (capitalize Citizenship), a Citizen of the republic not a citizen of the government (see Fourteenth Amendment). It also states that the UCC is in harmony with the Common Law. This then is the only way in which you can assert ('reserve') your Rights as you are being coerced into these contracts with the various levels of government."
Contracts
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) recognizes that it is possible for anyone of us to be commercially coerced into signing a contract that we would not sign had we true free agency. The UCC provides that if we sign a contract under such adverse conditions, and if we do so “without prejudice” or “under protest,” then we preserve all our rights.
UCC, Section 1-207, states:
Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights
A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as 'without prejudice', 'under protest' or the like are sufficient.
If it is necessary to assert your rights in court, when the point is raised, here is a suggested testimony to offer when explaining what you meant when you claimed “without prejudice”:
“It indicates I have exercised the remedy provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code by which I might reserve the Common Law Right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that I have not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, that notifies all administrative agencies of government that I do not accept the liability associated with the compelled benefits of any unrevealed commercial agreement.”
The Uniform Commercial Code is Admiralty Law, which has come on shore. The “without prejudice” clause is the window which enables one to assert their 7th Amendment guarantee of access to the Common Law.
Some people are putting the words, “without prejudice” on everything they sign, above their signature. E.g. they are putting it on applications for driver's license, tax returns, voter registration, bank checks, gun purchases, marriage licenses, etc.
Anderson's UCC annotated part: can only reserve those rights which you have. Explicit about your domicile/citizenship (capitalize Citizenship), a Citizen of the republic not a citizen of the government (see Fourteenth Amendment). It also states that the UCC is in harmony with the Common Law. This then is the only way in which you can assert ('reserve') your Rights as you are being coerced into these contracts with the various levels of government."
"Have Conservatives Thrown in the Towel?" by Alan�Caruba
"Have Conservatives Thrown in the Towel?" by Alan�Caruba: "As a movement, a unifying force, the conservatism that mobilized people to vote in sufficient numbers to give control of Congress to Republicans in 1994 and, with the exception of eight years with Bill Clinton in office, has put Republicans in the White House, has lost its momentum.
Since then, the Democrat Party has drifted so far to the left that it needs to change its name to something like, oh, the Socialist Party. Worse yet, what passes for the Republican Party today has drifted to the left with them. Not as far, but enough to become the party of Big Government and Big Spending.
And here’s where it gets fuzzy when one defines “conservatives.” Much of Buchanan’s lament was devoted to the erosion of moral standards. “American culture has become toxic and poisonous,” he said, referencing the garbage coming out of Hollywood and seen on television, although he also noted the reduction of the power of the States as enumerated in the Constitution. Today, the States are in the grip of the federal government thanks to sweeping judicial decisions that deny them the right to decide their own policies.
Today, when people think of “conservatives,” the popular perception is that of religious fundamentalists concerned with moral issues. While they are among the most vocal, there are many more conservatives for whom religion is merely a component of their lives. For them, the traditional conservative issues such as Second Amendment and property rights, privacy, fiscal prudence, and national sovereignty arouse their ire because they have very little traction in Washington, DC these days."
Since then, the Democrat Party has drifted so far to the left that it needs to change its name to something like, oh, the Socialist Party. Worse yet, what passes for the Republican Party today has drifted to the left with them. Not as far, but enough to become the party of Big Government and Big Spending.
And here’s where it gets fuzzy when one defines “conservatives.” Much of Buchanan’s lament was devoted to the erosion of moral standards. “American culture has become toxic and poisonous,” he said, referencing the garbage coming out of Hollywood and seen on television, although he also noted the reduction of the power of the States as enumerated in the Constitution. Today, the States are in the grip of the federal government thanks to sweeping judicial decisions that deny them the right to decide their own policies.
Today, when people think of “conservatives,” the popular perception is that of religious fundamentalists concerned with moral issues. While they are among the most vocal, there are many more conservatives for whom religion is merely a component of their lives. For them, the traditional conservative issues such as Second Amendment and property rights, privacy, fiscal prudence, and national sovereignty arouse their ire because they have very little traction in Washington, DC these days."
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Jeff Jacoby: Why Islam is disrespected
Jeff Jacoby: Why Islam is disrespected: "Christians, Jews, and Buddhists don't lash out in homicidal rage when their religion is insulted. They don't call for holy war and riot in the streets. It would be unthinkable for a mainstream priest, rabbi, or lama to demand that a blasphemer be slain. But when Reuters reported what Mohammad Hanif, the imam of a Muslim seminary in Pakistan, said about the alleged Koran-flushers — ''They should be hung. They should be killed in public so that no one can dare to insult Islam and its sacred symbols' — was any reader surprised?
The Muslim riots should have been met by outrage and condemnation. From every part of the civilized world should have come denunciations of those who would react to the supposed destruction of a book with brutal threats and the slaughter of 17 innocent people. But the chorus of condemnation was directed not at the killers and the fanatics who incited them, but at Newsweek. "
The Muslim riots should have been met by outrage and condemnation. From every part of the civilized world should have come denunciations of those who would react to the supposed destruction of a book with brutal threats and the slaughter of 17 innocent people. But the chorus of condemnation was directed not at the killers and the fanatics who incited them, but at Newsweek. "
Leaving the left / I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity
Leaving the left / I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity:
= = = = = =
"I smile when friends tell me I've 'moved right.' I laugh out loud at what now passes for progressive on the main lines of the cultural left.
In the name of 'diversity,' the University of Arizona has forbidden discrimination based on 'individual style.' The University of Connecticut has banned 'inappropriately directed laughter.' Brown University, sensing unacceptable gray areas, warns that harassment 'may be intentional or unintentional and still constitute harassment.' (Yes, we're talking 'subconscious harassment' here. We're watching your thoughts ...).
Wait, it gets better. When actor Bill Cosby called on black parents to explain to their kids why they are not likely to get into medical school speaking English like 'Why you ain't' and 'Where you is,' Jesse Jackson countered that the time was not yet right to 'level the playing field.' Why not? Because 'drunk people can't do that ... illiterate people can't do that.'
When self-styled pragmatic feminist Camille Paglia mocked young coeds who believe 'I should be able to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy's room without anything happening,' Susan Estrich spoke up for gender- focused feminists who 'would argue that so long as women are powerless relative to men, viewing 'yes' as a sign of true consent is misguided.'
I'll admit my politics have shifted in recent years, as have America's political landscape and cultural horizon. Who would have guessed that the U.S. senator with today's best voting record on human rights would be not Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer but Kansas Republican Sam Brownback?"
Raed it all. It will make you think!
= = = = = =
"I smile when friends tell me I've 'moved right.' I laugh out loud at what now passes for progressive on the main lines of the cultural left.
In the name of 'diversity,' the University of Arizona has forbidden discrimination based on 'individual style.' The University of Connecticut has banned 'inappropriately directed laughter.' Brown University, sensing unacceptable gray areas, warns that harassment 'may be intentional or unintentional and still constitute harassment.' (Yes, we're talking 'subconscious harassment' here. We're watching your thoughts ...).
Wait, it gets better. When actor Bill Cosby called on black parents to explain to their kids why they are not likely to get into medical school speaking English like 'Why you ain't' and 'Where you is,' Jesse Jackson countered that the time was not yet right to 'level the playing field.' Why not? Because 'drunk people can't do that ... illiterate people can't do that.'
When self-styled pragmatic feminist Camille Paglia mocked young coeds who believe 'I should be able to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy's room without anything happening,' Susan Estrich spoke up for gender- focused feminists who 'would argue that so long as women are powerless relative to men, viewing 'yes' as a sign of true consent is misguided.'
I'll admit my politics have shifted in recent years, as have America's political landscape and cultural horizon. Who would have guessed that the U.S. senator with today's best voting record on human rights would be not Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer but Kansas Republican Sam Brownback?"
Raed it all. It will make you think!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
