1/2/2005
Mike Whitney and the enemies among us
The name of this piece should have been: Mike Whitney and his friends, the enemies among us. Let me introduce you to the man behind the curtain: Mike Whitney, of the 44th District in Washington State. Take note, Shannon, if you’re listening. Mike is another great example, while I’m on the theme of leftists and their Anti-American sentiments and how they’re supporting terrorists at home. Mike Whitney, of Washington State,aka the Agg Pro or he may have moved to this site, I’m not sure, is an admitted, even proud member of the ACLU, and although he is grammar and spelling-challenged, he is more widely published than anyone could imagine. When he came over here bragging about how published he is, I had no idea because I don’t take it upon myself to frequent The Smirking Chimp, Counterpunch or the Catalyst Journal. It’s no wonder he didn’t go any further with his admissions, because he knew full well they wouldn’t be well-received. You think I’m kidding about people like Kevin Sites who reporting ON BEHALF OF Al Jazeera? Take a look at this one. The thing that’s pathetic to me is Kevin Sites was probably threatened (maybe tortured) to do it, because it wasn’t long after his capture that the famous footage he took of the marine killing the terrorist was released by Al Jazeera. (Sites’ bio says he was captured by Iraqi Fedayeen militia outside Tikrit while traveling with Kurdish fighters and spent four hours in captivity before being released.)
Mike Whitney, however, from the comfort of his own home, does it for free. It’s like John Kerry lying to the Winter Soldier investigation. Only Whitney was never in Iraq. So I can only imagine he’s one of those guys who’s too much of a coward to actually participate in the terrorist activities himself; so he lives vicariously through the terrorists themselves.
i just want to make a comment on this picture before i go on. it sums up my sentiments on how we’re fighting this war and how the terrorists do it; but just remember. Behind that terrorist, cheering them on (even more of a coward than the terrorist hiding behind that woman), are people like Mike Whitney.
Actually, I don’t see that he’s a credible testament to anything except for one thing: there are people inside the US who are cheering for the enemy and there are activists like Mike Whitney who are working alongside them to help them achieve their goals.
Cases in point: here, here but remember that this article is linked here, and there is even more here, here and here and he’s also called for us to disarm our military (or is that abandon the whole concept of defending ourselves?), here.
I must really be getting under the skin of these idiots because Joe Lieberman himself paid my site a visit-you can see his site here.
Now that I’ve put this picture together, it is no wonder that I’ve been receiving personal emails from lawyers congratulating me on what I’ve been putting up over here. When I first started receiving these emails, I thought maybe it was related to pieces like The Top Ten Leftist Americans which featured Lynne Stewart and Brian Becker and then later, Ramsey Clark-Still Saddam’s Sock Puppet, (still referring to Lynne Stewart). To me, these are prime examples of the war on terrorism that is being fought right here at home and describes exactly how these people are siding with the enemy. The socialist “Hate America” crowd sees our existing system as evil imperialism, they cry out for the deformed children that we’ve supposedly hurt with American chemicals (but they are wrong; Saddam did the gassing), and even the ridiculous assumption that we’re harvesting organs from dead Iraqis. I made fun of that assumption here, but you have to know that there are Americans who are claiming it’s true and they’re claiming that the American government and Bush are guilty of war crimes–it’s literally like listening to the lying voice of Bin Laden (only in English).
If you have any conversations with criminal lawyers, including members of what might be called the “terror bar” (e.g. the ACLU), you will find many of them less decisive in Stewart’s defense than the public chorus suggests. Carl Herman spent 1 1/2 years fighting to keep Mohammed Saddiq Odeh from receiving the death penalty for the Nairobi Embassy bombing. He waited for the day when Odeh would have a change of heart, but it never came. On Sept. 11 Herman lost a friend in one of the towers. A few weeks later he had to visit Odeh in the downtown Metropolitan Correctional Center, and Herman discovered he couldn’t even look his client in the eye. Afterward he heard that the embassy bombers, when told what the loud noise at the World Trade Center was, exchanged thumbs up. Herman has sworn off defending terrorists. ”We’re not talking about phony revolutionaries, or Mafia guys, or nuts,” he says. ”These guys are really dedicated to wiping out me and my family. I can just find something else to do with my time.”
Even Ron Kuby, a strong defender of Stewart, had a change of heart on many things since Sept. 11. He now regrets having defended El Sayyid A. Nosair, accused of killing the Jewish extremist Meir Kahane. When Sattar, the sheik’s paralegal, was arrested along with Stewart, Kuby was ready to represent him at the bail hearing, until Kuby’s wife said, ”You don’t know what he was doing.” Kuby reached a decision: ”I sure as hell don’t think people who would take my family, put them in purdah and put me up against a wall and shoot me are entitled to my support in that struggle.”
The key to understanding the ACLU lies in a single word — ideology.
Ideology is the attempt to account for the vast complexity of politics and society by using only a few rarified concepts. The ideologue seizes on a handful of abstractions and then claims everything else must somehow conform to them.
To see how the ACLU is helping terrorists and defending their rights to do WHATEVER, the American Communist Lawyers Union’s (the true meaning behind the acronym) batch of press releases around August of 2004, insists that they will never check their new hires against terrorism watch lists. (mind you, this is just one example, for the sake of conversation.)
The problem for the ACLU is that they already signed an agreement to use the watch lists in order to obtain nearly $500,000 from the Combined Federal Campaign, as required by the USA PATRIOT Act. The CFC is an agency which dispenses charitable donations from federal and state employees to more than 2,000 non-profit groups, which totals some $250 million per year.
The ACLU, however, despite all its bluster about the Constitution, apparently has little use for contract law. They decided to simply disregard the list. And they probably would have gotten away with it if they could have kept their egos in check. But that, of course, is quite impossible for these pompous asses, and soon ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero was announcing to the world on NPR that while he’d printed out the watch lists, he’d “never consulted them.” Furthermore, he had no intention of doing so.
When CFC Director Mara Patermaster pointed out in the New York Times that the ACLU was willfully violating government policy, the ACLU actually voted to heed the agreement and collect their cash. Then Romero, seemingly unable to repress any rash impulse whatsoever, pulled out of the agreement entirely, and began screaming the ACLU’s favorite word from the rooftops, one so integral to the martyr myth the group was built on—”blacklist.”
“It is increasingly clear that the Patriot Act and the government’s ‘war on terror’ are threatening the ability of America’s non-profit charities to do their essential work,” Romero wrote in a letter to Patermaster. “By requiring non-profit charities to check their employees against a ‘blacklist’ in order to receive donations from the CFC, you are furthering a climate of fear and intimidation that undermines the health and well-being of this nation.”
Now it must be conceded that, yes, the government is seeking a “blacklist” here. According to the U.S. State Department, the government is seeking a “blacklist” on those who have committed or threatened to commit the following actions: “hijacking or sabotage of an aircraft, vessel, vehicle or other conveyance; hostage taking; a violent attack on an internationally protected person; assassination; or the use of any biological agent, chemical agent, nuclear weapon or device, or explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.”
Essentially, the ACLU is being asked to not hire those who seek to murder large numbers of Americans. Perhaps it should surprise us that the ACLU is reluctant to agree to such a request. But even the radicals over at the ACLU know how this must sound to the average American and are using all sorts of permutations to attempt to make it more palatable.
For example, in an ACLU press release on the matter the group contended that the terrorism watch lists were a sham because they had pulled a single name from the list—Julio Ramirez–and found hundreds of people across the nation with the same name. “Any non-profit that employs a Julio Ramirez would now be obligated to ask potentially intrusive questions about his personal life and beliefs,” the ACLU lectures.
If you aren’t a terrorist, is it really going to be such a big deal to go ahead and say you aren’t one? Does saying you do not, in fact, want to murder Americans sound like too much of a “loyalty oath” for the folks over at the ACLU? If a certain six foot eight, bearded man applied for a position at the ACLU, would it be too much to ask Anthony Romero to inquire as to whether the Osama before him was one and the same with the Osama currently sought in the mass murder of September 11? Or would that be “potentially intrusive”?
Unfortunately, the hysteria has spread, and the ACLU is not alone in seeking what amounts to a Right to Work law for terrorists. They have been joined by a coalition that includes such lefty luminaries as the Advocacy Institute, Amnesty International, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the NAACP, the National Women’s Law Center, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and Sierra Club.
Some of the claims by these other groups rivals even the crudely ludicrous rhetoric of the ACLU. For example, Barbara Brenner, Executive Director of Breast Cancer Action, has embarrassed herself by going on-record saying that checking terrorism watch lists “forced” her organization “to choose between accepting these restrictions”—i.e., not hiring terrorists—”and putting federal employees’ contributions to good use to help women confronting a life-threatening illness.”
So now a stand against providing terrorists jobs is the equivalent of supporting breast cancer? Not to most Americans, I’d bet. Permanent victimhood is the bread and butter of groups like the ACLU, PETA, the Sierra Club, and, now apparently, Breast Cancer Action. Heroes and legends in their own minds, they’ve become rich by embracing Blame America First mentality on every major social and policy issue our country has faced. Protecting terrorists in the midst of the War on Terror is but a continuation of this philosophy which for the average Joe like me, is an EXTREME CONCERN.
For this and so many other reasons, we must get the ACLU off the taxpayer dole. I sure as hell don’t want to be paying any portion whatsoever of my tax money to these assholes to defend terrorists anywhere in this country. And hey Joe and Mike–you can go to hell, because if you think we’re going to sit still for this, you’ve got another thing coming. You’re seeing to it that one day soon someone will have the privilege of hearing “allah akbar”! after some tragic event on our soil, just like the people did on those planes on 9/11. I hope you’re within earshot; because you will be personally responsible.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
Long Time Gone linked with The enemy among us
Long Time Gone linked with The enemy among us
January 2nd, 2005 at 8:48 am
Wow. I am impressed. On the bright side, organizations like the ACLU are moving further and further away from not just mainstream America but all semblance of rationality. And in the marketplace of ideas they will soon be given no more credibility than other extremist groups. Not unlike the KKK. Yes, I just compared the ACLU to the KKK. Soon to be nothing but fringe group full of wackos that no thinking person takes seriously, but can nevertheless still be dangerous.
It is good to see them exposed in such a forthright way. Nice job, Cao.
January 2nd, 2005 at 9:02 am
Thanks, John. Imitating the ostrich-like posture of certain Germans who ignored the growing danger during Hitler’s rise to power, today’s liberals are deliberately encouraging the real threats of violence that surround us. Their narcissistic self-images require absolute solicitude toward the angry savages who are actually plotting acts of terrorism. The only people who scare them are the ones, like me, who worship a Jew.
January 2nd, 2005 at 9:20 am
The enemy among us
Cao has a very impressive post on her blog talking about groups like the ACLU who have gone beyond mere opposition to U.S. policy to actual support of the enemies who would see us dead. I have long held the view that a frightening number of the mainst…
January 2nd, 2005 at 9:30 am
Powerful stuff. I need to digest this. I’ll comment again later.
I will say this. That we have to be vigilant, re our rights, is a given. So in that sense, the ACLU may have, at one time, served a purpose. However, you are right to say that the ACLU has moved from being a defender of rights to a proponent of a certain ideaology. Of course, this is antithetical to defending rights- the assurances that we can count on certain absolutes to defend our way of life and our values.
We have never been a nation that has stood in the way of anyone’s expression of religious worship, culture or even ideologies, provided they were within the confines of an free society.
To advocate the anything else is treasonous.
See this.
January 2nd, 2005 at 9:45 am
Thanks, SC&A. You reference a great piece. IMO, Bin Laden has brought upon himself talk of FREEDOM in the Arab world with his intense hatred of the US. Unfortunately, we have a shadow war going on as a result; enemies of freedom who are US citizens. Although this shadow war has been going on for a long time, so perhaps it is a blessing in disguise; this action has brought it forward out of the darkness, into the light, for all to see. And yes, the word “traitor” comes to my mind, too. It is clearly a case of aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war.
January 2nd, 2005 at 9:48 am
I am currently reading a biograhy on Thomas Jeffereson, and in it is a quote from Abraham Lincoln that is appropriate for today’s situation.
January 27, 1838: “The Perpetuation of our Political Institutions”
“Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; and with a Bounaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
January 2nd, 2005 at 9:54 am
Excellent cracker–:lol: I have to say that again because it makes me laugh-cracker, it pleases me to no end that you are reading Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. IMO, we must get back to basics: studying fervently our founders and their letters and documents, what they put in place to insure our freedom, before it’s completely lost to us. Excellent. Kudos!
January 2nd, 2005 at 11:09 am
Happy:mrgreen::mrgreen: New Year, Cao! Give the ACLU you know what!
January 2nd, 2005 at 11:12 am
What happened? My visits are now met with a pop up that won’t go away that wants me install a program. A traffic killer!
January 2nd, 2005 at 11:15 am
Someone is trying to prevent this message from getting out. If you find a way of getting rid of it would you let me know please. Thanks, Paul–are you getting that popup, too?
January 2nd, 2005 at 11:52 am
Happy New Year, Cao!
Wow! I, too, will need to read and digest this post (where do you get the talent to write these bloody good essays??!!!) before I can comment more cogently.
In the meantime: a) WHERE did you get that “difference” pic??? I want one! and b) I’d also love to know where you got that lovely lady saying “Right We Are.”
One of these days, I’m going to upgrade my typepad acct and redo it in proper patriotic red white and blue! LOL
OK, back to reading…..
January 2nd, 2005 at 12:04 pm
Wow..what an ignorant mess. I hardly no where to begin.
Your rantings against the ACLU are laughable. The ACLU defends civil liberties of all stripes and has among it’s backers some very prominent conservatives (both socially and economically).
You appear to be advocating for blacklisting individuals in the McCarthy era style. Just exactly when will the shame kick in for you? Attempting to remove people’s livelihood because you disagree with their politics is antithetical to everything our founders wanted for this nation. It’s unpatriotic and disgusting. For shame.
Now in terms of “defense of terrorists”…just exactly what do you define as a terrorist? It seems to me that you’re in a hurry to label anyone who has a political disagreement with you as such. Your complete disregard for the intent of our founders is a mighty display of your ignorance.
January 2nd, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Carla, that just goes to show how much you know about the ACLU, which is zippo zilch, nada. Here’s a blacklist for ya, sister: click here, here, and here. And that opinion of yours has no links or facts in it, it’s merely an opinion which is founded upon uh…NOTHING. I’ve backed mine up with credible facts and sources. I know leftists believe what they want, but I can’t honestly believe that you would just blindly follow George Soros without at least considering the evidence. It would appear to me as though you didn’t read through the whole piece, which also demonstrates that you guys don’t READ.
Now it must be conceded that, yes, the government is seeking a “blacklist” here. According to the U.S. State Department, the government is seeking a “blacklist” on those who have committed or threatened to commit the following actions: “hijacking or sabotage of an aircraft, vessel, vehicle or other conveyance; hostage taking; a violent attack on an internationally protected person; assassination; or the use of any biological agent, chemical agent, nuclear weapon or device, or explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.”
Thanks, Romeocat. I do a lot of reading, what can I say? You’re welcome to swipe them both. Just right click and save to your hard drive. I got “the difference” from my friend Raven at And Rightly So, and I got the other one from Oyster at Soy Como Soy
“The difference” was originally called “The Spirit of the IDF” and here’s what it looks like in hebrew click here
January 2nd, 2005 at 12:33 pm
Oh, thanks, Cao! You are very gracious. I’ve saved it to my hard drive, with your blog credited so I don’t forget.
*sigh* Now I have to disconnect *sniff* and drive 4 1/2 hours to go back to Chesapeake. I’ll be back on this evening!
Luv and hugzz,
R’cat
January 2nd, 2005 at 12:35 pm
You’re welcome. I’ve got stuff to do, too, so later, y’all.
January 2nd, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Cao:
You’ve backed your opinion with “credible facts and sources”…you mean like the ones you linked to in your response to me? LOL please. Sending me to sites polluted by anti-ACLU ranting isn’t credible. It’s a circle jerk.
It seems obvious to me that I could post links to legal, journalistic and historical experts on the virtues of the ACLU, including their defense of Christians, and it wouldn’t matter to you. You’re clearly not interested in facts. You’re interested in what will massage your belief system.
There are several hardcore conservatives who work for the ACLU:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-11-24-aclu-usat_x.htm
Incidentally, blacklisting is a very dangerous precedent. Once you decide to blacklist for political reasons (and make no mistake…that’s exactly what it is)…it will come back to you. That’s the essence of karma. Or in Christianity’s case, the Golden Rule.
January 2nd, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Carla, speaking of ignorance, your post misses the whole issue and yes, McCarthy’s methods were wrong. Funny thing is, McCarthy was right. The problem is, he didn’t know it! Recently declassified information has proved him technically correct. Your problem is focusing on a minute bit and making incorrect inferences without having a clue about the big picture.
January 2nd, 2005 at 1:34 pm
Maybe when you calm down you can actually read what is written here rather than a kneejerk emotional response. My take on this is you read just a smidgeon and got pissed off and went on a rant. Which is ok, but at least you could have calm down before you posted.
Please, save the **** about Christianity, Ms Karma. I really have no interest whatsoever in hearing about it from someone who doesn’t realize God is the only one who is qualified to stand in judgement.
USA today? Are you kidding me? That link is 2 years old and Armey and Barr are gone, I hate to inform you, although they’re still active doing things. Here’s Bob Barr’s bio page and here’s **** Armey’s. At least you could dig up a link that’s relevant. How stupid do you think I am, anyway? Or is it you who’s revealing your stupidity?
I’m glad I struck a nerve in your little unused thought center, maybe you’ll start using those brains you were endowed with.
Blacklisting people who want to kill thousands of Americans is dangerous?
Defending people like Ramsey Clark who is defending Saddam Hussein on the grounds that the United States is an imperialist leviathin–I think that’s dangerous.
Defending Lynne Stewart who defended Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the spiritual leader of the worldwide jihad movement), who went on trial for conspiracy among his followers to bomb sites around New York City, including bridges, tunnels and the United Nations, I think THAT’s dangerous.
Defending people connected with the PLO, Hamas and Hezabollah, I think that’s dangerous.
AND YOU DEFEND THEIR RIGHT TO DO IT? You’re nuts.
You’re right, I believe in Karma. And I believe that those people who are defending terrorists oughtta BE THERE when there’s another 9/11 and they’re yelling “allah akbar!”
January 2nd, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Cao:
So you don’t believe in the system of jurisprudence…where every person who stands accused should receive a fair trial with a vigorous defense? Interesting excuse to use the Constitution as toilet paper.
And as I figured..no link I could provide to you would suffice. You dismiss it completely because it’s USA Today…like somehow Bob Barr wasn’t hired by the ACLU. LOL Would you believe it only if one of your anti-ACLU circle jerk members posted it on their site?
And as far as God goes…you seem to think you know who He judges negatively and who he doesn’t. Interesting presumption on your part. What did you pay for the hotline to this divine ability?
And as far as “wanting to kill thousands of Americans”..that’s hardly what this blacklisting only covers. It amounts to nothing more than going after people who believe differently on a political scale. Your defense of it not withstanding.
January 2nd, 2005 at 1:52 pm
Save the preaching for the choir.
Interesting that wackos like you want to use the constitution to wipe us off the face of the earth.
I believe in jurisprudence, just not for Islamist wackos who’ve vowed to kill us.
You remind me of someone else who posted here. I hardly sent off a response when he already had posted another.
You’re making me laugh, quite honestly. You’re not interested in what I have to say, you’re trying to beat me INTO SUBMISSION.
Just like the Islamists.
January 2nd, 2005 at 1:59 pm
Oh….so the Constitution only counts when it’s the stuff you wish to pick and choose. Congratulations on embracing your inner hypocrite.
Did you believe in jurisprudence for Tim McVeigh…who blew up hundreds of people in OKC? How about Terry Nichols? Did you believe in it for the Montana Freeman? What about Scott Petersen? Whacko is as whacko does.
Interesting projections on your part, btw. You post immediately after I do…but are irritated if I do it. And you’re completely disinterested in what I have to say…so much so that you post retorts almost immediately after I post them.
Interesting how when a mirror is held up to you….you show yourself to be exactly what you say you hate….religious extremists.
January 2nd, 2005 at 2:10 pm
hehehe, “religious extremists”, you are so funny.
Let’s have some jurisprudence for the 8 guys who ran back to Iraq who were responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing and Clinton’s move to make racial profiling illegal. Mind you, the evidence that Jayna Davis uncovered was not even used in the trials of Timothy Mcveigh and Terry Nichols. But you probably don’t even know about the Iraqi National Guard members who fled back to Iraq after the bombing.
OK, Ms. Karma, whatever. Go back to chanting hare krishna and singing ‘give peace a chance’. It’s a much better world and I feel so much safer with people who understand that terrorists who have vowed to kill us deserve the right to kill us and we “religious extremists” don’t deserve any rights at all.
January 2nd, 2005 at 2:17 pm
Cao: “You’re not interested in what I have to say, you’re trying to beat me INTO SUBMISSION.”
LOL and you’re not trying to do precisely that to her?
Simply amazing… But, it’s certainly in line with the patently false conclussions you’ve drawn.
“…Use the Constitution to wipe us off the face of the earth” indeed. There’s not a single shred of evidence to support such an assertion. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. But, you clearly don’t care about the truth. All you care about is demonizing whomever doesn’t march lockstep to your befuddled view of reality.
January 2nd, 2005 at 2:20 pm
[…] cCrarey @ 9:17 am | Filed under: General
Cao has a very http://caosblog.com/archives/2005/01/02/mike-whitney-and-the-enemies-among-us/trackback/“>impressive post on her blog talking about groups like th […]
January 2nd, 2005 at 2:26 pm
I’m not trying to “beat you into submission”, you can and will do whatever the hell you want. Oh c’mon. There’s tons of evidence of it of the ACLU removing our rights of freedom of speech.
Abdurahman Alamoudi, an alleged senior terrorist operative, is behind bars on an 18-count indictment. But he can take satisfaction in the fact that a court in California has just given the green light to schools following ACLU’s religion-in-the-classroom guidelines, which he helped to formulate.
A federal judge judge has now upheld the constitutionality of an intensive three-week course in California government schools that requires children to choose a Muslim name, wear Islamic garb, memorize verses from the Koraan, pray to Allah, play “jihad games, and simulate worship activities related to the Five Pillars of Islam.”
The next step: likely an appeal to the notoriously left-wing 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which deems the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.
But hasn’t American Civil Liberties Union lectured us that religious instruction in school violates what it describes as “separation of church and state” (a phrase that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution)? Read on. That injunction seems to depend on which religion is involved.
The guidelines in ACLU’s document is in effect a warning (some would say an implied threat) to schools as to how they can avoid legal challenges from the same ACLU on church/state issues in the classroom.
Alamoudi, founder and former executive director of American Muslim Council, was jailed on charges that include taking money believed to come from a charity Libya has used to support terror, taking $340,000 in cash with the intent to bring it to Syria from London. It is also believed some of the money was to be taken to Saudi Arabia (or Saudi accounts) and from there to organizations of influence the United States. The charges include money-laundering, misuse of a passport and failure to report bank accounts.
J. Michael Waller, Annenberg Professor of International Communications at the Institute of World Politics, believes Alamoudi’s arrest “may have ripped the lid off an international support network in Washington that operated to finance terrorists inside the United States and abroad,” according to Insight magazine.
Clintonoid Terrorist Connection
Alamoudi’s name will ring a bell with some readers. In 2000, he was identified him as a “friend and sometime adviser on Islamic affairs to Hillary Rodham Clinton,” and reported that he had stood before a crowd in Lafayette Park across the street from the White House “and passionately declared his support for the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbolah.”
NewsMax also quoted Alamoudi, a Clinton administration appointee, as a “goodwill ambassador” to Muslim countries. They cited his comment to a pro-Palestinian organization in Chicago in 1997, years before 9/11: “I think if we are outside this country, we can say oh, Allah, destroy America, but once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it. There is no way for Muslims to be violent in America, no way. We have other means to do it [destroy America].”
Some outraged parents, particularly in California, believe one of the “other means” Alamoudi might have had in mind was indoctrinating American children in school, an issue back on the front burner with this week’s decision by U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton.
Alamoudi, a naturalized American, proclaims he is innocent of any terrorist links or activities. In a letter to the Washington Post for Dec. 12, 2003, he blames an inaccurate translation of an Arabic interview he gave in 1999 for the implication that he supports terrorism. He said the charge ignored a preceding sentence “in which I clearly and unequivocally denounced terrorist violence.” He added he had been “criticized by many of my associates for believing that violence is never justified by any religion.”
ACLU confirmed that Alamoudi in fact represented American Muslim Council among the organizations that helped craft the ACLU document “Religion In The Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law.”
Many government schools have given great weight to the document as a warning. Anyone who follows the news knows ACLU aggressively looks for opportunities to run to court and sue anyone or any institution that shows the slightest trace of promoting Christianity in the public square.
As a result, many of them have bended over so far backward to show “tolerance” and avoid costly nuisance lawsuits that they have prompted outrage from parents who believe school authorities have crossed the line from tolerance to indoctrination in Islam. NewsMax will have more on that in upcoming articles.
The parents’ outrage led to the lawsuit by Christian students, now dismissed by Judge Hamilton. The jurist did not find the prayer and worship to be “devotional activities.” We will address the double standard inherent in the judge’s ruling in our next installment in this series.
Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy and a severe critic of radical Islam’s attempted influence in both major political parties in the United States, that among Muslims “the vast majority do not subscribe to ‘Islamist’ radical, intolerant, often violent jihadist tendencies” of those who want to kill Americans.
January 2nd, 2005 at 2:29 pm
Nevermind that Terry Nichols CONFESSED to having no co-conspirators…that is simply to be ignored…LOL
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1289796/posts
It’s a link via FreeRepublic…so enjoy.
Don’t think I haven’t noticed that you’ve done your level best to steer this completely off topic now. Interesting way to concede your ‘beating’.
January 2nd, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Well of course he ADMITTED IT. Because the terrorists told him he wouldn’t be convicted because he was a “lily white”. Which, incidentally, moonbat, means he didn’t have a record.
That’s so utterly ridiculous and ludricous, I’m laughing. I’ve been trying to follow your disconnected irrational line of thinking and observation, moonbats. I don’t think it’s me who’s posting faster than a speeding bullet, not paying attention to the responses and jumping from one thing to another, I’m just trying to address the issues as they come up. I’ve been trying like hell to make some sense out of this irrational tirade.
Laughable, really laughable.
I can discuss whatever it is you want to discuss, but you really should give me an opportunity to respond before you jump to your next memorized talking point.
I think I’m talking about the constitution, when up comes Timothy McVeigh. I try to address that, and up comes McCarthy, blacklisting, and a 2-year old link to USA today that’s not even relevant. What else? I’ve lost track. It’s like these conversational deux ex machina trump all facts. This is because you guys have a limited amount of memorized talking points, which you try to shoehorn into unrelated events. Those facts aren’t lost on me, believe me. I’m an old hand at this stuff.
C’mon. Give me some more. Shout me down, unplug my microphone–at least you can’t edit my answers. I get a kick out of watching you moonbats thrash your way out of an argument.
January 2nd, 2005 at 3:05 pm
In fact the ACLU has a proven track record of defending Christians. http://theindependentvoter.com/2004/12/aclu-hates-christians.html
It seems self-evident that what really irks you and your ilk is the fact that the ACLU also defends the rights of non-Christians.
January 2nd, 2005 at 3:11 pm
So how long have you been divorced from reality? A confession doesn’t count? The guy WAS convicted. Are you under some sort of delusion that he wouldn’t come out and retract after that under your scenario? For crying out loud man…get a reality check. He CONFESSED. He was CONVICTED. No “lilly white” scenario took place.
The Constitution has everything to do with our system of jurisprudence. And while I can see it’s difficult for you to follow anything that doesn’t match up with your warped and silly mindset…do get someone to sound out the big words for you.
You contend that a fair trial is okay for everyone but Muslims. That’s a slap in the face to everything the Constitution stands for…and frankly to everything Christ stood for.
You’re the one who originally brought up blacklisting…and defended it. Why you are lost on your own topic is your problem, not mine.
The facts aren’t lost on you in your own mind. I can see why. When there are no facts to get lost in the first place…it’s a pretty easy step to not feel lost. You’ve made up this entire little world in your head to satisfy your need to feel crucified and a pariah. Congratulations for mustering up the brain power. Too bad you’ve wasted it so drastically.
By the way…your defensive stance is giving you away. Every time you say that you’re “laughing”, it indicates to me that you’re irritated and upset that I’m taking you on..unafraid of your invectives and silly rhetoric. You’re not the first winger I’ve challenged and you won’t be the last.
Your ranting about Abdurahman Alamoudi is interesting…if not twisted. Alamoudi is very tight with Grover Norquist and has ties to all sorts of conservatives:
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/01848515.htm
(yes…I know you won’t buy it…but it will be fun to watch you try to pretend it doesn’t exist..LOL)
The American Muslim Council was backed and lobbied for by Norquist and his Janus Merrit Strategies group.
Incidentally…I’d rather do anything than shut you down or unplug your microphone. See unlike conservatives…I believe that shining light onto speech is a good thing, not a bad one. There’s no greater advocate for your twisted and sad belief set than yourself. So by all means…keep adding your rope.
January 2nd, 2005 at 3:18 pm
That’s one opinion, here’s mine. Perhaps this website will give you some idea.
The ACLU’s founder, Roger Baldwin, stated: “We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself… We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal.” (Source: Trial and Error, by Geo. Grant)
The ACLU is destructive to the fabric of our society. Christians must recognize Satan as the source - the instigator - when the end results of an organization’s efforts are only “to kill, to steal, and to destroy.” All we need to is examine the (rotten) fruit.
Following are some of the stated goals of the ACLU, from its own published Policy Issues:
– not to mention the defense and promotion of euthanasia, polygamy, government control of church institutions, gun control, tax-funded abortion, birth limitation, etc. (Policies 263, 133, 402, 47, 261, 323, 271, 91, 85).
Following is a case in point (from David Barton’s “America: To Pray or Not to Pray”).
In 1988, California was considering adopting legislation on sex education for public schools requiring that course material and instruction should stress that monogamous heterosexual intercourse within marriage is a traditional American value.
The Senator promoting the bill received a letter of protest from the ACLU dated April 18, 1988 stating:
“It is our position that monogamous, heterosexual intercourse within marriage as a traditional American value is an unconstitutional establishment of religious doctrine in public schools…. We believe [this bill] violates the First Amendment.”
Truth is, liberals are unwilling to simply let others be, but rather seek to impose their UNgodliness upon Christians. It is a mission to them and other atheists to pervert the freedoms of others. The ACLU does not run to the defense of those who are harmed; it aggressively seeks out opportunities to corrupt pure freedoms.
January 2nd, 2005 at 3:27 pm
I’m saying not all of the evidence was admitted. And Timothy McVeigh and Terry McNichols were convicted without a fair trial as a result, and the Islamists who were responsible went free.
Richard Clarke, in his book, “Against All Enemies,” acknowledges he “could never disprove” that McVeigh’s accomplice, Terry Nichols, learned the macabre genius of terrorist bomb making under the training of Philippines-based al-Qaida explosives expert Ramzi Yousef, the convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Davis first broke this lead eight years ago and uncovered eyewitness testimony directly linking the Kansas farmer to Osama bin Laden’s chief general. According to her research, Terry Nichols and Ramzi Yousef met in the southern Philippines in the early 1990s to discuss bomb making.
Evidence continues to mount of how effectively the former US Administration of Pres. William Clinton misdirected key elements of the US intelligence community (IC) for political purposes. What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is the fact that this distortion of the IC for such purposes left a legacy which contributed directly to the environment which allowed the successful terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, and to subsequent failures by the IC in effectively assessing ongoing terrorist threats.
1) Twenty-six sworn affidavits from eyewitnesses who implicate specific Arab men acting in collusion with McVeigh and Nichols during various stages of the bombing plot.
2) Classified government intelligence reports that tie Middle Eastern terrorist organizations to the attack.
3) Court documents, public records, as well as statements by law enforcement and intelligence sources that have independently corroborated the eyewitnesses’ testimonies. The findings have been documented through nearly seventy hours of videotaped interviews, recorded phone conversations, and hundreds of pages of transcripts.
These materials were submitted for evaluation to Chicago attorney, David P. Schippers, the former chief investigative counsel for the House Judiciary Committee in the 1998 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, and Larry Johnson, former Deputy Director of the State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism. Both of these gentlemen have publicly endorsed the credibility and veracity of the investigation that lays the blame for the murder of innocent Oklahomans at the doorstep of Middle Eastern terrorists.
According to the affidavits, this Iraqi national was identified as the man who climbed into the cab of the Ryder truck at an Oklahoma City motel at 8:00 AM on April 19 before it pulled off the lot and headed downtown. A tire store employee five blocks north of the Murrah building gave directions to McVeigh at 8:30 AM that morning, at which time he peered through the driver’s side window of the Ryder truck and observed the same Middle Eastern man sitting in the passenger seat. A customer standing inside the Social Security office pegged this individual from a photo spread as the man the witness observed stepping out of the Ryder truck at ground zero moments before the massive.
A fourth witness standing at Main and Robinson Streets, stepped into the path of a speeding brown Chevy pickup careening around the corner sixty seconds after the blast. She locked eyes with the driver, then she jumped back to avoid being hit. She later identified the same Iraqi soldier, proclaiming he was the man she encountered in a brush with death as he fled the crime scene in a getaway vehicle that matched the FBI all- points-bulletin issued on April 19 for Middle Eastern suspects. Two witnesses named this Iraqi national as the dark-haired, olive-skinned male they observed timing his run from the Murrah building one block east shortly before daybreak on April 19. A bartender and patron of an Oklahoma City tavern independently selected the Iraqi national’s photograph from a lineup as the subject they witnessed drinking beer with McVeigh prior to the bombing.
The evidence also implicates several of the Iraqi soldier’s co-workers. One of these men was identified sitting in the driver’s seat of a Chevrolet pickup at an Oklahoma City apartment complex hours before it was abandoned on the lot and towed to the FBI command post. According to police records, the FBI suspected the truck was the same vehicle that was seen speeding away from the vicinity of the federal building with two Middle Eastern looking occupants moments before the bomb went off.
Five witnesses independently fingered several of the Iraqi suspect’s Middle Eastern associates as frequent visitors to an Oklahoma City motel in the months, weeks, days, and hours leading up to 9:02 AM on April 19. On numerous occasions the Arab subjects were seen in the company of McVeigh, and during a few rare instances, associating with Terry Nichols.
The most startling evidence was recounted through the eyes of the motel owner and a maintenance worker who came within a few feet of a large Ryder truck parked on the west side of the parking lot at 7:40 AM on April 19. An unexplained strong pungent odor of diesel fuel emanated from the rear carriage. Minutes later, McVeigh entered the motel office and returned the room key. He then climbed behind the wheel of the moving van and headed east down Interstate 40 towards the intersection of 5th and Harvey. The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has to this day refused to return the original registration logs for this motel. After two federal trials, and the most exhaustive criminal investigation of the 20th century, which included 700 field agents, the FBI has failed to turn up credible evidence establishing McVeigh’s whereabouts the night of April 18 or the early morning hours of April 19.
This brief overview provides but a glimpse into the 80 pages of witnesses’ affidavits and 2000 supporting documents, which cause all who delve into the investigative file to ponder if 4-19 was the test run for 9-11.
Colonel Patrick Lang, a Middle East expert who formerly served as the chief of human intelligence for the Defense Intelligence Agency, determined that the Iraqi soldier’s military tattoo and immigration file indicated that he was likely a trusted member of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard before being recruited into the elite Unit 999 of the Estikhabarat, more commonly known as the Iraqi Military Intelligence Service. Before the 2003 Iraq War, Unit 999 was headquartered in Salman Pak, southeast of Baghdad, and was tasked with clandestine operations at home and overseas. Several defense and intelligence analysts, with whom I consulted, concurred with Colonel Lang’s conclusions.
Soon after that fateful day in 1995, Al-Hussaini moved to Massachusetts and sought employment at the Boston Logan International Airport. In November 1997, four years before two planes were hijacked from that very airport on a deadly trek to incinerate the World Trade Center, the Iraqi national began suffering panic attacks about his airport job and sought psychiatric hospitalization. When his therapist asked why he was experiencing sudden and intense trepidation about working at Boston Logan, the patient replied, “If something happens there, I will be a suspect.”
During this same time frame, Al-Hussaini was residing with two former Iraqi Gulf War veterans who provided food-catering services to the commercial airlines at the Boston airport. In the wake of the suicide hijackings of 2001, law enforcement speculated that food services workers might have planted box cutters aboard the doomed flights. Hussain Al-Hussaini’s uncanny foreknowledge of a possible event slated to take place at Boston Logan Airport, the point of origin for Al-Qaeda’s murderous rampage of 2001, just grazes the surface of the disturbing nexus uncovered between 4-19 and 9-11.
January 2nd, 2005 at 4:12 pm
Cao,
You assert that Christians must recognize Satan as the source. Setting aside the obvious bias of your cited source, look at all the time and effort you and other like-minded “Christians” put into politics. Yet where in Christ’s Great Commission (end of Matthew) did He tell us to spend enormous quantities of time and resources trying to fight against the inevitable (and foretold by Christ Himself) downward spiral of earthly institutions? He didn’t! But you obviously don’t want to see that.
I submit to you that it is you who is fighting against God. Like the Pharisees who so hated Jesus, you want to force a skin-deep righteousness upon the masses while glibly ignoring the very example of the God/man you claim to follow.
Think of how many souls you could be saving if you were to accept Christ’s Great Commission at face value and follow it.
Your very lack of comprehension of the entire point of what Christ was teaching us reveals your own “fruit” very clearly.
January 2nd, 2005 at 4:14 pm
by the way
does famke janssen know she’s on your banner?
January 2nd, 2005 at 4:26 pm
wow Carla, that was an eye opener–that stuff about Norquist. But he’s the only representation you’ve got of ‘all sorts of conservatives’? That’s pretty lame, if you asked me.
How can you say “all sorts of conservatives” and give me only one example?
That’s not Famke Jansen, that’s an old ’50’s pinup, I doubt if she was even born when that was published. The artist is dead and the image is public domain.
January 2nd, 2005 at 4:30 pm
Yeah right. Discount the admitted goal of the founder of the ACLU because my source is biased. You need to get a grip on reality.
Since when is the ACLU Policy Guide a biased source?
And btw, my dear Kevin, I’m not fighting against God. Christ didn’t teach us to hide our faith, to ‘turn the other cheek’ in the face of murderers or thieves or to be ashamed of our faith and hide, the way they do in France because quoting the Bible in public has been outlawed by the same Hate Crime Laws they’re trying to pass here. No, Christ taught us to defend ourselves. It is our God given right to defend ourselves. Don’t lecture me, take a hike and save your preaching for the choir.
January 2nd, 2005 at 4:59 pm
Okay…so, I’m coming to this thread late. Before getting back on topic I’d like to say a few things:
Kevin: SHUT UP…thank you… I am of Cao’s “ilk” and am an atheist. I could give a **** what or who one chapter or another of the ACLU defends. There are local chapters that are almost reasonable…including the Georgia chapter Bob Barr did some work for.
The problem is that the ACLU has become a partisan political outfit. Starting in the 1980’s when they entered the political arena by calling for the impeachment of President Reagan to their behind the scenes meddling in getting Ross Perot on both the Alabama and Louisiana ballots thus costing Bush 41 re-election, the ACLU has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.
Why? The national organization has come to depend indirectly as Cao points out, on monies from the federal government. It should come as no surprise that they would engage in partisan politics on behalf of a political party that would keep the money flowing.
As for blacklisting…I was having a similar colloquy with a moonbat at Upper Left. I say similar because THREE TIMES Cao has listed the deadly reasons why the government doesn’t want companies to hire people. What you term “politics” I term “murder.” The fact that you can’t tell the difference scares the holy livin’ beejeebees out of me! And yes, I’m PROUD AS PUNCH to disagree with an ideology based on killing your political opponents…and their wives, children, friends, neighbors, and anyone else who thinks like them.
This hasn’t seemed to penetrate either Carla or Kevin’s primitive brain stem…perhaps because the term “Bushitler” hasn’t been used.
We are at war. By not acknowledging this (and you don’t…you want some kind of Kerry-like “Nuisance Police” to take care of a problem the scope of which is just starting to become clear) you can bury your head in the sand and, when the next attack comes-and it’s coming very soon-you can blame the good ‘ole USA rather than the beheaders of humans, the torturers and rapists,(don’t you dare compare our soldiers with the animals who are doing the REAL torturing) the scumbags and murderous thugs who have a warped vision of the future. A future where the Caliphate of Bagdhad is reconstituted and the Islamic flag is flying over the White House.
Sound crazy? READ THEIR WEBSITES! We are in a fight for our national existence…while you and your moonbat friends are looking for political and rhetorical ammunition to play “gotcha.”
This is not a question of one side or another wanting to gain political advantage…it’s a question of survival. Thankfully, enough Americans…barely enough…see it the same way and voted to continue to kill terrorists not arrest them.
January 2nd, 2005 at 5:16 pm
A few notes on OK City…
Terry Nichols has a Phillipino wife…a mail order bride that he got FOR THE EXCLUSIVE PURPOSE of being able to travel back and forth from Cebu in the Phillipines. It seems that the al Qaeda cell he was learning bombmaking from actually set up the marriage…the signature on the contract with the matchmaking company is NOT Terry Nichols.
A good question has been asked as to why the government did not pursue the middle east angle to the bombing? Part of the reason is pure southern-fried, amoral, Clintonesque politics. Clinton, at the time, was getting hammered by the emerging talk radio genre. Do you remember who was blamed for the bombing???
RIGHT WING NUTS! And Clinton SPECIFICALLY mentioned talk radio as spreading “hate.”
Nice convenient whipping boy, eh?
The other reason was diplomatic. Clinton was in the process of brokering an imaginary peace deal between Israel and the PLO. By blaming muslim extremists it might then become awkward to invite Clinton’s favorite terrorist Yasser (What? Who Me? A Terrorist?) Arafat to spend the night in the Lincoln bedroom. (That noise you hear in Springfield, IL is Lincoln howling in rage from the grave).
The “truth” about OK City may never come out. It kinda makes one wonder what Sandy “the Burglar” Berger was stuffing down his pants and into his socks when preparing for his 9/11 commission testimony. Speculation has centered on some hand written margin notes that may have revealed a link between OK City bombers and muslim extremists.
Nichols may yet talk. If he sings, say “bye-bye” to Hillary in 2008. In fact, any such revelation would hurt the Democratic party more than Watergate hurt the Republicans.
January 2nd, 2005 at 5:41 pm
Ah… so the way it works is to selectively ignore the evidence that contradicts your preconceived ideas… eh, Rick?
The facts speak for themselves. But, as long as you choose to cinch down your chosen blinders so as to not include the whole truth, you’ll continue to get the exact conclussions that you wish to get.
I’ll leave you to your game of mental masturbation.
Adieu
January 2nd, 2005 at 5:45 pm
Vraiment? Oh what a pity, I was just getting warmed up. Yes, indeed, the facts speak for themselves, and you’re totally ignoring them, even that they exist at all. Sheesh this scares the hell out of me!!!!
And Rick, thanks for your comments. It puts the whole picture into much clearer focus for me.
January 2nd, 2005 at 5:51 pm
A great site. I have never seen it before.
January 2nd, 2005 at 6:00 pm
Whoooooooooeeeeeeeeeeee! I love mental masturbation…only kind of sex I get these days.
As for “truth”…I love it when moonbats come up with that meme! Truth, like beauty, is subjective. Any simpleminded village idiot (sorry Kevin) can speak “truth”…
Now facts, as Mark Twain said, are stubborn things. And the fact that either you or Carla failed to answer the major point of contention between you guys and Cao…that blacklisting murderers, thugs, hijackers, beheaders, poisoners, and people who want to set off nuclear weapons on American soil is JUST A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT than wanting to blacklist liberal barking moonbat Democrat nincompoops like you.
The fact that you can’t SEE the difference…or are blind to it…makes you a REALLY REALLY CLUELESS KOOL-AID CONSUMER! And please…don’t drink and drive.
January 2nd, 2005 at 6:05 pm
By the way, your sound doesn’t play in Netscape or Safari, just makes errors… I suggest a javascript could fix this.
January 2nd, 2005 at 6:11 pm
I’ve been reading the thread with interest and have come to a few conclusions.
Firstly, that the ACLU has at times, ‘done the right thing,’ that in no way mitigates what it has become. It’s all well and good that the juvenile deliquient helps his grandma cross the street, nevertheless, he is still a juvenile deliquent.
It is not the ACLU’s God given right to destroy the freedoms this country was founded upon.
Its one thing for anyone to disagree with a particular stand the ACLU may take on any given case. It is quite another to have them promote an entire agenda.
January 2nd, 2005 at 6:23 pm
Can you send me the code? I’m totally coding challenged. Thanks, SC&A. BTW, there are a whole lot of folks who are reading and not posting right now. I think there are about 20.
January 2nd, 2005 at 10:45 pm
Ah, Cao, Rick, and SC&A, I must thank you for such a great example of giving moonbats hard evidence and cogent arguments. Of course, the moonbats never want to *learn* from them, but that certainly isn’t YOUR reponsibility.
Dear Hubby (*very* not interested in the blogosphere, I’m sad to say) is always confused when I dip into Kos or DU. I try to explain that I *try* to surf around and look at other points of view (fortunately, I don’t go that deep into the cesspool often), and they are 2 sites I need to see sometimes.
But Carla and Kevin at least *try* to be logical, and at least they didn’t devole into cursing (damning with faint praise). From what I’ve seen, which certainly isn’t even the majority, while the Right has its, um, “assertive personalities” (IMAO.us, and Emperor Misha’s place come to mind - and I enjoy them immensely), I don’t think I’ve seen any right/conservative site that descends to the idiocy of DU and Kos. Do they exist? — Just to be “fair and balanced” :mrgreen::mrgreen:
Whups - sorry, back to the subject: watching you rebut the “objections” of these looneys will, I hope, help me handle them if they show up on my blog. I learn more and more WHERE to get the facts and HOW to write about them.
I’ll never be in your league, Cao, but you set out a great goal to shoot for!
(Oh, BTW, a preview feature would be really awesome, ’cause I know I’ve committed some embarassing errors in spelling and structure above! LOL)
January 3rd, 2005 at 12:32 am
sad sad reality.
great site BTW.
January 3rd, 2005 at 3:42 am
There were plenty of pictures showing hte US troops hiding behind Women and Children in Fallujah (sp?) they just weren’t covered by the pro-war and pro-administration media outlets!!
So get off your high horse, this war is for $$ for the 1%!!
Remember Jesus was a Liberal-Radical!!
tracyv
January 3rd, 2005 at 3:44 am
There were plenty of pictures showing hte US troops hiding behind Women and Children in Fallujah (sp?) they just weren’t covered by the pro-war and pro-administration media outlets!!
So get off your high horse, this war is for $$ for the 1%!!
Remember Jesus was a Liberal-Radical!!
tracyv
January 3rd, 2005 at 5:33 am
I know Christian leftists like to think Jesus was a young radical socialist, and that the Pharisees were the old vanguard of tradition and conservatism. Jesus was the hero of social change, and “progressive” ideology, and the Pharisees were like crusty old Republicans who cherished the tradition of the fathers.
But the Pharisees weren’t conservatives at all. The Pharisees were liberals. Jesus was the conservative.
The Pharisees were constantly heckling, rudely interrupting, and over-shouting Jesus, accusing him of defying the traditions of the elders (Matt. 15: 1-3). But Jesus exposed them as unbelievers. They believed neither Moses, nor the prophets, nor even God (John 5:46, 47). They were not patriots at all. In fact, their version of righteousness actually contradicted the foundations of the country. (Matt. 15: 3-9).
But the liberals claim to be conservative, and accuse the conservatives of being liberal. Those working to destroy the foundations accuse its defenders of destroying it.
January 3rd, 2005 at 6:05 am
Thanks, Romeocat, I appreciate your support and you’re not so bad yourself.
January 3rd, 2005 at 6:42 am
tracyv, First of all, why post the same drivel twice? Secondly where are these pictures that you speak of. Post links to back up your claims. If you can not back up your comments, you’re just another ranting Moonbat.
January 3rd, 2005 at 5:33 pm
One of the best damn threads of yours, ever.
Great blog, great posts.
Can I pick em, or can I pick em?
January 3rd, 2005 at 5:38 pm
Cheers, SC&A. I’ve been going over it. It was tremendous. I have to try to take an aerial view the way Rick does rather than get bogged down in the details. I learned a lot here. I hope he, you and the rest will continue to join me in threads like these as they come up.
Thanks so much.
February 8th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Join the Fight at StoptheACLU discussion forum