Saturday, September 30, 2006

GOP Sex Crime Conspiracy

The New York Times has published further confirmation of what I wrote in a previous post. Republicans in top government positions were aware of Mark Foley's homosexual advances on a minor. The NY Times wrote:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 Top House Republicans knew for months about e-mail traffic between Representative Mark Foley and a former teenage page, but kept the matter secret and allowed Mr. Foley to remain head of a Congressional caucus on children's issues, Republican lawmakers said Saturday.
So not only was this Republican congressman a homosexual pedophile, but his GOP associates covered it up for him and allowed him to remain on a caucus on children's issues.

Mark Foley, the Republican who shagged me

It looks as if there is yet another right-wing sex scandal. I wonder if it will get as much attention as Bill Clinton. It should, and even more, considering that conservative Republican Mark Foley sexually harassed underage boys. Not only did he do this, but the rest of his conservative staff knew about it. CNN:

Shimkus recalled that when he initially questioned Foley about the e-mails, the congressman assured him that he was "simply acting as a mentor" and that "nothing inappropriate had occurred."

Foley said he was e-mailing to find out if the teenager was OK after Hurricane Katrina and "wanted a photo to see that the former page was all right," Shimkus said.

Foley was ordered to have no further contact with the former page and advised "to be especially mindful of his conduct," Shimkus said.

"And he assured us he would do so," Shimkus' statement added. "I received no subsequent complaints about his behavior nor was I ever made aware of any additional e-mails."

...

In them, Foley allegedly said he wanted to take the teen's clothes off, and in another he allegedly asked a page if he made him "a little horny," ABC News reported, saying other exchanges were too graphic to make public.
Settle down there, Austin Powers. You didn't make him horny, baby. In light of this sex scandal, Mark Foley resigned. Now if only we could get Rush Limbaugh to follow suit. Surely Limbaugh's sex tourism and drug smuggling from the Dominican Republic counts for something.

Statistics: Majority of Muslims support suicide bombing

We now know from my previous article that a majority of Muslims in Palestine and Iraq support terrorism (53% and 61% respectively), while a large minority of Muslims in the UK support terrorism (25%). A further look into polls from the Pew Research Center for People and the Press has confirmed my previous conclusion; a majority of Muslims in most Islamic nations support terrorism.

The PRC interviewed over 38,000 people during a four-month period in 44 nations. The conclusions of the Pew Global Attitudes survey are as follows:
  • A majority of people in Lebanon support suicide bombing, 73%
  • A majority of people in the Ivory Coast support suicide bombing, 56%
  • A majority of people in Nigeria who responded supported suicide bombing, 47% yes to 45% no
  • A majority of people in Bangladesh who responded supported suicide bombing, 44% yes to 37% no
  • 33% of Pakistanis support suicide bombing
  • 27% of Indonesians support suicide bombing
  • 32% of the population of Mali supports suicide bombing
  • 30% of Ghana supports suicide bombing
  • 29% Uganda
  • 28% Senegal
Because polling was not allowed in many of the more fundamentalist Islamic states such as Iran or Egypt, there are no statistics as to the number of people who support terrorism. However, it is important to keep in mind that Islamic states likely have higher rates of support than the states mentioned above which simply represent majority Muslim populations.

A second PRC study titled A Year After Iraq War has some things to say about support for terrorism as well.
  • "Osama bin Laden, however, is viewed favorably by large percentages in Pakistan (65%), Jordan (55%) and Morocco (45%)."
  • Suicide attacks against Israelis
    • In Turkey, 24% support
    • In Pakistan, 47% support
    • In Morocco, 74% support
    • In Jordan, 86% support
  • Suicide attacks against Westerners
    • In Turkey, 31% support
    • In Pakistan, 46% support
    • In Morocco, 66% support
    • In Jordan, 70% support
It's interesting that more Turks support terrorism against the West than they do against Jews. Verily, the euphemism "the Jews" is used for Westerners by Arabs in the Middle East.

Some final statistics on Palestinians and 9/11. These are from the National Review and Palestinian Media Watch.
  • "A vast majority in Gaza supported the 9/11 killings" (based on Gallup polls)
  • 73% of Palestinians support suicide attacks against the United States
As we see above, in Muslim countries the percent of the population supporting terrorism varies from a large minority to a large majority. On average the least is 30% while the most is 65%. The notion of a "handfull" of Muslim terrorists or a "vast minority" of terrorist supporters must come to an end. Terrorism is epidemic in Islam.

War in Iraq birthing terrorists

Recently George W. Bush has declassified four pages of the National Intelligence Estimate. Its full title is Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States. This was in response to the leak of classified information from the National Intelligence Estimate by anonymous sources to the New York Times. The New York Times developed its original story from, "More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts." The beginning of the article sums up their conclusions:
A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
When Bush was forced to declassify four pages of this document, the summary remained the same. The New York Times furthered its original information with excerpts such as, "The Iraqi jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere." The report stated that there was "pervasive anti-U.S. sentiment among most Muslims" and that, "The Iraq conflict has become the ‘cause célèbre’ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

Despite the overall tone of the document denoucning the productivity of the war in Iraq, conservatives also capitalized on excerpts; "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight." Thus the argument was made that leaving Iraq would be harmful and we should actually support the war. The reality is somewhere in between. Somewhere moderate.

To the dismay of many on the far-left, it's recognized even by liberal politicians that pulling out of Iraq would be harmful. It would make the insurgents believe that they have won, as well as allow them to pull Iraq further into civil war. The elected Iraqi government has requested US military presence, giving the United States a moral obligation to stay. But Bush's current war in Iraq is failing. Soldiers are poorly funded and badly supplied. There are far too few troops in Iraq to subdue it in any meaningful way. It is time for US military action in Iraq, but not the military action of Bush and Rumsfeld.

Many people confuse moderate with liberal. Try not to do that. A moderate approach would be to correctly fund the Iraq war, correctly supply our troops, and yes, even send more troops to Iraq. Moderates support necessary military action, and right now military action in Iraq is necessary. It wasn't necessary before we went in, but it is now. The war is failing because Bush has taken a conservative rather than a moderate approach when he tried to cut corners and save money on troop funding and deployment. If we 'stay the course' we will lose. If we 'cut and run' we've lost as well.

MI5: 1/4 of Muslim population "sympathetic to violent jihad"

MI5, also known as the Security Service, is the intelligence and security agency of the United Kingdom. It's comparable to the United States Secret Service or the CIA. Today, its duties include anti-terrorism work within the UK. Not to be confused with MI6, or the Secret Intelligence Service, of which James Bond is a member in fiction.

According to a July 3 BBC article titled Al-Qaeda 'bid to infiltrate MI5' the Security Service believes that 400,000 persons in the UK are "sympathetic to violent jihad around the world." According to the British Embassy there are 1.6 million Muslims in the United Kingdom. This would mean that 1/4 of the Muslim population are potential terrorists and certainly terrorist supporters. A truly staggering number.

Keep in mind that the United Kingdom has one of the most liberal Muslim populations in the world. The UK is a Western nation with predominately secular Western ethics. If the Muslim community within the UK has such a high number of terrorist supporters, imagine the percentage of terrorist supporters in less secular East Asian Islamic countries like Malaysia and Indonesia. Further, imagine the percentage of terrorist supporters in Middle Eastern and North African states. Here are fundamentalist Islamic theocracies. If 1/4 of Muslims in the United Kingdom support violent terrorist attacks, clearly larger numbers do in fundamentalist countries. The myth of the "vast minority" of Muslim terrorists is easily exposed.

Checking statistics for Middle Eastern Muslim countries verifies this.
  • The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research told us that 53% of the Palestinian population supports terrorist attacks against civilians, while 87% say they support attacks on soldiers and 86% say they support attacks on civilians in settlements.
  • The Nation reports that 47% of Iraqis support terrorist attacks on Americans.
  • The AP and Yahoo! News disagree; 61% of Iraqis support attacks on Americans.
Similar statistics exist for every Middle Eastern Muslim nation. Don't believe claims like that made by Awesomelibrary.org, "Demonstrators who support the use of terrorism represent a very small percent of the Muslim population." The statistics say otherwise. The facts say otherwise. A large minority to a majority of Muslims do support the use of terrorism.

Friday, September 29, 2006

The Chavez-Chomsky love affair


If the world didn't know before, now they know who Hugo Chavez is. This is because of his extreme speech at a recent U.N. General Assembly forum. The one where he stated that George W. Bush was the devil. To quote Chavez,
"The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house. And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today. Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world."

Even to many of the most liberal critics of Bush the Chavez speech went too far. In part, there was outrage about the fact that Hugo Chavez, a foreigner and guest on U.S. soil, was giving such harsh and extreme criticism of a U.S. President. Verily, I saw it myself. People in my personal life who had called Bush a 'devil' ad nauseum expressed indignation and outrage at Chavez' remarks - the exact same 'devil' remarks that these personal friends of mine had made. And yet some on the far-left even praised and supported Hugo Chavez; Danny Glover later gave him a great big hug at a Harlem event and Cindy Sheehan even kissed him.

So it was only slightly shocking to see Hugo Chavez promoting Noam Chomsky's new book during his U.N. speech. Chavez waved it around as if it were the constitution of Venezuela. Noam Chomsky, a well-known anti-Semite and self-proclaimed anarchist, seems to be the type of author a totalitarian leader such as Chavez would agree with on many issues. Chomsky certainly received some benefits from having a Latin American dictator endorse his book. It shot to #1 on the Amazon bestseller list. Who would have thought anarchy, capitalism, and oppression went together so well. It is just unfortunate for Robert Faurisson and Serge Thion that they did not receive bestseller status when Noam Chomsky endorsed their works denying the Holocaust.

Take note of Chavez' endorsement of Noam Chomsky throughout the U.N. Speech,


"Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it.

Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, 'Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.'" [Holds up book, waves it in front of General Assembly.] "It's an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what's happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet.

The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time," [flips through the pages, which are numerous] "I will just leave it as a recommendation."

But he didn't just leave it as a recommendation. Chavez continued affirming Chomsky's anti-American sentiment and leaning upon Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States as if it were his new Bible.

"As Chomsky says here, clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated."

A U.N. forum to promote Chomsky's book still wasn't enough for Chavez. In subsequent interviews, such as the exclusive with Democracy Now!, he continued,

"The U.S. people have a major role to play to solve, to save this planet. Because we're talking about the government. I was reading recently, Noam Chomsky, I read him very frequently. And in one of his most recent books, Chomsky, I would like very much to shake hands with Chomsky. I've been reading him for a while. I admire him enormously. The name of the book is 'Hegemony or Survival' its what Rosa Luxemburg used to say, 'socialism or barbarism.' We changed to Capitalism, and we're going back to the caveman. Chomsky in his book, he says that there are two superpowers in this world and I was really shocked by that idea. I think he’s right after all. I think the key to save the world is one super power, this government? And it’s military power? Might? Fear? Technological might space power, economic might and so on. But what is the superpower that could perhaps stop this government. That could even put an end to imperialism so we can have a true democracy to help the peoples of the world."


The Chomsky chompers out there might make the knee-jerk response that Hugo Chavez' full-scale endorsement of Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States means nothing. That it isn't evidence of Chomsky's blatant anti-Americanism, his hatred for freedom, his anti-Semitism, or any of his other pathological obsessions. Much like when the anti-Semitic Mearsheimer-Walt working paper titled, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" was endorsed by David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan and supporters argued that this was still not evidence of anti-Jewish conspiracy theories within the paper. Like many of Chomsky's own arguments and tactics, this argument would be based on a half-truth. The fact that Chavez endorses and relies upon Chomsky's work so heavily demonstrates a consistency of thought and agreement between the two parties. What Chomsky has endorsed in this work is consistent with the feelings and tactics of a Latin American dictator.

Iran sought nuclear weapon in 1988

According to the following BBC article titled Iran mulled nuclear bomb in 1988, Iran sought and failed to develop a nuclear weapon during its eight year conflict with Iraq. This article was based upon a new letter released by the former President of Iran, Hashemi Rafsanjani. Rafsanjani has by far been the most moderate, modern, and peaceful of the major post-Khomeini Iranian leaders. It is likely that Rafsanjani has released the letter out of a desire to end Iran's current nuclear weapons program. Contrary to the current Iranian claims that Iran does not seek nuclear weapons but instead seeks a peaceful nuclear power program, the letter released by Rafsanjani gives an implicit admission that Iran does indeed seek nuclear weapons as it did in 1988. Below is the BBC article in full.

Iran mulled nuclear bomb in 1988
By Frances Harrison
BBC News, Tehran


A letter from 1988 in which Iran's top commander says Iran could need a nuclear bomb to win the war against Iraq has come to light in Tehran.

The commander is quoted in the letter, written by the father of the Iranian revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, to top officials in the final days of the war.

It has only now been made public - by former President Hashemi Rafsanjani.

The letter seems at odds with Tehran's statements that Iran is not seeking a bomb because it is against Islam.

The letter from Ayatollah Khomeini lists the requirements of military commanders if they are to continue fighting against Iraq.

It mentions more aircraft, helicopters, men and weapons, and also quotes the top commander saying Iran would within five years need laser-guided and atomic weapons in order to win the war.

Some Iranian news agencies have, however, deleted the reference to atomic weapons in the letter.

It is sensitive because Iran has always said it is not seeking a nuclear weapon and leading clerics say an atomic bomb would be against Islam.

Ayatollah Khomeini's letter also reveals how challenged Iran's economy and military were by the eight years of war against Iraq.

The letter quotes the prime minister of the time saying the economy was operating at a level below zero and volunteers for the front were in short supply.

Ayatollah Khomeini's letter has been made public at a time when Iran is preparing for a possible confrontation with the US over its nuclear programme.

But it also comes against a background of an argument between Mr Rafsanjani and a top military commander over who was instrumental in persuading Ayatollah Khomeini to agree to a ceasefire with Iraq that the Ayatollah himself likened to drinking a poisoned chalice.

Notice a few key points outlined in the article above. Today Iranian Mullahs claim that Iran would never seek a nuclear weapon due to their Islamic faith. However, we see that it was the Ayatollah himself who endorsed the development of a nuclear weapon. The article also points out that the Iranian media, all of which is government-controlled, has deleted references in the letter to the development of atomic weapons. This government censorship of the media is evidently an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the unlearned, naive Iranian people who truly believe that there is no attempt to develop nuclear weapons by their current regime.

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Profiles

Expect to see profiles of notable persons, places, events, and organizations in the future.

Profiles on this blog consist of basic facts, reasons why the person/place/group is notable, quotes, and a final moderate analysis.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

What is a moderate?

Everything that defines a true moderate can't be outlined in one blog alone. The range of topics covered is that found within a complete lifestyle philosophy. To define what a moderate is we must also look at what a moderate is not. To define what a moderate can be, we must also define what a moderate can't be.

A few short definitions of moderate can be found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. In respect to politics a moderate is one, "Professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme." In respect to a lifestyle philosophy a moderate is one, "Avoiding extremes of behavior or expression." With that as a starting point, a few more facts about moderates should be pointed out:

  • A moderate may be a member of most political parties. There can be moderate Democrats and Republicans, moderate Likud and moderate Labor supporters.
  • However, a moderate must be nonpartisan in thought and action. Any person who votes strictly along party lines, or unwaveringly supports one party, is not engaging in moderate behavior.
  • A moderate may be religious or non-religious. There are moderate Jews, Christians, and Atheists.
  • However, many philosophies and belief systems (political and religious ones) are exclusive to the true moderate. There are no moderate neo-Nazis, no moderate Klan members, and no moderate Muslim terrorists.
  • A true moderate is neither conservative nor liberal, though many individual moderate decisions and beliefs may be conservative or liberal.
  • Many who espouse an overall liberal or conservative viewpoint attempt to label themselves as moderate, but are not moderates.
  • Moderates do not embrace moral subjectivism or relativism. Likewise, moderates do not embrace moral objectivism. Moderate ethics are situational and can not adhere to any one end of the ethical spectrum without ceasing to be moderate.
The short list above is only the tip of the iceberg regarding moderate philosophies. Moderates are often accused of being left-wingers or right-wingers (by left-wingers and right-wingers) depending on the current issue on the table. Though it might appear that a moderate philosophy is the easiest to adhere to as it embraces issues from both sides at times, the reality is that a moderate philosophy is the hardest to adhere to due to fierce opposition from two opposing sides.

About me

  • Contact at AriRabin01@aim.com - Instant Message (AIM) at AriRabin01
My profile

Subscribe