Liberals afraid to Rush the Terrorists

If the liberals in this country really had any balls they would have let our military do its job, instead they try to lam-bast a radio show host, because they can’t accomplish anything in Congress. As Unalienable Rights points out, the three loudest never severed, yet misquote Rush and propagate false news,  in order to further their agenda and take the heat off of their lack of support for our troops.

Democrats: Soft on terrorists, hard on Rush Limbaugh

The Senate has become an increasingly ugly place under Democrat “leadership”, with Democrats trying to replicate all the class of their sleazy, dishonest nutroots supporters. This may be good for fund-raising, but it is not good for the nation. They ought to be ashamed, if only they had any shame.

On Monday, Senators Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama (all three who incidentally avoided serving in the military. Chickenhawks!), along with 38 other Senate Democrats, attacked radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh for allegedly insulting members of the U.S. military, based on an utter falsehood, a totally out of context quote spread around by left-wing propaganda website (and Clinton ally) Media Matters (The transcript of Limbaugh’s original comments is here).

Senator Tom Harkin, who ironically has engaged in repeated fabrications about his own military service, clearly a man with no class or honor, decided to take a mean-spirited, compassionless, low-blow shot at Mr. Limbaugh’s past problems with addiction to prescription painkillers, proving only once again that liberal claims of compassion and tolerance are a total fraud.

If only the Democrats had as much interest in defeating al Qaeda as they do in defeating conservative talk radio hosts.

Advertisements

Staggering Statistics on Muslims Killing Muslims

ACT has posted a set of statistics that demonstrates the real violence against Muslims, it is not Jews, Christians or even America that is leading the pack in Muslim Genocide, but rather other Muslims. These numbers (almost 10 million killed by other Muslims) defy rationality and surely anyone with half a brain can see where the real problem lies. Islam may or may not be a peaceful religion, but the people who dominate the religion and are the face that the world sees as representation of the religion, surely are far from peaceful.

“some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.”

By Gunnar Heinsohn and Daniel Pipes, FrontPageMagazine, October 8, 2007

headshot-daniel-pipes.jpg The Arab-Israeli conflict is often said, not just by extremists, to be the world’s most dangerous conflict – and, accordingly, Israel is judged the world’s most belligerent country.

For example, British prime minister Tony Blair told the U.S. Congress in July 2003 that “Terrorism will not be defeated without peace in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine. Here it is that the poison is incubated. Here it is that the extremist is able to confuse in the mind of a frighteningly large number of people the case for a Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel.”

This viewpoint leads many Europeans, among others, to see Israel as the most menacing country on earth.

But is this true? It flies in the face of the well-known pattern that liberal democracies do not aggress; plus, it assumes, wrongly, that the Arab-Israeli conflict is among the most costly in terms of lives lost.

To place the Arab-Israeli fatalities in their proper context, one of the two co-authors, Gunnar Heinsohn, has compiled statistics to rank conflicts since 1950 by the number of human deaths incurred. Note how far down the list is the entry in bold type.

Conflicts since 1950 with over 10,000 Fatalities*

1 40,000,000 Red China, 1949-76 (outright killing, manmade famine, Gulag)

2 10,000,000 Soviet Bloc: late Stalinism, 1950-53; post-Stalinism, to 1987 (mostly Gulag)

3 4,000,000 Ethiopia, 1962-92: Communists, artificial hunger, genocides

4 3,800,000 Zaire (Congo-Kinshasa): 1967-68; 1977-78; 1992-95; 1998-present

5 2,800,000 Korean war, 1950-53

6 1,900,000 Sudan, 1955-72; 1983-2006 (civil wars, genocides)

7 1,870,000 Cambodia: Khmer Rouge 1975-79; civil war 1978-91

8 1,800,000 Vietnam War, 1954-75

9 1,800,000 Afghanistan: Soviet and internecine killings, Taliban 1980-2001

10 1,250,000 West Pakistan massacres in East Pakistan (Bangladesh 1971)

11 1,100,000 Nigeria, 1966-79 (Biafra); 1993-present

12 1,100,000 Mozambique, 1964-70 (30,000) + after retreat of Portugal 1976-92

13 1,000,000 Iran-Iraq-War, 1980-88

14 900,000 Rwanda genocide, 1994

15 875,000 Algeria: against France 1954-62 (675,000); between Islamists and the government 1991-2006 (200,000)

16 850,000 Uganda, 1971-79; 1981-85; 1994-present

17 650,000 Indonesia: Marxists 1965-66 (450,000); East Timor, Papua, Aceh etc, 1969-present (200,000)

18 580,000 Angola: war against Portugal 1961-72 (80,000); after Portugal’s retreat (1972-2002)

19 500,000 Brazil against its Indians, up to 1999

20 430,000 Vietnam, after the war ended in 1975 (own people; boat refugees)

21 400,000 Indochina: against France, 1945-54

22 400,000 Burundi, 1959-present (Tutsi/Hutu)

23 400,000 Somalia, 1991-present

24 400,000 North Korea up to 2006 (own people)

25 300,000 Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, 1980s-1990s

26 300,000 Iraq, 1970-2003 (Saddam against minorities)

27 240,000 Columbia, 1946-58; 1964-present

28 200,000 Yugoslavia, Tito regime, 1944-80

29 200,000 Guatemala, 1960-96

30 190,000 Laos, 1975-90

31 175,000 Serbia against Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, 1991-1999

32 150,000 Romania, 1949-99 (own people)

33 150,000 Liberia, 1989-97

34 140,000 Russia against Chechnya, 1994-present

35 150,000 Lebanon civil war, 1975-90

36 140,000 Kuwait War, 1990-91

37 130,000 Philippines: 1946-54 (10,000); 1972-present (120,000)

38 130,000 Burma/Myanmar, 1948-present

39 100,000 North Yemen, 1962-70

40 100,000 Sierra Leone, 1991-present

41 100,000 Albania, 1945-91 (own people)

42 80,000 Iran, 1978-79 (revolution)

43 75,000 Iraq, 2003-present (domestic)

44 75,000 El Salvador, 1975-92

45 70,000 Eritrea against Ethiopia, 1998-2000

46 68,000 Sri Lanka, 1997-present

47 60,000 Zimbabwe, 1966-79; 1980-present

48 60,000 Nicaragua, 1972-91 (Marxists/natives etc,)

49 51,000 Arab-Israeli conflict 1950-present

50 50,000 North Vietnam, 1954-75 (own people)

51 50,000 Tajikistan, 1992-96 (secularists against Islamists)

52 50,000 Equatorial Guinea, 1969-79

53 50,000 Peru, 1980-2000

54 50,000 Guinea, 1958-84

55 40,000 Chad, 1982-90

56 30,000 Bulgaria, 1948-89 (own people)

57 30,000 Rhodesia, 1972-79

58 30,000 Argentina, 1976-83 (own people)

59 27,000 Hungary, 1948-89 (own people)

60 26,000 Kashmir independence, 1989-present

61 25,000 Jordan government vs. Palestinians, 1970-71 (Black September)

62 22,000 Poland, 1948-89 (own people)

63 20,000 Syria, 1982 (against Islamists in Hama)

64 20,000 Chinese-Vietnamese war, 1979

65 19,000 Morocco: war against France, 1953-56 (3,000) and in Western Sahara, 1975-present (16,000)

66 18,000 Congo Republic, 1997-99

67 10,000 South Yemen, 1986 (civil war)

*All figures rounded. Sources: Brzezinski, Z., Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century, 1993; Courtois, S., Le Livre Noir du Communism, 1997; Heinsohn, G., Lexikon der Völkermorde, 1999, 2nd ed.; Heinsohn, G., Söhne und Weltmacht, 2006, 8th ed.; Rummel. R., Death by Government, 1994; Small, M. and Singer, J.D., Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars 1816-1980, 1982; White, M., “Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century,” 2003.

This grisly inventory finds the total number of deaths in conflicts since 1950 numbering about 85,000,000. Of that sum, the deaths in the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1950 include 32,000 deaths due to Arab state attacks and 19,000 due to Palestinian attacks, or 51,000 in all. Arabs make up roughly 35,000 of these dead and Jewish Israelis make up 16,000.

These figures mean that deaths Arab-Israeli fighting since 1950 amount to just 0.06 percent of the total number of deaths in all conflicts in that period. More graphically, only 1 out of about 1,700 persons killed in conflicts since 1950 has died due to Arab-Israeli fighting.

(Adding the 11,000 killed in the Israeli war of independence, 1947-49, made up of 5,000 Arabs and 6,000 Israeli Jews, does not significantly alter these figures.)

In a different perspective, some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.

Comments: (1) Despite the relative non-lethality of the Arab-Israeli conflict, its renown, notoriety, complexity, and diplomatic centrality will probably give it continued out-sized importance in the global imagination. And Israel’s reputation will continue to pay the price. (2) Still, it helps to point out the 1-in-1,700 statistic as a corrective, in the hope that one day, this reality will register, permitting the Arab-Israeli conflict to subside to its rightful, lesser place in world politics.

Professor Heinsohn is director of the Raphael-Lemkin-Institut für Xenophobie- und Genozidforschung at the University of Bremen. Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum.

Obama Clearing the Air

Obama has jumped on the Al Gore bandwagon, his plan financially destructive. Does he realize the cost on the average American to accomplish this goal. There is the basic financial burden to purchase for your home the new equipment to become energy efficient. The second burden falls on the tax payers to finance the governments conversion. The third burden falls upon the consumer when companies raise their prices to compensate for the higher tax they will need to pay. And for what? Is there any proof that this will change global warming? No.

He, and most of the liberal left,  is asking for companies to commit suicide by financing their demise. What do they think the new companies will do when they have the market share? They will increase prices. Even now, to purchase a hybrid car is not cost effective. To by the standard gas version is far cheaper, and no the tax benefit does not make up the difference.

Hey I have a novel idea, why not try to develope technology to clean the air of pollutants, this approach would solve the global warming problem, allow a longer transition to cleaner fuels, relieve the financial burden on the average person.

Nano technology is remarkable powerful, get those little guys to fix the problem instead of the bandaid fix the liberals want to execute on each of us.

On energy, Obama proposed using $150 billion from the sale of allowances to stimulate climate-friendly energy and economic development. Included would be developing the next generation of biofuels and fuel delivery infrastructure, accelerating commercial production of plug-in hybrid vehicles, promoting larger-scale renewable energy projects and low-emission coal plants, and making the electricity grid digital.

He also called for making government, businesses and homes 50 percent more energy efficient by 2030, with all federal government buildings carbon neutral by 2025. Incandescent light bulbs would be phased out by 2014, a measure Obama estimates would save consumers $6 billion a year on their electric bills.

From Obama’s Lips to G”d’s Ears

Obama gave a speech the other day to a large congregation, about 4,500 people, his speech focused on how his faith in G”d, his religion are intricately part of what makes him and ultimately, why they should vote for him. He says his religion is his guiding force when things are good as well as when they are bad.

Not a bad speech in itself, he is trying to play the field to get votes, this time it looks like he has put on  a Bush mask and is attempting to pull in those religious people that are on the fence…

One problem, his spiritual adviser is a racist POS.  It turns out that he feels that only the poor and Blacks are capable of knowing G”d…

Based on the beliefs that this man shares with Obama, it would make it very worrisome to have him as our next President. Especially considering how his he relates himself to the Jews of ancient times, yet part of this advisers speech is aimed directly against Israel…

Knowning the backlash, once exposed, Obama dumped the speech by Wright… Hmmm guess his religious faith is out weighed by his electoral faith and money raising thumping…

He was to keep the masses divided and he makes it clear in his speeches, some of which have made it to the Internet…

 Barack Obama has put his religion back into the headlines, trumpeting the power and salvation of faith and asking a church audience in South Carolina to help him become “an instrument of God” and join him in creating “a Kingdom right here on Earth.”But the Democratic contender’s talk on Sunday of breaking down religious and political differences has some critics questioning the Illinois senator’s own beliefs — and those of the man identified as his spiritual adviser — and whether his messages of spiritual inclusion and tolerance have remained consistent.Obama has written and spoken about being inspired by the preaching of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., and his calls to “spur social change.” The title of Obama’s second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” which essentially launched his presidential bid, was taken from a sermon by Wright.Baptized in Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama has been an active member for two decades, regularly attending services with his family under Wright’s spiritual mentorship.Some of Wright’s sermons, which often address themes of white supremacy and black repression, have come under scrutiny by those who interpret them as racially divisive. Such preaching, they believe, polarizes Americans rather than unites them.

“Wright’s preaching does promote a sort of racial exclusivity,” said Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington.

“Statements that suggest you cannot truly understand God unless you are black or poor are exclusive.”

Remarks attributed to Wright that were posted on audio files on the Internet and cited in press accounts earlier this year may have prompted the criticism.

“Fact number one: We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college.

“Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run.

“We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional killers. … We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. … We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. … We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means.

“And … And … And! God! Has got! To be sick! Of this s***!”

Wright had been scheduled to speak at Obama’s Feb. 10 presidential announcement. But after news of the remarks were published, the senator apparently changed his mind the night before and chose the Rev. Otis Moss III, Wright’s successor at Trinity United Church of Christ. Moss declined the invitation.

A request for an interview with Wright was not granted. All requests for an interview were referred to the Obama campaign.

An Obama spokesman referred to Wright as “media shy,” although Wright has routinely posted live webcasts of his sermons on Trinity United’s Web site.

Obama met Wright after college while working with local churches in Chicago to tackle problems of drug abuse and unemployment in inner-city neighborhoods. Wright preached an Afrocentric theology that interpreted the Bible through shared suffering of African Americans.

For Obama, this experience was a spiritual turning point. He had been exposed to various faiths during his life but never formally adopted one until after meeting Wright.

“Inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones,” he wrote in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.”

“Those stories — of survival, and freedom, and hope — became our story, my story.”

Wright’s defenders say his theology has been misunderstood and taken out of context. They say Wright seeks only to give blacks a sense of dignity and identity, and that his philosphy and sermons are not racist.

“The idea that this preaching is divisive is absolutely ridiculous,” said the Rev. Dr. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina Church in Chicago, who has known Obama for more than 20 years.

“The job of pastor is to shepherd his or her congregation, and that requires speaking to your congregants in the language and context they understand.”

For his part, Obama has said he does not agree with Wright on every issue, religious or political. But that doesn’t sit well with some.

“If Barack Obama has really submitted himself to his church like he’s claimed, why does he have a different expression of faith from his own pastor?” asks Anthony Bradley, theologian and research fellow at the Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Mich.

Meanwhile, in a statement on his church’s Web site, Wright defends the principles of his theology:

“To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African American people are superior to any one else. …There is more than one center from which to view the world. In the words of Dr. Janice Hale, ‘Difference does not mean deficience’ [sic]. It is from this vantage point that Black liberation theology speaks.”