Thursday, May 22, 2008

Obama and Colombian Terror a.k.a FARC

Now that Interpol assured that all the data found in the computer of Colombian terrorist leader , Rau Reyes, is in fact all true, is not only Venezuela and Ecuador government that are exposed as FARC´s friends.

The name of Barack Obama emerged too. If that was true, this is true either.
And the truth is that Obama will "appease" with Colombian Farc terrorist group while he will get hard on the democratic and most popular president of Americas, Álvaro Uribe.

Remember this? Is all true!!! Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Obama And FARC
In a Feb. 28 letter, FARC chieftain Raul Reyes cheerily reported to his inner circle that he met "two gringos" who assured him "the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support 'Plan Colombia' nor will he sign the TLC (Free Trade Agreement)."

Aside from some interesting possibilities about who these "gringos" are — a congressional delegation did visit Ecuador and an international leftist "congress" was held in Quito around this time — the real question is why anyone secretly consorting with FARC would be able to speak for presidential candidate Obama.

Obama hasn't said a whole lot about Colombia other than to criticize President Bush's good relations with President Uribe. With this correspondence suggesting that FARC knows what he thinks, maybe the American voters have a right to know what he thinks, too. Five questions come to mind:

1. Is it true Obama would cut off Plan Colombia military aid to our ally, which would serve the terrorist group FARC's interests?

2. Does Obama still oppose a free trade agreement for Colombia, even though that puts him on the same side as FARC in the debate?

3. Does Obama know or care that one of his staffers or supporters is claiming to disclose his positions in secret meetings with FARC terrorists outside government channels?

4. Can he tell us why his supporters would pass on such information to terrorists, and what he or she could gain from it?

5. Will Obama, as president, treat FARC as the serious terrorists they are, given that they still hold three Americans hostage?

These aren't idle "gotcha" questions, by the way. Based on his campaign so far, Obama favors meeting and negotiating with rogue leaders without preconditions, passing secret messages to foreign countries at odds with his public positions and tolerating Che-flag wielding leftists among his supporters who advance a radical agenda in his name.

Now that FARC seems to have an inside line to Obama's campaign, maybe he ought to come tell voters what he really stands for.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Ann Coulter on Bush "Appeasement" Talk

I really like Ann Coulter.
I´ve read two of her books: "How to talk with a liberal" and "Godless" and, contrary to what I guessed, there are real arguments behind her witty phrases... Her clever comments are just the spice of a fine meal.

That´s why you never get bored reading Ann. Her word-puzzles are great. Here´s an excerpt of this week post. Ann comments the over-criticized (by the left) speech of president Bush in Israel.

It is obvious that Bush referred to the appeasement politics that Obambi (ahaha) intends to implement. But Ann is wrong. Obama is not a new copy of Neville Chamberlain, just because Bush is not a copy of Churchill. Not even Ahmadinejad resemble Hitler.

Obama will talk with "Al-ma" and he will agree immediatly. With no concessions, no war. Just because Obama is a good person. And because he, definetly, can talk to the animals!! Look what Obama did "appeasing" people like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Weather Underground people or Louis Farrakan, son Ahmadinejad will be a peace of cake...

Enjoy Ann´s article..

If We Could Talk to the Animals - HUMAN EVENTS
Calling the fight against terrorism "the defining challenge of our time" -- which already confused liberals who think the defining struggle of our time is against Wal-Mart -- Bush said:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

The way liberals squealed, you'd think someone had mentioned Obama's ears. Summoning all their womanly anger, today's Neville Chamberlains denounced Bush, saying this was an unjustified attack on Obambi and, furthermore, that it's absurd to compare B. Hussein Obama's willingness to "talk" to Ahmadinejad to Neville Chamberlain's capitulation to Hitler.

Liberal-Scientist Blogger Detests Libertarianism... and Ron Paul

I have talked (and argue, sometimes) with many Randian Libertarians. They always claim that the libertarian views must be spread amongst the internet to make people aware of what libertarianism is really about. My point was that strictly libertarian-rational à la Ayn Rand views would not help anyone to let leftism aside. The usual libertarian speech sounds incredible selfish and greedy to people. A discourse like this would only make people more wary against libertarian views than to adopt it. Moral values, even used as a bogus by the socialist always, sound better to the non-initiated.
That´s why I am conservative.
Libertarianism with no moral values is just like to have a incredible sportscar and allow it to be driven by a drunk driver.

This article makes me wonder about it..
The explanation why PZ Myers, owner of a Science Blog, detests libertarianism is the same that all leftists have spread during many years throughout the media, as "a reactionay political movement that seeks to elevate greed and selfishness as a ruling principle".
Regarding to Ron Paul (the very subject of the article), I think his libertarianism is so naive that could be used as trojan horse even by Nazis (American National Socialist Workers Party , that apparently endorsed his candidacy), a thing that nobody that share a glimpse of conservatism could ever agree upon.
I have to confess that I was impressed by RP proposals, initially (taxes, his sctrictly constitutionalism) but after some scrutiny I´ve left his wagon.

I think is these kind of lies that all conservative-libertarian must fight against. 
Read the article to see why.

Why is Ron Paul so popular?

Category: Politics
Posted on: December 29, 2007 8:20 PM, by PZ Myers

OK, 'fess up — some of you know that I thoroughly detest libertarianism, that reactionary political movement that seeks to elevate greed and selfishness as a ruling principle, and I suspect one of you got me a subscription to Reason magazine a few months ago, just to taunt me. If your goal was to persuade me to come over to the side of unbridled anti-social self-centeredness, you failed. The issue comes, I glance through it, find a few little bits and pieces I can agree with, but because they're all imbedded in this thick tarry fecal sludge of libertarianism, I end up throwing the whole thing away in disgust.

The issue I got today was no exception. The cover story: Ron Paul. Bleh.

I disliked Ron Paul before I learned he was a quack, before I heard him deny evolution, before I learned he was an enabler for neo-nazis. I rejected him when I first read about his proposed policies, the ones he isn't embarrassed to make public, and saw that he was promoting the same garbage my relatives in the John Birch Society were peddling when I was a young man: isolationism, anti-government, anti-immigrant, generalized hatred of the other and a blind refusal to recognize that culture matters.

The mostly laudatory article in Reason confirms my opinion.

…it's all classic Ron Paul: Get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing; find the money to support those dependent on Social Security and Medicare by shutting down the worldwide empire, while giving the young a path out of those programs; don't pass a draft; have a foreign policy of friendship and trade, not wars and subsidies. He attacks the drug war … one of his biggest applause lines, to my astonishment, involves getting rid of the Federal Reserve.

I actually approve of some of that, like ending the drive to empire and the drug war. The John Birchers of my youth pushed the same agenda, but then you dig a little deeper, and you find the rotting core of their reasoning.

He wants tougher border enforcement, including a border wall; he wants to eliminate birthright citizenship; and he wants to end the public subsidies that might attract illegal immigrants.

Ron Paul isn't just a small-government obsessive: he's a no-government radical. And at the same time he wants every positive function of government to vanish, he wants what amounts to a police state in place to keep the rest of the world out, all out of fear of those strangers with different customs and ideas.

So, please, whoever you are: don't renew my subscription to that awful magazine, and please, please don't make me live in a Ron Paul America.

Friday, May 16, 2008

Israel, at 60 and the "Nakba" Myth

Israel at 60 - created at UN session that was presided by Brazilian (and gaucho - means that he was born at the same state as I, Rio Grande do Sul) diplomat Oswaldo Aranha in 1948. According to wikipedia, "As the head of the Brazilian delegation to the U.N., Aranha supported
and heavily lobbied for the partition of Palestine toward the creation
of the State of Israel; in 2007, a street in Tel Aviv was named in his honor at a ceremony attended by his relatives and Brazil's ambassador to Israel."

So, Brazil and Israel have historical bonds. Sometimes readers ask me why I have the banner "I a proud friend of Israel" on the rigth. Many of them use the same justifications against Israel. All of them spread around by the leftist media in Brazil, in the same fashion Green Little Footballs told us about MSM coverage. So the youth are basically pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. The main objection is the Nakba myth.
I found this interesting article o the subject.

Nakba and the Palestinian Lie « TMQ2
The nakba of the late 1940’s and 1950’s that befell large numbers of Jews living in Arab countries who were suddenly expelled, persecuted, and stripped of their property does not interest such people. Those Jewish refugees made new homes in Israel and actually outnumbered the Palestinians who fled.

Meanwhile, an urban legend has been fabricated about the origin of the term “nakba” — a fairy tale that claims the word was a banner waved by Palestinians starting in 1948, and that its very use shows how deep the roots of “Palestinian nationality” go.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Jonah Goldberg at L.A. Times..

Conservatives are happier than Liberals!

John Ray, from Dissecting Leftism, linked a research that shows the opposite regarding to conservatives. Liberals-minded people always say conservative are angry and unhappy. Here´s the new study.
"Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners, and new research pinpoints the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities. Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found. Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.

The rationalization measure included statements such as: "It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others," and "This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are." To justify economic inequalities, a person could support the idea of meritocracy, in which people supposedly move up their economic status in society based on hard work and good performance. In that way, one's social class attainment, whether upper, middle or lower, would be perceived as totally fair and justified.

If your beliefs don't justify gaps in status, you could be left frustrated and disheartened, according to the researchers, Jaime Napier and John Jost of New York University. They conducted a U.S.-centric survey and a more internationally focused one to arrive at the findings. "Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives," the researchers write in the June issue of the journal Psychological Science, "apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light."

The results support and further explain a Pew Research Center survey from 2006, in which 47 percent of conservative Republicans in the U.S. described themselves as "very happy," while only 28 percent of liberal Democrats indicated such cheer. The same rationalizing phenomena could apply to personal situations as well.

"There is no reason to think that the effects we have identified here are unique to economic forms of inequality," the researchers write. "Research suggests that highly egalitarian women are less happy in their marriages compared with their more traditional counterparts, apparently because they are more troubled by disparities in domestic labor."

Monday, May 05, 2008

The Books that F** the World!!!

The Books that F** the World!

I just received this message from Human Events... This book seems to be great...

TV, video games, the Internet—many people blame technology for the violence, narcissism, and secularism in society today. But Professor Benjamin Wiker argues technology isn't to blame—philosophy is. In his controversial new book, 10 Books That Screwed Up the World (And 5 Others That Didn't Help) , Wiker proves that some of Western civilization's most "respected" books are really the root of many modern-day destructive ideas and cultural vices.

Taking aim at such books as Machiavelli's The Prince and Hitler's Mein Kampf , Wiker shows how these authors' perverse ideologies not only have led to past atrocities like war and genocide, but also how their philosophies are still popular and damaging today. Their ideas might influence your own thinking and you don't even realize it! In this intriguing and provocative exposé, you'll learn:

  • How Hobbes's Leviathan promotes the belief that we have a "right" to have and do whatever we want.

  • How Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil promotes atheism and paved the way for popular atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

  • How Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa promotes promiscuity and divorce.

Witty, shocking, and instructive, Wiker seizes each of these evil books by its malignant heart and exposes it to the light of day, offering a quick education on the worst ideas in human history—and how we can combat them in the future.”

In the Amazon page for the book I found more clues on the books that “screwed-up”..:

  1. Why Machiavelli'sThe Prince was the inspiration for a long list of tyrannies (Stalin had it on his nightstand)

  2. How Descartes'Discourse on Method "proved" God's existence only by making Him a creation of our own ego

  3. How Hobbes'Leviathan led to the belief that we have a "right" to whatever we want

  4. Why Marx and Engels'sCommunist Manifesto could win the award for the most malicious book ever written

  5. How Darwin'sThe Descent of Man proves he intended "survival of the fittest" to be applied to human society

  6. How Nietzsche'sBeyond Good and Evil issued the call for a world ruled solely by the "will to power"

  7. How Hitler'sMein Kampf was a kind of "spiritualized Darwinism" that accounts for his genocidal anti-Semitism

  8. How the pansexual paradise described in Margaret Mead'sComing of Age in Samoa turned out to be a creation of her own sexual confusions and aspirations

  9. Why Alfred Kinsey'sSexual Behaviorin the Human Male was simply autobiography masquerading as science”

To add more interest to the book, it is recommended by Thomas E. Woods Jr, writer of “ How Church Built Western Civilization” .

Sunday, May 04, 2008

Interview with Golitsyn´s Editor

Christopher Story is the editor of the magazine on intelligence "Soviet Analyst" and the editor of Perestroika Deception by Anatoly Golitsyn. Here´s some excerpt from the first part of the interview taken by William Jasper.

The Perestroika Deception (part I) by William F. Jasper
Golitsyn is probably the most important Soviet defector ever to have reached the West. The reason for this is that he revealed the details of a long-range deception strategy of which the West previously had no knowledge. When debriefed, he emphasized, as he has done ever since, that because of his background of working within the "inner KGB" — a super-secret strategic planning department of which not even ordinary KGB officers were aware — he was uniquely qualified to inform the West about Soviet strategy. One of the superficial criticisms frequently made about Golitsyn is that he has been "out of the loop" since defecting to Finland with his wife and daughter in 1961, so how could he possibly know what was going on? People who say this reveal a failure to understand Golitsyn's significance, and what he has to offer the West.

In summary, Golitsyn's importance is that, unlike all other defectors, Golitsyn discusses and elaborates upon Soviet strategy. By contrast, defectors like Oleg Gordievsky discuss mundane matters concerning the manner of their "escape" from the Soviet Union, perhaps revealing valuable operational information in order to gain the confidence of (in Gordievsky's case) Britain's MI6, before inserting strategic disinformation in their output. Golitsyn is different. He has spent his years in the West explaining patiently that the Soviets follow Leninist strategic principles, and are engaged in a deadly long-term war against the West. The Soviet revolutionaries have followed Lenin's advice to "work by other means."

Unlikeable Encounter: Debbie Harry and Jim Morrison

AI found this, zapping through the net: "Rapture Riders", that is a mix of "Riders of The Storm" (Doors) with the rhythm from "Rapture" (Blondie). The result is... Tell what you think about it.