Stuff in the News
“For example, metropolitan Liberals support gun control for a hard-headed reason: to disarm the dangerous urban minorities who threaten them. But liberals hardly want to admit that, even to themselves, so they flocked to Moore’s ‘Bowling for Columbine,’ a minstrel show about scary white rural gun nuts and the evil corporations that profit off them.
In “Columbine,” Moore did ask one interesting question: how come Canada has many guns but few murders? Moore stared into the abyss of political incorrectness at the obvious answer—Canada is only 3 percent black and Hispanic—and blinked. It’s so much safer blaming tacky K-Mart for selling bullets.”
Here is an interesting interview with the CIA analyst known as Anonymous, who authored the book “Imperial Hubris.” Here’s a quote:
“It’s also perceived widely in the Muslim world that we attacked Iraq to move along what, at least in Muslims’ minds, is the Israelis’ goal of a greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. While we’re beating the hell out of the Iraqis, Sharon and the Israelis are beating the hell out of the Palestinians every day. So we have an overwhelming media flow into the Muslim world of infidels killing Muslims. It’s a one-sided view, but it’s their perception. And unless you deal with what they think, you’re never going to understand what we’re up against.”
Are the Dems trying to lose? Paul Craig Roberts thinks so:
“Neither political party will come to grips with the employment implications of globalization. Neither party will acknowledge the fact that Palestinians are a captive people and that American indifference to their fate is the cause of Muslim terrorism. Neither party will address the domestic police state implications of the "war on terror." Neither candidate deserves to win the election. Has America acquired Imperial Rome's inability to produce leadership?”
One way for Democrats to lose the election is failing to take a strong stand on the foolish and damaging war in Iraq. But that is exactly what they are doing.
Want larger breasts? Join the army.
The strange case of Sibel Edmonds. Edmonds is an FBI whistleblower fired in March, 2002 for bringing information about 9/11 to the public. John Ashcroft didn’t like that:
“The dismissed accuser, Sibel Edmonds -- a linguist and translator with expertise in Mideast languages -- was hired by the FBI soon after September 11. As the Boston Globe reported July 5: "Sifting through old classified materials in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, (Edmonds) said, she made an alarming discovery: Intercepts relevant to the terrorist plot, including references to skyscrapers, had been overlooked because they were badly translated into English."
Moreover, on Oct. 27, 2002, Ms. Edmonds told a reporter for CBS-TV's "60 Minutes" that there was a large backlog of untranslated FBI interviews with possible terrorists, in addition to wiretaps. But she was told to do her work slowly so that the FBI could get a bigger budget to hire more translators. Ms. Edmonds also had revealed to her superiors that one of her colleagues was involved with an organization under FBI surveillance. They were not pleased to hear from her on that.”
When it comes to federalism, we’re all liberals now.