[Login / Register]

Menu

Forums

error

This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.

Peter 1470 7259 Lod	RE: HSIG - Egypt Versus Gaza (Hamasland) 7/17/2010 4:07:00 PM
	Hello Friends, Here's a short but interesting read. What it basically shows is that Hamasland (Gaza) is considered a danger zone by the Egyptians for a variety of reasons the main one is their being a "client" of Iran and the enmity between Iran and Egypt is well known. So they're considered to be a potential base for terrorism against Egypt and they're not willing to allow that to happen. Shalom, Peter Egypt Versus Gaza By Barry Rubin* July 17, 2010 http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/07/egypt-vs-gaza There is a bit of silver lining, even in the Gaza cloud. It's this: the Egyptian government, aware that the West won't help it get rid of the revolutionary Islamist regime there, that Israel cannot do it, and that Hamas won't voluntarily accept subordination to the Palestinian Authority, now understands it has to protect itself from that threat. For Egypt, the threat is multiple. Most directly, Hamas is a close ally to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, a group that wants to overturn the nationalist regime and give Egypt an Islamist state that would enjoy all the blessings of Iran and Taliban Afghanistan. In or after their revolution, the Egyptian elite would be murdered and all of its property confiscated. A second threat to Egypt comes from the fact that Hamas is an Iranian client. The days are long gone when Egypt could credibly present itself as the leader of the Arab world and the trend-setter for the region, but it still has a real national interest in what happens elsewhere in the area. Iran is a threat to Egypt in four ways: Persian versus Arab; Shia versus Sunni; Islamist versus nationalist; and Iran versus Egypt on a state-to-state level of competition. One might well think of a hostile Gaza Strip in relation to Egypt as parallel to what a Communist Cuba has been to the United States. On a third level, Gaza could easily become a safe haven for terrorists operating against Egypt. Any weapon smuggled into Gaza, for example, could reappear some day in an attack on tourists in Cairo. With Egypt approaching its first "normal" transition of leadership in forty years the government seems to be all the more nervous about such things. (President Gamal Abdel Nasser died in 1970 and there was a short-lived but potentially dangerous factional battle, but when President Anwar Sadat was assassinated in 1981 the elite united and Husni Mubarak had no trouble gaining full power.) So what can Egypt do? It doesn't want to rule Gaza, as it did between 1948 and 1967. Why ingest such a headache, to mix metaphors. And Egypt's obvious though not explicit support for Israel's 2008-2009 retaliation against Hamas's war brought it criticism. Egypt has also tried and failed to play mediator between Hamas and the PA. Cairo also knows it cannot depend on the United States (who can do so nowadays?) Thus, the best Egyptian option is to isolate the contagion. An entire new Egyptian security system, with more troops and several zones of control, has been established. A wall has been constructed to prevent Gazans from breaking through and houses have been demolished near the border line. Stepped-up efforts try to control smuggling. The government has made it clear that nothing crosses the border without its permission, though it isn't able to enforce that completely of course. I haven't seen figures on successful smuggling and-truth be told-a lot of Egyptian officials like bribes. So I cannot say how much they have cut down on the cross-border commerce. But they are trying harder. Remember, the Hamas regime is not just a threat to Israel but to Egypt. Egypt's government doesn't forget that for a moment. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org. You can read and subscribe to his blog at* http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
	Peter Fogel Babylon 7
	+0

Peter 1470 7259 Lod	RE: HSIG - The True Goals Of Hamas 7/18/2010 6:32:33 AM
	Hello Friends, I can't remember how many times I've written that all you have to do is listen to what the radical Islamists, terrorists, jihadis and terrorist leaders, lunatic terrorist governments say and you'll know what their plans are. In this sense they are very transparent and not afraid to tell the truth cos they know MSM will not report what they say (or distort what was said to suit their PC mentality) and the Western World leaders simply ignore what was said if they heard it at all or simply don't understand and comprehend what was said. The below article elaborates on this subject. Shalom, Peter West Says: We've Helped Poor Gazans! Hamas Says: You've Given Us Gaza, Now on to More Wars, Seizing the West Bank, and Wiping Out Israel By Barry Rubin* July 7, 2010 http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/07/west-says-weve-helped-poor-gazans Here is what President Barack H. Obama said after his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "We believe that there is a way to make sure that the people of Gaza are able to prosper economically, while Israel is able to maintain its legitimate security needs in not allowing missiles and weapons to get to Hamas." Now compare this with what the leader of the regime ruling the Gaza Strip says in explaining his broad strategy. See if there is any possible intersection between reality and Obama's priority on mking the Gza Strip prosperous. Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahhar doesn't want anyone to accuse him of hiding his plans and views. Perhaps he is trying to tip off the writers of all those Hamas-is-moderate articles. Nope, they won't listen. They'll just keep writing about how Hamas is already moderate or about to be made so with more concessions. Zahhar is also telling everyone the consequences of what the West has just done: accepted on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea a revolutionary Islamist, anti-American, anti-Western, repressive, Iranian client, terrorist regime that oppresses women, drives out Christians, and abuses children's lives by turning them into future suicide bombers. Or, what in the Western dialogue is referred to as resolving the "humanitarian crisis." This is the regime whose domain Obama proposes to make prosperous. It makes me think of a cub scout meeting a serial murderer. Zahhar explains the Gaza flotilla hoopla and subsequent wave of anti-Israel sentiment not as a way for getting more wheelchairs into Gaza but as the end of phase one of his plan, which in future intends to place a lot more people into wheelchairs in Gaza: "We have liberated Gaza, but have we recognized Israel? Have we given up our lands occupied in 1948? We demand the liberation of the West Bank, and the establishment of a state in the West Bank and Gaza, with Jerusalem as its capital - but without recognizing [Israel]. This is the key-without recognizing the Israeli enemy on a single inch of land.... "Our plan for this stage is to liberate any inch of Palestinian land, and to establish a state on it. Our ultimate plan is [to have] Palestine in its entirety. I say this loud and clear so that nobody will accuse me of employing political tactics. We will not recognize the Israeli enemy." Zahhar reveals his next target: "If we could liberate the Negev now, we would continue [our military activity], but our capabilities dictate that after we got rid of the Israeli presence in Gaza, we must finish off the remnants of that occupation, and move on to the West Bank." Incidentally, how many Western leaders, politicians, academics, journalists, and activists advocate merging the Palestinian Authority and Hamas into a single government. Isn't that what President Barack H. Obama said was his goal, too? Sure he wants the PA on top, but who would you bet on would emerge victorious in the battle over the West Bank if Hamas were welcomed back into the PA? I'm not saying that Hamas can take over the West Bank, though that's due more to Israel's efforts than to the PA's resistance. But it will try to do so. And when it gets frustrated, at some point, it will renew war with Israel. Hamas will also try to help subvert Egypt and work to help Iran in spreading its influence and intimidation throughout the region. When Iran has nuclear weapons will it declare that the Hamas Gaza regime is under its protection? That would, if it were to happen, probably be a bluff, but a bluff that would take the region one step closer to war. Is there any chance of any Western leaders actually reading and comprehending this speech; any possibility its implications will be taught in Western classrooms; any way that it will be prominently quoted and explained in the Western media? Because Zahhar and Hamas really mean what they say, and most Western governments don't even hear what they say. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org. You can read and subscribe to his blog at* http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
	Peter Fogel Babylon 7
	+0

Jim 5804 11253 Holiday	RE: Human Shields In Gaza 7/18/2010 1:42:24 PM
	Hear the Call Peace, Freedom, Liberty and Justice is being tested globally. Do you hear the call?
	May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you, Jim Allen III Skype: JAllen3D Everything You Need For Online Success
	+0

Peter 1470 7259 Lod	RE: HSIG - Who Are The True "Moderate" Muslims 7/19/2010 2:55:12 PM
	Hello Friends, A while ago I wrote about "moderate" Muslims and after reading the below article I realized I only touched the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately I can't give the link to my original post since it's no longer possible to search in the threads as it was in the old format and there are to many pages here to make a search page by page. In any case the term moderate Muslim given by a true moderate Muslim is totally different from the definition of MSM, the Obowma regime and other world leaders and governments as you'll see in the below article. It's a very interesting read and well worth reading. Shalom, Peter Interview with Zeyno Baran on Moderate Muslims By Barry Rubin* July 15, 2010 http://www.gloria-center.org/blog/2010/07/interview-zeyno-baran-moderate-muslims PajamasMedia published my interview with Zeyno Baran on her book. It is available here. For your convenience I'm including the text here. If you reprint or forward please be sure to credit PajamasMedia. An Interview with Zeyno Baran, senior fellow of the Hudson Institute and editor of The Other Muslims: Moderate and Secular. (Palgrave-Macmillan), 190 p., $21.60 Barry Rubin: Zeyno, you begin your book with this sentence: "The most important ideological struggle in the world today is within Islam." Can you explain the nature of this struggle and how it is going? Zeyno Baran: This struggle is essentially a Muslim civil war over whose definition of Islam will be accepted as "mainstream": will it be the version of the Islamists (shared by all political-religious radicals, both non-violent and violent) or that of traditional Muslims (cultural, secular, and pious) One will become accepted by a majority of Muslims, and by extension, of non-Muslims. Since the 1970s Islamists have made tremendous headway in this struggle thanks to money from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region; they were thus able to establish institutes and networks all over the world to spread Islamism. Today, many Muslims don't even realize what they believe to be authentic Islam is in fact a primarily political ideology of recent origin. Non-Islamists are still lacking in the financial resources-whether state or private-necessary to organize effectively against the Islamists; this is true as much in the West (the focus of this book) as in Muslim-majority countries. So, in the short term I argue that Islamists will continue to be winning in this struggle. That said, I believe in the longer term both non-Islamist Muslims and non-Muslims will eventually wake up to the realization that Islamism is a serious ideological challenge to universal human rights. Barry Rubin: Precisely what is a "moderate Muslim"? Hasn't that term been subject of a lot of misuse and misunderstanding? Zeyno Baran: You are exactly right-the misuse of the label "moderate Muslim," by Islamist groups operating in the West, has indeed led to major misunderstandings. This is precisely why I used this term in this book-to clear up this misunderstanding and reclaim the term from the Islamists, many of whom represent themselves as "moderates" to Western policy makers. American and European policy makers have accepted as "moderate" people who do not commit violence; to me, however, that is a very narrow definition. An Islamist that participates in the electoral process yet does so with the goal of limiting women's rights or of introducing a sharia regime is not moderate. The contributors to this book are all true moderates-those who fully support both universal human rights and the teachings of the Islamic faith. Being "moderate" does not mean they are not pious, which is another common misunderstanding of the term. Barry Rubin: Why is it wrong to base the definition of a "moderate" Muslim on simply those who don't use violence? Zeyno Baran: The true divide within Islam is not between violence and nonviolence, but between moderation and extremism. Few Muslims resort to violence-but many more share the thinking of the violent extremism. Unless the ideology of Islamism is understood as the root cause of the violence, I don't believe we'll see an end to the terrorism and radicalism among Muslim communities. Moderation has to start with thought; if we are giving a free pass to those with extremist ideologies as "moderates," then the true moderates will continue to be weakened. Barry Rubin: How have the U.S., Canadian, and European governments helped the radicals and hurt the moderates? Zeyno Baran: Western governments, in their desire to "engage with Muslims," have often reached out to well-established Islamist organizations as their "partners". In doing so, these governments did not realize that they were lending legitimacy to these Islamists in the internal struggle against their moderate opponents. With the Islamists being the main "go-to Muslims" for Western governments, it has been much harder for the true moderates to make their voices heard. Barry Rubin: Why are Western media and institutions so easily fooled by radicals, and why do they seem to favor them? Zeyno Baran: I think when Western media and institutions look for "Muslim voices," they automatically gravitate to those who most closely resemble their preconception of what an "authentic" Muslim sounds like-a conception that has, of course, been shaped by Islamist propaganda. In recent years, an "authentic" voice has been one that is opposed to US policies, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is strongly critical of Israel. Many in the media share these views as well, so it is in some ways a natural fit. The true moderates are often accused of being neo-conservative or "not really Muslim" when they support US policies or express a more balanced view of the state of Israel; these ideas seem to Western journalists and policymakers to be "un-Muslim," as if there were a single Muslim way of thinking! Certainly, the Islamists argue there are certain "Muslim opinions" on some issues-such as the Middle East peace process-but that's because they are trying to establish their own view as the single dominant one. It is as wrong as saying there is a "Christian opinion" on an issue, given the vast range of views held by individual Christians. Barry Rubin: How does assimilation and acculturation work with Muslim immigrants in the West and how should it work? Zeyno Baran: Each country has had different policies and different experiences, but in general, European countries for many decades paid little attention to assimilation; in particular, the UK and the Netherlands followed an openly multiculturalist policy that avoided any mention of assimilation and/or acculturation. This led to Muslim immigrant enclaves being formed in parts of European cities; when an area becomes heavily Islamic, then Islamists come in with their institutions and mosques, and establish themselves as the interlocutors between the immigrant community and Western authorities. Even after many of these governments decided to change their policies and developed programs for increased acculturation, they continued to work with the Islamists, whose ultimate responsibility is not to Muslim immigrants, but to the global Muslim umma (community) as they understand it. Since these "representatives" had no interest whatsoever in promoting the integration and assimilation of European Muslims, this led to frustration on the part of Western governments and societies, which began wondering whether Muslims can ever truly become "Western." In turn, this frustration-directed towards all Muslims, not just the extremists-fostered a sense of anger and victimization on the part of the Muslim immigrants, who felt they would never be accepted as long as they remained Muslim. A better way to ensure social cohesion would be to address the pragmatic needs of Muslim immigrants-jobs, education, equal rights-in accordance with the social norms of the country, with a sensitivity to different religious/cultural backgrounds. In practice, this would mean allowing the establishment of dignified prayer places for Muslims, while not assuming all Muslims go to the mosque all the time, or that the mosque is the only social place for Muslims. There need to be many other places where Muslims can go to socialize with each other and non-Muslims; these will develop naturally if Europeans can move away from characterizing these populations as "Muslim first." Barry Rubin: Has the concept of multiculturalism helped or hurt in this struggle? Zeyno Baran: Despite being born of good intentions, the Western policies of multiculturalism have made it harder for Muslims to become Western. The pendulum of respect for cultural/religious difference has swung too far, and Muslims have been trapped into their Muslim identity as "the other," instead of being assisted in becoming one of "us." One of the recent and most clear examples of this is the wearing of the burqa in the West. For years multiculturalists have looked the other way when seeing women covered from head to toe in a style contrary to most Western norms as well as to Islam itself. Islam simply mandates modesty in dress, which for many women traditionally meant the headscarf, but never the full covering. Yet, until recently, in another unintended consequence of multiculturalism, few Westerners were willing to tackle this issue as they did not want to be seen as intolerant or bigoted. The few that have spoken out have been silenced with threats of being labeled "racist"; thus, intolerable forms of social behavior have continued to the point where they have become acceptable. Barry Rubin: How can Western societies "win over" Muslims without losing their own identity or surrendering to the Islamists? Zeyno Baran: The question is which Muslims? The Islamists would never be won over since their long term goal is to see a world that is ruled with sharia. If Western societies continue to try to judge their success in "winning over Muslims" by giving into Islamist demands, then they'll continue to lose their identity and their basic freedoms. But if Western societies were to side with non-Islamist Muslims, and learn from them how best to counter the short- and long-term goals of the Islamists, then I would say there is a great possibility that the West will not only successfully defend its own values and norms, but also help Muslims usher in a desperately-needed Islamic Renaissance. Barry Rubin: How can moderates justify their interpretations of Islam when they appear to differ with the most important and basic Islamic texts? Zeyno Baran: Many of these texts have been written centuries ago and in a particular context. Many moderates read them recognizing that what may have been a great social advancement in the 8th century cannot be taken literally in the 21st century. Over the centuries, there were many different voices widely debating how to interpret the Qur'an or the hadiths; moderates follow the tradition of those who have used their rationality and interpreted revelation as well as historic developments within their correct context. There are also many moderates who have not read many of the basic Islamic texts; yet they are no less legitimate, because 1) many of the radicals have never read many of these texts either and 2) Islam is not just about the written text but the living tradition. Indeed, for centuries Muslims learned the basics of their religion orally, passing down teachings from one generation to another. The recent radical trend we see among Muslims is due to radicals picking and choosing certain passages from the Qur'an and other key texts, interpreting them in a way to make their case, and then presenting them as the most legitimate interpretations. Again, I'll draw an analogy with Christianity-it is as if saying that only one denomination's interpretation of basic texts is the correct one. Paraphrasing Bernard Lewis, the situation we face within Islam is as if a KKK-controlled state found major sources of oil, and used the money to spread its own version of Islam as the most correct form and the whole world gradually began seeing them as the most authentic voices. Barry Rubin: The Islamists are so well financed and well-organized how can the moderates compete? How can they win? Zeyno Baran: This is the most difficult question. The moderates have not been able to compete and won't be able to compete unless there is help from the West. Theoretically some of the Muslim-majority countries that are threatened by Islamists could help, but in practice they are often too afraid to challenge them for fear of being labeled as "apostates." The West knows from its own history the damage religious extremists cause to societies and the religion itself; they can help the moderates by no longer giving Islamists a free pass while their activists are working to undermine Muslim moderates and Western (or universal) values. They can also help by increasing visibility of the moderates' work, such as those in The Other Muslims who argue for secular rule using Islam's own texts and history, or those who push for Islamic Renaissance, without which I believe we'll never quite win against the radicals who are increasingly becoming the mainstream. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org. You can read and subscribe to his blog at* http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
	Peter Fogel Babylon 7
	+0

Peter 1470 7259 Lod	RE: HSIG - Lt. Col. Alan West: NAACP And Liberal Racism 7/19/2010 4:53:49 PM
	Hello Friends, The below article by Lt. Col Alan West needs no preface or additional comments he says all that needs to be said extremely well and in a concise and explicit manner. I sure wish that we had more Alan West's' running for political office. Shalom, Peter Lt Colonel Allen West: NAACP and Liberal Racism Once again, Lt Colonel Allen West shares his clear and brilliant observations of events shaping our nation. Here are his thoughts on liberal racism and the NAACP. Washingtoons 18 July 2010 Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Retired) Liberal Racism "One Nation under God Indivisible with Liberty and Justice for All" Greetings Wheels on the Road readers, fellow South Floridians, and all Americans, my how time flies and here we are again for our monthly political assessment. It never ceases to amaze me that as we get closer to our monthly submission of this regular missive that the topic becomes evident. I often use an ole saying from my parents, "sometimes you just have to thank God for stupid people"....and I do. The focus for this month without any doubt has to be the NAACP and its President/CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. Let me make one thing very clear, my Mother, Elizabeth Thomas West, was a lifetime membership holder with the NAACP. Therefore growing up in our home I clearly understood the mission and vision for this organization. It was a mission and vision that enabled me to have the pride in myself and the heritage of my parents, grandparents, and extended family. It was a mission and vision that, to me, fostered a desire to excel beyond the standard and have a commitment to excellence regardless of skin color. However, something has happened to that mission and vision, something horrific and inconsistent with the principles and values I recalled emanating from the "ole school" black community. Somewhere along the way victimization mentality has taken root in the black community resulting in astronomical unemployment rates, high incarceration rates, appalling murder rates, breakdown of the black family, and embarrassing teen pregnancy rates. And in the light of all these negative socioeconomic indicators the NAACP decides that the preeminent focus of their national convention would be on issuing a resolution castigating the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party movement as racist. Even Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas was so compelled as to state that the Tea Party is filled with Klan members.....but we will get to the Congressional Black Caucus a bit later. Instead of maintaining its mission and vision, the NAACP has now become the "useful idiots" (a term coined by Vladimir Lenin) for liberal racism. They have made themselves into a political hack job organization which now seeks to maintain the liberal progressive socialist control of the 21 century plantation. It is on this new economic plantation where the liberals seek to enslave the black community in order to maintain a devoted, monolithic, voting electorate. I find it interesting that the NAACP was silent when Senator Harry Reid made his insidious comments about President Obama was favorable, likeable, because he is "light-skinned" and did not speak in "negro dialect". I recall that the NAACP said nothing when Vice President Joe Biden referred to Barack Hussein Obama as "clean and articulate". The NAACP said nothing when liberals attacked Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice (birthing tubes cartoon), Michael Steele, and General Colin Powell. In 2008, where was the NAACP to denounce the obvious case of voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party? Why did the NAACP not demand President George W Bush, and now, Attorney General Eric Holder, and the Obama adminstration, to prosecute this case to the fullest extent? Does the NAACP now support the same tactic which targeted the black community seeking to restrict the most fundamental of American individual rights, the right to vote? And shall the NAACP distance itself and condemn Malik Shabazz and the New Black Panther Party? It is this duplicitous hypocrisy which allows me to state that the NAACP is shamefully now a liberal racist enabler. The upcoming mid-term elections have the Democrat party in certain peril. Therefore they have turned to their tactic of first and last resort, race baiting. The resolution issued by the NAACP against the Tea Party is just a strategy to focus this coming election not against liberal progressive policies, which are anathema to our Republic. No, the NAACP, in conjunction with their masters, the Democrat party, seek to make this into an election based upon an insane charge of racial hatred. We even see charlatan blasts from the past such as Julian Bond stating that Martin Luther King Jr was a socialist, a feeble attempt to garner black community acceptance of the liberal progressive agenda. We are truly on the verge of a dangerous situation in America. And yes, this also includes the lawsuit being brought against the sovereign State of Arizona, an attempt to win Hispanic votes.....an extension of liberal racism to another minority group. We can fully expect from now until 2 November 2010 to see the usual suspects come out to promote the dishonest tyranny of the liberals. You will find the Congressional Black Caucus, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton out to ensure blacks remain wedded to the failing liberal social welfare policies, all the time shouting how the Democrats know what is best. I find it comical that Al Sharpton has already leapt forward to head up a new left-wing grassroots group to counter the Tea Party called "One Nation". Does One Nation believe in higher taxes and bigger government? Will this counter group promote individual rights and freedoms, liberty, and adherence to our US Constitution? I presume this group will seek to intimidate and put forth the ideals of collectivism combined with victimhood and expansion of the "nanny-state". I find the Tea Party, to which I have spoken to several times, stands for fundamental principles and values consistent with that which has made America an exceptional Constitutional Republic. Therefore, under the "leadership" of Al Sharpton, this counter group One Nation obviously stands for principles which are antithetical to our Republic. In closing, I am sure you are asking why did the ole Colonel have the last sentence in the Pledge of Allegiance in the title for this piece? Simple, Liberal Racism does not believe in One Nation under God. They believe in a Nation of subjects organized into collective groups under which they shall rule, not govern, in a secular humanist based society. Indivisible, Liberal Racism does not believe in "e pluribus unim", they prefer a balkanized America where they can pit us against each other through their manipulated messages....such as Tea Party racism. Liberal racism does not believe in Liberty and Justice for All, they believe in freedom defined by a ruling class elite while creating more victims who become dependent upon their dishonest benevolence. Justice in the world of Liberal Racism means social and economic justice rooted in a principle of leveling, which founding father Samuel Adams spoke against. Al Sharpton defined justice as everyone having the same in every home in America.....government engineering of results and outcomes. The mid-term elections of 2 November 2010 comes down to "One Nation under God Indivisible with Liberty and Justice for All" or the concept of One Nation under the proprietor of victimization Al Sharpton, a simpleton crony of Liberal Racism. Which shall you choose? Steadfast and Loyal, LTC(R) Allen B West
	Peter Fogel Babylon 7
	+0

My Links

Like us on Facebook!