New Home

The blog may be viewed at its new page http://www.AmericanYank.com

Thanks
Infinite Speculator

Gay America: Chasing Their Identity

On June 15, 1981 the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta reported multiple cases of pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia, a rare pneumonia that is commonly linked to severe weaken immune systems, which had been contracted by several gay men in Los Angeles. This would be the beginning of the mysterious AIDS (Anti-Immune Deficiency Syndrome) virus. Although several would be inflicted by the disease either by blood transfusion or drug use involving contaminated hypodermic needles, the gay community, which would be the most impacted by this disease, would rally for more research and federal funding as 1982 began.

At the time Ronald Reagan was the US President. The Reagan administration did not even publicly acknowledge the existence of the disease even after it had been documented multiple times by the press. Reagan was an on the record conservative and opposed to gay rights. After the administration’s recognition of the disease in 1985, under his administration federal funding totaled $5.7 billion over the course of his remaining tenure in office.

What Reagan and his staff realized was that AIDS was not airborne or carried through the water supply. No the spread of AIDS began in gay bathhouses where gay men would engage in anonymous consensual sex. In order to address AIDS coupled by a federal bankroll (tax dollars) there would have to be responsibility on behalf of Gay America and not monies just thrown to the wind. In other words, despite his critics, Reagan would implement fiscal responsibility. In this author’s opinion Reagan wasn’t about to allow the White House to become a sounding board for gay rights either.

No matter what his critics have said Reagan did jumpstart AIDS research. What they didn’t like was his contingency for the funding. These are the same critics who lambaste the current Bush administration for the federal deficit and oppose social program cutbacks in favor of a strong defense, although these programs inadvertently create multi generations of dependency and entitlement. However when it came to Gay America and throwing taxpayer dollars at AIDS research they predictably choose the other side of the coin.

This entry isn’t intended to defend the policies of Reagan and his administration- there is no need to defend them. No this is to address his foresight or at least the foresight of his administration. The Reagan administration knew a thing or two about responsibility in one’s personal life as it related to promiscuity and specifically what was being experienced in gay bathhouses.

Now fast forward to the present time and allow your author to discuss a current epidemic ripping apart the gay male population of America. It is a trend that is beyond description. An idea that mitigates everything the federal government and our funding has attempted to accomplish as it relates to AIDS. It spits in the eye of Reagan’s critics who attempted to demonize his name at the time of his death as it relates to AIDS and his administration’s policy. It is a choice they are making that is beyond comprehension. It is known as chasing the bug and it is something that, once again, Gay America has refused to address.

What is chasing the bug? It is considered an underground movement where gay men engage in anonymous sex in the hopes of contracting AIDS/HIV. Yes in the hopes that they will become infected with the virus. It often takes place in either gay bathhouses, which are now referred to as all male fitness clubs or on the dance club scene, often under the influence of methamphetamines and alcohol.

The theory or thinking behind chasing the bug is thought to have been based around the idea that once a gay man contracts AIDS he will no longer have to practice safe sex. They become a part of something or attempt to identify with a group. While psychologists begin to analyze this lunacy and figure out why men would play Russian roulette, conservatives should take note that this is being buried or at least not admitted to by the gay population. Once again personal choices and responsibilities or lack of rule the day and not reliance upon the federal government to combat AIDS.

Gay America continually changes as the wind blows. At first they wanted to be accepted by society, nearly forcing themselves upon others for their acceptance and weave their way through legalization of same sex marriage. This was on the heels of being gay doesn’t make you different. In prior times they wanted to be known as a minority due to their sexuality. In other words something about them distinguished their group from the rest of society. They did so by attempting to latch on Black America, as well as other well known minorities and the lumping together of minority status with anyone except a white male protestant. They still cry more for AIDS but yet have failed at keeping their own house clean. They are a group that continually spins out of control and fails to find an identity.

Dissecting a Peanut

Surprisingly former President Jimmy Carter’s interview with Germany’s Der Spiegel Magazine has brought little in the way of recognition with regards to the US Big Media Machine. It certainly did not escape your author’s attention as he will dissect nearly the entire interview and remind the reader of poignant memories during the 1976-80 term of the then US President. Your author will supply much of the entire interview along with his analysis and commentary. So let’s begin….

SPIEGEL: Mr. Carter, in your new book you write that only the American people can ensure that the US government returns to the country's old moral principles. Are you suggesting that the current US administration of George W. Bush of acting immorally?

Carter: There's no doubt that this administration has made a radical and unpressured departure from the basic policies of all previous administrations including those of both Republican and Democratic presidents.

Yes President Carter the current administration has taken a radical departure from previous administrations both Republican and Democrat. This is due to the fact that America was attack on September 11, 2001. The havoc wreaked on this country that day was unparalleled. Unlike previous calls to war, this enemy knows no geographic boundaries and is fueled by a violent culture that has been absorbed by an entire generation.

SPIEGEL: For example?

Carter: Under all of its predecessors there was a commitment to peace instead of preemptive war. Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened and now we have a new policy of going to war on a preemptive basis. Another very serious departure from past policies is the separation of church and state, which I describe in the book. This has been a policy since the time of Thomas Jefferson and my own religious beliefs are compatible with this. The other principle that I described in the book is basic justice. We've never had an administration before that so overtly and clearly and consistently passed tax reform bills that were uniquely targeted to benefit the richest people in our country at the expense or the detriment of the working families of America.

Yes President Carter you are correct, with previous administrations peace was the intended solution and to avoid war at all costs. If this was the case then why even have a military? Well President Carter when airplanes are rammed into two towers that were The World Trade Center, another into the Pentagon Building and one other plows into a Pennsylvania field, which resulted with nearly 3,000 dead you know there is no negotiating with these individuals.

As far as the separation of church and state, where do you see this being violated? You as a Baptist should recognize this immediately as the ACLU have ramped their efforts to dismantle Christmas displays throughout many towns and cities to remind everyone of the separation of church and state.

Where does basic justice fall in the category of tax relief or taxing the citizenry? If the politicos in the Greenbelt followed your author’s advice we wouldn’t have an income tax. It would be one less item to politicize about and by the promises made by both parties regarding the income tax only fuels class warfare. Note to President Carter, please be advised that an income tax is a direct intrusion that pierces right through the privacy of every American citizen and furthermore many risk their lives relocating to see a new life in our golden streets, which coincidentally is often coincided with wealth obtainment.

SPIEGEL: You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Given this circumstance, does it come as any surprise that Washington's call for democracy in the Middle East has been discredited?

Carter: No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon.

President Carter, this is where the interviewer should have brought out a few questions, but I will ask them-first which Arab countries hate us? I will give you Syria and Iran as an obvious two, both have hated us, especially Iran when you were President.

SPIEGEL: One main points of your book is the rather strange coalition between Christian fundamentalists and the Republican Party. How can such a coalition of the pious lead to moral catastrophes like the Iraqi prison scandal in Abu Ghraib and torture in Guantanamo?

Carter: The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God, and that they and their ideas are God's ideas and God's premises on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases -- as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world -- it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a fundamentalist can't bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality. And so this administration, for instance, has a policy of just refusing to talk to someone who is in strong disagreement with them -- which is also a radical departure from past history. So these are the kinds of things that cause me concern. And, of course, fundamentalists don't believe they can make mistakes, so when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, it's just impossible for a fundamentalist to admit that a mistake was made.

Now this interesting, we have to go back in history and analyze Carter’s former constituency of voters. As many know Carter is a Georgia native and served as their governor before ascending to the position of President. Georgia and much of the southeast are collectively referred to as the Bible Belt by the press. Carter held a deep commitment to his Christian faith from an early age and throughout his political career would continue as a Sunday school teacher.

His early political career was described as a conservative Democrat. These were the days, which are long gone for those keeping track, when the party literally controlled the southern political scene. This is traced back to the days of the Civil War following the Republican Reconstruction and soon the Democrats were known as Yellow Dog Democrats-vote for a yellow dog over a Republican any day. So committed to the southern Democrat cause, Carter would forego an opportunity to run for the US House of Representatives and throw his hat in the governor’s race. Carter thought anybody but a Republican and although losing the primary nomination on his first attempt, his campaign would force a series of events to occur that led to the election of Democrat Lester Maddox.

Now there is no doubt that Carter appealed to the conservative Christians of his state. The previous bit about his Sunday school teacher role was often cited. So is it safe to say that these early Carter supporters were fundamentalists? Your author reminds you of the Bible Belt reference. Obviously this nomenclature had to be derived from some element of truth. So entrenched was the southeast with their Christianity that they represented, by the press at least, the distinction of taking their Christianity to the voting booth. Is this so? Would they not be, given the lack of distinction in other parts of the country for such characteristics, be considered fundamental? Would Carter not be considered part of this group? The reference to fundamentalist here in America and fundamentalists throughout the world is interesting. Is he implying or comparing Christian fundamentalists in US with being on par with Muslim fundamentalists? President Carter cuts this comparison short.


SPIEGEL: Do you think the United States is still an important factor in securing a peaceful solution to the Middle East crisis?

Carter: Yes, as a matter of fact as you know ever since Israel has been a nation the United States has provided the leadership. Every president down to the ages has done this in a fairly balanced way, including George Bush senior, Gerald Ford, and others including myself and Bill Clinton. This administration has not attempted at all in the last six years to negotiate or attempt to negotiate a settlement between Israel and any of its neighbors or the Palestinians.

How has America provided leadership for Israel? Do you mean Israel and America are close allies? The last time I checked the Israeli political scene is intense and citizens vote their leaders in. Why should the US government attempt to negotiate a peace plan between Israel and Palestine? I mean all other attempts, including yours and others, have all been failures. Have you forgotten that before his stroke then Israel Prime Minister Arial Sharon that in 2005 he led the controversial act of removing Jews from the Gaza Strip and giving a portion back to the Palestinians? What has since happened? Well for starters the remaining synagogues that were left behind found themselves quickly looted by the Palestinians. Secondly have you seen this nasty Palestinian group known as Hamas, who have since attacked Israel? Maybe that is a sign that holding hands, whipping out pens to sign treaties and negotiations aren’t the answer. So why go down this road again and again?


SPIEGEL: What makes you personally so optimistic about the effectiveness of diplomacy? You are, so to speak, the father of Camp David negotiations.

Carter: When I became president we had had four terrible wars between the Arabs and Israelis (behind us). And I under great difficulty, particularly because Menachim Begin was elected, decided to try negotiation and it worked and we have a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt for 27 years that has never been violated. You never can be certain in advance that negotiations on difficult circumstances will be successful, but you can be certain in advance if you don't negotiate that your problem is going to continue and maybe even get worse.

Many have heralded the Camp David Peace Accords as a success and by some degree it did produce fruit. However it should be noted that Anwar Sadat, then President of Egypt, was assassinated in October 1981 and that cannot be ignored. Before his untimely death and after The Accords, Sadat had cracked down on professors, journalists, Islamists, communists and student groups. Who was behind the assassination? The leader was Khalid Islambouli and other prime conspirators were Ayman al-Zawahari, Omar Abdel-Rahman and Abd al-Hamid Kishk. It should be noted that al-Zawahari would later be proven as an ally of Osama Bin Laden. Camp David cost Egypt, they were banished from the Arab League and not until 1999 were they readmitted.

Now here is where The Accords failed to cut the mustard and where other factors come into the attempts. At the time Egypt had a disastrous economy and look to forge business ties with the United States. It should also be noted that Israel would only have the opportunity to negotiate with Egypt. Strangely enough The Accords employed the then Romania Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu as a go-between with Palestine’s PLO.

SPIEGEL: But negotiations failed to prevent the burning of Beirut and bombardment of Haifa.

Carter: I'm distressed. But I think that the proposals that have been made in the last few days by the (Lebanese) Prime Minister (Fuoad) Siniora are quite reasonable. And I think they should declare an immediate cease-fire on both sides, Hezbollah said they would comply, I hope Israel will comply, and then do the long, slow, tedious negotiation that is necessary to stabilize the northern border of Israel completely. There has to be some exchange of prisoners. There have been successful exchanges of prisoners between Israel and the Palestinians in the past and that's something that can be done right now.

It is true, Carter does have much to be distressed about because in the past, these negotiations have always been long term failure. Successful exchange of what prisoners Mr. Carter? Last I checked Palestine has abided by the cease fire but just weeks prior they too felt like launching a few against Israel.

SPIEGEL: You've written about your meeting with Fidel Castro. He appears seriously ill now and Cuban exiles are partying already in the streets of Miami. You are probably not in the mood to join them.

Carter: No, that's true. Just because someone is ill I don't think there should be a celebration of potential death. And my own belief is that Fidel Castro will recover. He is two years younger than I am, so he's not beyond hope.

It should be noted that this portion of the interview contained a photograph of the former President and the Cuban Dictator tossing the first pitch at a baseball game in Cuba. While Carter is showing his genuine Christian belief with regards to the celebration that has been experienced because of the belief Castro is near death; Carter must surely give equal time to the thousands of Cubans that have been impacted by Castro’s reign. This is where recognition of those who died, often times tortured before succumbing, fighting against Castro’s revolution, which could be described as a capitulation to poverty. Additionally what about the many who braved 90 miles of water to leave the island nation?

SPIEGEL: You sought to normalize relations with Castro, but that never happened. Has anything been achieved through Cuba's isolation?

Carter: In my opinion, the embargo strengthens Castro and perpetuates communism in Cuba. A maximum degree of trade, tourism, commerce, visitation between our country and Cuba would bring an earlier end to Castro's regime.

How did he seek to normalize relations? While in Office he basically refused to take a pro-active stance with the Mariel Boatlift. This was when a mass exodus of Cuba immigrants, about 125,000, landed on the shores of south Florida. As a result a moment of chaos, which in some cases resulted in rioting, was experienced. This event occurred in October 1980. By then Carter was so down in the polls to California governor Ronald Reagan that he would lose the Presidential election in one of the worst landslides in American history. Reagan would take 91% of the electoral vote. Carter just didn't care.

Carter makes this bold statement regarding Castro’s continuance of power. He suggests that if America eases up on relations with Cuba that communism would fold in Cuba. This is where he gets it wrong. While the reign of Castro has been impressive it has been at a cost to the island. What if free-trade was initiated with Cuba? Well since Castro, by sheer force and control, has the last say all the riches would find their way back to him. Would this not strengthen his grip? Once again Carter fails to address the legacy of Castro’s brutality. Additionally Cuba enjoys free trade with Canada, the United Kingdom and Spain. The latter being one of their most active trading partners. Has this relieved Cuba? Has this diminished Castro’s clinch on Cuba? Strangely enough Carter believes America should be pro-active as it relates to Cuba but with other matters we should come together under the veil of the UN or some other type of group think.

SPIEGEL: You've been called the moral conscience of your country. How do you look at it yourself? Are you an outsider in American politics these days or do you represent a political demographic that could maybe elect the next US president?

Carter: I think I represent the vast majority of Democrats in this country. I think there is a substantial portion of American people that completely agree with me. I can't say a majority because we have fragmented portions in our country and divisions concerning gun control and the death penalty and abortion and gay marriage.

Here is where President Carter goes overboard. The vast majority of Democrats he speaks of do not exist. Their party, in significant portions, has been hijacked by the likes of Michael Moore, the DNC head Howard Dean, the moveon.org and George Soros crowd. Do you speak for them President Carter? Is that why you and Moore were standing next to each other at the 2004 Democrat National Convention? Once again he whines the three most commonly heard pseudo hot button issues-gun control, death penalty and gay marriage. I am surprised he forgot to mention national healthcare. Most polls will indicate that a vast majority, apparently you don’t represent them- are against gay marriage, gun control and support the death penalty. Just like he got it wrong in 1979-80, he fails to see the apparent truth. This says more about the rank and file, muscle men behind the Democrat Party then anything else.

SPIEGEL: Does America need a regime change?

Carter: As I've said before, there is a self-corrective aspect to our country. And I think that the first step is going to be in the November election this year. This year, the Democrats have good chance of capturing one of the houses of Congress. I think the Senate is going to be a very close decision. My oldest son is running for the US Senate in the state of Nevada. And if just he and a few others can be successful then you have the US Senate in Democratic hands and that will make a profound and immediate difference.

Does America need a ‘regime’ change? This sounds like something out of Karl Rove's playbook! I find it interesting that his son, who did win the Democratic nomination, is running for the Nevada seat. I would have thought with all of Carter’s political moxie in Georgia that his son would be a shoe-in. Oh yes that’s right the Democrats have lost much of Georgia and the rest of the previous political stronghold over the southeast. Will you be advising him Mr. President?

Whether you agree with Jimmy Carter or not, you have to admit he does enjoy candy coating his legacy. It was a legacy that saw the misery index jump by 50% for every year he was in office, when high unemployment and inflation ruled the day. It was doom and gloom. It was a time to legitimize hijackers and failure to see America’s will. Upon his exit it was also a time of hope and success.

The Grim Reaper Is Coming To A Town Near You

Although The New York Times fails to inform the reader of the carnage inflicted on Israel, although having no reservation in giving a daily update of the similar havoc on Lebanon, they also have no problem with informing the world of the most recent spokesperson for the left wing branch of the Democrat party. The spokesperson is none other than Michael Schiavo, former husband of Terri Schiavo and the famous Florida case that became a national outcry in defending life. In fact Schiavo’s new image as a political mover and shaker was featured on The Times’ front page.

Many of you will remember Terri Schiavo sat over a decade in a vegetative state, while her husband Michael and her parents Robert and Mary Schindler, who desired to care for her, battled it out in Florida courts. Michael Schiavo maintained the stance that as last of kin he should be able to make the decision to turn off her feeding tube and cause her death. He also made the unfounded claim that if Terri was ever to become incapacitated that it would be her wishes to terminate her life. That in itself is a profound statement from a then 26 year old woman. In October 2003 Florida Governor JEB Bush signed what would become known as Terri’s Law in order to prevent the permanent removal of her feeding tube. This law was eventually overturned by Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals. In no surprise to your author a portion of Schiavo’s legal team was comprised of ACLU attorneys. The US Senate in a controversial move passed what would become known as The Palm Sunday Compromise in order to delay the Florida Court’s ruling. The law would have transferred Schiavo’s case to the federal level. Following The Supreme Court’s overturning the law, Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed and she passed on March 31, 2005.

What was alarming to your author was the passion to fulfill Michael Schiavo’s wishes that was displayed by certain members of Congress. Florida Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat, refused to support the federal bill. Florida US Congresswoman from Florida, Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz, lit into a fiery defense of not supporting The Compromise. Many other freshmen Democrats also displayed the same intensity for the cameras. Another moment that was a cause for concern was Michael Schiavo’s tenacity to see his wife’s life terminated. Michael Schiavo even received offers of over $1million USD to stop his attempts and refused. While this in itself was heralded that he genuinely cared for his wife’s quality of life, what would one expect him to do? If he had ended his stance or changed his decision he would have been seen as attempting to profit from this event. In other words once he stated his desires for her to die there was no turning back. It should also be noted that his love for his wife and the goal of euthanasia obviously did not impede on his personal life as he took up a common law wife and had several children by her. The couple met in 1995 and have since officially married.

Just when you think Michael Schiavo would go away, he is back and has taken up a predictable drumbeat. He appears to be the newest representative for the far left in this country, falling inline with the likes of Cindy Sheehan and others. In December 2005 Schiavo jumpstarted TerriPAC, a Political Action Committee and as of this date has raised $25,000 USD. He supported Ned Lamont’s thin victory for the Democrat Primary in Connecticut over incumbent Joe Lieberman who had supported the previous federal attempt as it related to Terri Schiavo. Michael Schiavo has since hand delivered a critical letter to Republican Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado who supported the federal law. Musgrave’s opponent Democrat Angie Paccione was quoted saying, “He (Schiavo) is the human face of government intrusion. We need more individual citizens like him to step up and put an end to it. People trust somebody who looks like them, talks like them and has their experience.” This would all be well and good if it was not centered on a human life and her parents’ desire to care for her, thus relieving Michael Schiavo who by all appearance had gone with his life. Would you trust Michael Schiavo? Your author believes that every time a Democrat opposes a tax cut and supports items such as the death tax that these are intrusions on his life. Additionally Florida Democrat Representative Jim Davis, who is currently seeking the seat of that state’s governorship, has been parading around a letter through a distribution campaign that is an endorsement by Schiavo. Davis supported Schiavo’s successful attempt to end his wife’s life.

The only thing your author is able to ascertain from Schiavo and his PAC is that the Democrat Party is becoming ever increasingly desperate for anyone they can extract national support from. The Party is quickly falling out of the mainstream and the big US media machine will have an increasingly difficult time explaining the party’s objective. The far left that is visibly represented or at least exemplified by DNC head Howard Dean, has already proclaimed they control the Democrat Party. If anything similar chaos that surrounded the Lieberman-Lamont nomination battle will become a consistent theme.

Just as Cindy Sheehan took her son’s death in the Iraq War to mean a battle cry against conservatives so has Schiavo. Sheehan’s son Casey, it should be noted, voluntarily joined the Armed Forces and reenlisted knowing full well he would be sent to Iraq. In fact on the day of his death he was a volunteer for the US Army’s Quick Reaction Force, whose sole purpose was to rescue stranded troops. At the very least Casey Sheehan should be remember for his bravery and commitment, a celebration of his life and not used as fodder by the fringe element. In both tragic incidences Schiavo and Sheehan have formed a new identity. When it comes to Schiavo he is celebrating his wife’s death while veiling it with the argument against government intrusion.

As the Democrat Party, who your author often refers to as Demo-Wimps due to their lack of having teeth behind anything of substance, embraces more and more of the far left fringe elements it is important for the reader to note just what this faction represents. If led to their own devices they would create an anarchic society, which they would refer to as a utopia, with no boundaries or common universal moral code because moral relativism rules the day and the importance of theory overrides actual results. It is a land where life is not valued by many of them as evidenced by their emotionally charged support for such things as partial birth abortion and quick draw euthanasia. Where pro-action is not the norm and desperate reaction to failures is commonplace. It is a society that your author wishes not to be considered a member.

Heathrow: Multiculturalism Fails

The recent thwarting of a would be plot to blow airplanes out the sky that were departing out of London’s Heathrow Airport is once again a testament of the United States’ efforts in combating terrorists. Yes the British authorities are certainly due a loud thank you but the big U.S. media machine has yet to say “Gee maybe the SWIFT program and homeland security are really combating terrorists and would be terrorists”. No the big media machine has continually referred back to the United Kingdom’s past history in combating the IRA. This certainly exposed the UK and forced them to deal with terrorists, allowing them to gain valuable insight. However the US big media machine will never do an about face, eat crow and admit their criticism against President Bush is poorly founded. No they maintain their stance against Bush following the President’s comments where he described the terrorists as Islamic fascists. Predictably the Muslims in America are chiming in with the critics, citing Benito Mussolini as a fascist and maintaining that the phrase was in poor taste.

A fascist or fascism is defined as a practitioner or practice whereby the government is the central authority, dominating the economy and society led by a dictator. Well the last your author checked Osama bin Laden and others of the same ilk wish to dominate the world or at least Western Society and are Islamic. So what’s the problem with stating the obvious?

This entry is not to restate the obvious or criticize the pundits. This entry is to explain the failures of multiculturalism. The would-be terrorists of London were not immigrants but rather homegrown. This was the same case in early June 2006 when Canadian citizens belonging to Toronto’s Muslim community alleged to have plotted a series of terrorist attacks in Southern Ontario were arrested. The March 2004 Madrid train bombing was carried out by terrorist cells living within the city. Later that year, in July, the London subway system was rocked by a series of bombings. The bombers were found to be husbands and sons, living and working outside of London. They were not shuttled in during the dark of night from a Mid East country.

Multiculturalism is defined as the following: a policy that emphasizes the unique characteristics of different cultures in the world, especially as they relate to one another in receiving nations. In this case Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada and the US were the receiving or hosting nations. In each violent strike the perpetrators were unable or refused to assimilate with society. The host nations had welcomed them, educated many of them and allowed them access to their society’s resources.

In 1957 multiculturalism popped up in Switzerland, however by the mid 1960s Canada was embracing the idea in droves. Soon it became commonplace in Australia and Europe, particularly in France, The Netherlands, Great Britain and Scandinavian countries.

In America there was the Melting Pot Theory, which can be defined as immigrants and the existing citizenry mixed together with little state intervention. This worked well, although with a bumpy road to travel, beginning in the late 1800s-early 1900s. However because of racial or ethnic prejudices this idea is thought to have been a failure by conventional thinkers. Note-The Melting Pot theory did not fail, mankind and his prejudices intersected its progression. Later the press dubbed Black leadership-defined as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan-would gravitate towards the idea of multiculturalism. The multiculturalism theory certainly impacted the political parties and they too adjusted their policies to address their practicing constituents. What has become apparent is that multiculturalism bred groups defined by culture ties and usually congregating in what would become known as ghettos. In other words there was no reason to venture out and there was no need to advance on the socio-economic scale. As long as your surrounding area was ‘just like home’, with street signs in your native language and your neighbor favoring your features, then why bother? As long as the infrastructure was to your advantage, this often seen in social programs and assistance, why would it be worth your while to assimilate? In fact divisions among groups of people are often ignored by these same supporters, which in its purest essence contradict the same goals of Dr. Martin Luther King and his vision of mankind embracing one another. Multiculturalism, as it has become known today with its practice, effectively turns out the light on King’s “Dream”.

In 1971 Canada adopted multiculturalism with their government body known as the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. This was in response to French speaking province of Quebec and their demands to be well… different. What occurred was we stay on our side and you stay on yours but give us our federal monies at the same time. This led to idea of Quebec breaking away to form a separate country and only in 1995 was the issue settled with the famous referendum. At the time of one of the most outspoken critics of multiculturalism was Canadian Progressive Conservative Party leader and one time Prime Minister John Diefenbaker. To suggest Diefenbaker was a proud Canadian is an understatement, he feared and rightfully so a ‘hyphenated’ Canada. In The States we are not free of such descriptive as we suffer from this same popular cultural tagging. This is when African-American, Gay-American, Muslim-American, etc. become the norm in describing individuals. When did Black not become beautiful or the gay population who in the past have been rabid about crying that their sexuality does not differentiate them from society, suddenly embrace their difference? Often times this hyphenation to ad nauseam ooze of individuals desiring some kind of a lineage to a culture they know little about. They suffer from the identity factor and feel lost, much of this by their own perception and unwilling to embrace society. Oh they may read books on a country’s particular history or actually visit this place for a holiday, but really they know next to nothing about the inner workings of that country’s society. They do not have a lifetime experience living in that country nor could possibly fully appreciate that society’s history. I cannot begin to relate to a body of cultural history with my English and Scottish roots, despite several trips to both countries. How could I expect to be able to relate to an area where my ancestors vacated some 150 years ago? I cannot and neither can the individuals who practice such silliness with a noticeable degree of fervor.

In America we have the answer to multiculturalism and it has been under our nose this entire time. The Bill of Rights, a simple but ingenious document, protects one’s right to assemble and practice whatever religion to their heart’s content. It guarantees certain inalienable rights. Your author can only wonder whether these particular countries or regions, which are deemed important for those who tag them in their own description of themselves, have such a document. Your author must also ask himself why the supporters of multiculturalism with their hyphenated descriptions leave their country of origin. An even more perplexing notion is why do the citizenry of a particular country-in this case United States, Canada or any of the several European countries previously mentioned-stay and choose not to relocate to Africa, Mexico or a country that is dominated by a particular religion? Of course before these individuals can answer these questions they would label your author a bigot.

The aborted terrorist attempt originating in London’s Heathrow Airport along with the others previously cited had no direct ties to Osama bin Laden. It would be a safe assumption to state these violent figures were ‘inspired’ by him and his al Qaeda group. This should be a key component in tailoring legislation here in The States but the Democrat Party has decided to use the ‘get bin Laden’ chant as a backdrop to their attempts to regain a majority in Congress. In a direct contradiction with this battle cry they have also embraced far leftist thinking or idealism. The far left can be described as Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Howard Dean and the supporters of MoveOn.org. This group’s running theme is to stop the Iraq war. What if the Iraq War did conclude-would terrorist strikes or attempts as recently witnessed in London cease as well? Not likely. So are we committed to getting bin Laden, Islamic terrorism in general or do we want to end all wars? We can’t have it all.

Following the deployment of Allied Forces in Afghanistan and later with Iraq, former Florida Democrat Senator Bob Graham began criticizing Bush’s foreign policy as it relates to the war on terror during a television appearance. Graham, who did not seek reelection in 2004 because it was very clear to many he would not win despite being reelected in two previous senatorial races and having never lost a campaign, lambasted Bush and referred to bin- Laden as ‘Osama-Been-Forgotten’.

What Graham and many of his colleagues failed to recognize is that bin-Laden was merely a face in a much larger-scale movement of violence and chaos. As with many conventional thinkers, Graham and others were stuck on World War II where geographic boundaries and leaders with faces were clearly defined, failing to see the macro picture. In each of the terrorist attacks described, along with others as they relate to the Islamist jihad movement, none of the participants were leaders of a large military, held an elected position, commanded influence over a political party and for the most part none had previous military training. They were disenfranchised individuals, many living in ghettos or within the confines of their neighborhood. More importantly they were the end result of multiculturalism.

Whether they are misled and absorbed in al Qaeda propaganda or tagging themselves to denote a particular cultural lineage, sexuality or religion; they are lost. Your author is reminded of The Ramones. The Godfathers of New York punk music released an album entitled Animal Boy in 1986. Within the body of work is a song entitled Looking For Something To Believe In. Unfortunately the politicians, pundits, critics and talking heads aren’t listening to the same tune.

Fidel's Ghost, French Lunacy and Democrats

Latin Leftism

Your author apologizes for not fulfilling his promise with launching of a piece on the leftist shift currently impacting Central and South America. However with the pause came the breaking news of Fidel Castro, in ill health, temporarily bequeathing power over Cuba to his brother Raul. While Fidel has been a prominent favorite for the media in his over 40 year domination over the country, Raul has quietly worked behind the scenes ensuring the Castro duo’s control over the day to day life of the average citizen of Cuba. The Fidelista regime and Raul’s lesser known role in its security has enabled him to become known as the longest serving defense minister.

The media pundits are already asking the ‘what ifs’, while Cuban-American, particularly ones that lived a great deal of their life under Castro’s rule and immigrated late to the United States, believe that Castro is either dead or close to kicking the bucket. Their rationale is that the Cuban government would not have made such a drastic move nor announces it in such a public fashion unless it was critical.

By the mid 1990s Cuba had been outcastes in the arena of global economics. The powerful Soviet Union had been dismantled and the island nation lost major financial assistance. Raul Castro implemented a program to allow small, mom and pop type businesses to operate. The most notable of these were cafes. While this attempt flourished, the Euro currency, American and Canadian dollars rushed in. The Cuban peso was viewed so poorly that the American dollar began to show up more and more. In other words the home currency was deemed worthless. Economic freedom would naturally cause the citizenry to question Fidel Castro and his failed revolution. Your author describes it as a failure because time and time again the peasants of the country, ones that Fidel said he represented in his lofty and famous speeches, were willing to risk a 90 mile oceanic passage to Florida. Note: When people are stating they would rather die than live another day under a particular regime, the curtain is nearly set to close on that country’s infrastructure and their leader.

Embarrassed by the flood of US dollars Fidel shut down the experimental program. Now he is dying. Raul Castro, if his brother does indeed pass, will assume full control of the nation. The Cuban military, managed by Raul Castro, fuels over half of the country’s $2billion GDP. The infrastructure, like every other nation under the communist cloak, is in tatters and ruined.

Will Raul embrace capitalism? Within the Cuban American population centered in Broward (Ft. Lauderdale) and Dade (Miami) counties, it is thought that millions will pour back into Cuba. The only way to reasonably predict his move is to watch for one of these three scenarios to occur: A. He loses control over the military. If this is the case there is no guarantee gravitation to capitalism will materialize. B. He quickly pays Washington DC and the European Union a visit. It is almost certain where he is leaning. C. He strengthens ties with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. If this plays out then all hope of Cuban Americans will be lost. Whatever scenario takes place, Latin America is still chugging along with a leftist tilt. This may in itself be the lasting testament to Fidel Castro.

One of the most controversial of the countries as it relates to the theme of leftism is Mexico. Your author has already penned an essay on the country that by all appearances suffers in dire straits. Following their July 2nd election the country has been absorbed in protests and demanding a vote recount. The current president Vicente Fox due to the country’s constitution is unable to seek another term. The challengers were Andres M. Lopez Obrador, formerly the mayor of Mexico City, candidate for the centre-left party Democratic Revolution and Felipe Calderon of the centre-right party National Action Party. Prior to Fox’s presidency the Revolution party had dominated Mexico politics for over 75 years. The Revolution party is socialist and for their domination, Mexico would make a slow grind to becoming one of the most impoverished nations in North America.

The election was close, the closest of any Mexico’s presidential run-offs. In a voter turnout considered historical, well over 75% registered voters participating and churning out 42million ballots, Calderon won by a mere 240,000. The opposition is alleging fraud and protesting continues. Obrador has since announced that he does not plan to vacate the Mayoral position. Scenario: If Obrador maintains his popularity and given the closeness in his defeat, the next election will surely grant the power back to the Revolution institution.

In a closely watched election Nicaragua is showing a signs that it will embrace another Sandinista government. Herty Lewites, a centre left candidate dropped dead of a heart attack recently. The centre right candidates-Eduardo Montealegre and Jose Rizo-are in back with former Sandinista Daniel Ortega gaining steam. Will the Sandinista gravitate towards modernizing Nicaragua, something the countries political elite has failed to do or will they fall inline with the leftist storm that is a brewing? Another question that faces the citizens of Costa Rica, Nicaragua’s southern neighbor, is how it will impact them and their tourist trade?

Coming down to South America lies the incarnation of Fidel Castro except he has oil on his side-Hugo Chavez. Your author has previously predicted many of his strategic moves-banishing Christian missionaries and practically nationalizing the oil industry. Due to an ever increasing global demand for oil, Venezuela has placed their small country in the forefront of global news. Chavez has been criticized for demanding oil production to be curbed, thereby increasing the price as it relates to steady demand.

Chavez is described as anti-global and a nationalist. He has criticized the international oil firms based in Venezuela-remind yourself they provide jobs and referred to the Catholic Church as ‘not walking in the path of Christ’. He has since taken control or extracted the most influence over oil firms Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron and Spain’s Respol.

Entering into an election year in 1998, Chavez experienced a landslide victory. In 2002 his popularity had dropped dramatically but ‘amazingly’ he won a second term. Much of the reason behind his reelection was brought about civil unrest and demonstrations. Critics have long alleged that Chavez second victory was based on voter fraud.

Another point that is worth reviewing is Chavez’s role as it relates to their neighbor Colombia. The country that is synonymous with cocaine cartels has enjoyed a strong presence of democracy- a testament owed primarily to US foreign aide and is now attempting to market their country as a tourist’s destination. Their president, Alvaro Uribe, is beginning to enjoy his second term. However the most serious threat to his presidency are leftist guerilla groups-Revolutionary Armed Forces and National Liberation Army. It is long thought that these groups are funded by drug lords. In what is becoming an increasingly cried allegation is that Chavez is sticking his wallet and rhetoric in the guerillas’ cache. If Chavez is marching to the beat of Fidel Castro this would fall inline with Cuba’s dictator previous attempts in what has become known as Bogotazo. It was April 9, 1948 and youthful Castro was in Bogota taking in Pan American Union conference. Castro picked up arms and became involved in a riot that resulted in the beginning of La Violencia (The Violence), which resulted in an estimated 200,000 murders.

When Evo Morales ascended to the chair of Bolivia’s president the international media heralded him as a native, not of Spanish extraction and somehow this was an important element. However the conventional big media machine failed to see the forthcoming prediction made by yours truly in a January 2006 blog entry. Bolivia, who was about to enjoy the riches from natural gas exportation, had experienced a long history of nothing but chaos. Morales owed his victory to the Central Obrara Boliviana (COB), Bolivia’s strongest union and one that incorporates workers in the natural gas industry. The COB had long dominated Bolivian politics. Within 24 hours the COB issued Morales an ultimatum-nationalize the industry or face massive rioting. By May he had fulfilled his promise, then became cozy with both Chavez and Castro. He currently faces a tense situation within in his country, pitting the capital La Paz against the eastern city of Santa Cruz. The gas industry lies in on the west coast but the wealth is found in the east.

In Ecuador, Occidental Petroleum derives an estimated 100,000 barrels of oil per day and over the past five years has invested $1 billion into the country. The country is run by a nominal head-Alfredo Palacio. Recently the parliament approved a 50% tax on foreign oil interests. The response from Occidental, the US government and others has been to cancel trade talks with the country. While Palacio is an underdog, America has enjoyed successful discussions with Peru and Colombia. If Palacio’s policies are fully implemented Occidental will in all likelihood pull out of the country and direct foreign investment will dry up. If he loses his reelection fails many of these firms will have been long gone. Either way Palacio’s attempts to mirror Chavez and Morales will leave his country in bleak conditions.

The bright spots in Latin America continue on-Argentina, Chile, Peru and Brazil. Both the governments Paraguay and Uruguay are active in market reform. As Cuban-American rally around the prospects of Castro dying and what if scenarios that could take place with his brother as the new leader, his ghost and legacy continues live on with the rest of Latin America. A legacy of failed economic reform built upon civil unrest, murder and paranoia felt by the citizenry.


Socialized Medicine: Bad for your body

In late July the Wall Street Journal reported that during the heat wave pounding on much of the world, France can out due any country when it comes to lunacy and laziness. Despite their pride with their socialized medicine, a trademark for all of Europe, the French government was dealt a blow as doctors and specialists tied to an estimated 600 private clinics decided to go on strike. French Health Minister Xavier Bertrand had to dip into the medical school students and retired doctors pool in order to combat as the French citizenry suffered from scorching temperature. Your author being from Florida has little sympathy.

While the doctors and others took a vacation in order to demand more pay, your author began to consider the ramifications of such an event if the United States implemented socialized medicine. How he recalls the days of Hillary-care, Senator Hillary R. Clinton a Demo-Wimp from New York during her attempts to initiate such proposal as First Lady. Somehow the idea of striking doctors and other medical staff members was not considered. Meanwhile the French are recalling the 2003 heat wave that took the lives of 15,000.

Democrats: More Chaos

We all remember the 2004 election where the Demo-Wimp party took a steep downturn and grabbed for anyone that would vote them. This was when Michael Moore was caught chumming it up with former Demo-Wimp (Grandpa Wimp) President Jimmy Carter at the Democrat National Convention. When moveon.org was considered something of importance and anyone but a conservative should be considered for office. In the end it ultimately failed.

Well we have seen signs of this coming again with the reelection campaign of Demo-Wants to be a Republican-Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Lieberman was once described as what a Democrat or any other politician was once: respectable, rationale and diplomatic. Well he is down in the polls against Demo-Wimp rival Ned Lamont. However what the press isn’t reporting is the chaotic situation surrounding Connecticut’s senatorial campaign. As always your author will cut through to expose the hypocrisy and recall previous events that impact the bigger picture.

Ned Lamont is a millionaire, a cable company owner and this in itself speaks volumes about the Demo-Wimps tried and true hatred for anyone who is rich. Unlike the constituency he claims to represent-the poor, minorities, down on their luck and anti-war mongers, Lamont is an ivy-league graduate. He owns Lamont Digital Systems, a 35 employee firm specializes in the production and operator for advanced telecommunications that can found in universities and gated communities. His grandfather was a chairman for JP Morgan, which allowed Lamont’s family to inherit over $90 million. Just prior to his decision to run, Lamont resigned his membership from a racially restricted country club. In other words this is the exact opposite that Demo-Wimps claim to represent.

If the glaring hypocrisy in ideology as it relates to the actual candidate is bad enough, the Clintons have decided to play this one that leaves them on both sides. Former President Bill Clinton has openly supported Lieberman while Senator Hillary Clinton has said she will support whichever candidate wins the primary. Furthermore recall in 2000 when then Demo-Wimp Presidential nominee Al Gore, who at this moment trying to scare modern society with claims of global warming, desperately needed Lieberman as his vice presidential running mate. It pained many of us who support Lieberman to see him bow to his party’s wishes. Where is Al Gore in this quagmire? Silent! And even more recently supposed and alleged civil rights leader Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are endorsing Lamont. They both cite Lieberman’s loyalty to the Demo-Wimp party while they don’t seem to mind the prior country club affiliation and choice lifestyle enjoyed by Lamont. Lamont has big bucks, Jackson with his Rainbow PUSH Coalition and Sharpton’s National Action Network of Harlem, NY and I will let the reader for their own conclusion with that trio.

If Lieberman fails to cinch the nomination he has vowed to run as an Independent-more power to him. This is only furthering the notion that the Demo-Wimp party is in total meltdown.

Israel: On The Road To Iran

After a wonderful vacation the Infinite Speculator has returned.

Needless to say recent news events have been dominated by Israel’s march to stomp out Hezbollah. The actions taking place in Lebanon and moving forward is not an aggressive state but rather a response to the conventional thinking of United Nations. Your author will guide you through the most recent events that have led to this battle and why it may be the finale that sets the stage for the downhill slope for the Muslim terrorist groups.

Ariel Sharon became Israel’s prime minister in 2001. In this author’s opinion he could be compared to US President Harry Truman. Sharon talked softly and by appearances wished to engage in diplomacy with the Mid East but also carried a big stick just in case. Just as Truman took his bumps from wimpy conventional thinking critics, so did Sharon from the international press for his prior role as Israel’s Defense Minister during the Lebanon War of 1982. Why is it when men and women of conviction with clear goals and determination to achieve them are labeled as thugs by lefty types? The ultimate “Trumanesque” test or example came in August 2005 when Sharon ordered Jewish settlers from the ill famed Gaza Strip. However was this gesture of goodwill a test for the Palestinian State? Sharon may have known when you give an inch you may as well give a foot. We will never know what he was thinking or predicting because in December 2005 Sharon suffered a massive stroke, lapsing into a coma and today remains in this vegetative state. Ehud Olmert, Sharon’s Vice Premier, became acting head of Israel.

While Jewish settlers were being forced from Gaza, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected as president of Iran and within months he made references to wiping Israel off the map. Israel along with the United States and Great Britain felt Iran’s nuclear capabilities were serious enough to implore the United Nations to consider sanctions on the tyrannical Ahmadinejad. Olmert gave probably the first signs of his contempt for Ahmadinejad when he struck back comparing the Iranian leader to Adolph Hitler.

Then in January 2006 the Hamas party gained a significant portion of the Palestinian Parliament. Their opposition, the Fatah Party, still maintains control but by a thread and the country’s president is Mahmoud Abbas, who by appearances wishes to end the continual violent civil unrest. Your author first discussed the potential conflicts that would arise once Hamas members were put in place on the eve of the Palestinian elections. Predictably violence escalated in Palestine, thus proving when you give an inch with regards to Gaza and in May Hamas key terrorist Ibrahim Hamed was arrested by Israeli forces. The US State Department along with several international newspapers would drop a bombshell when it was revealed that Muslim Shiites in Iran were funding the operations of Hamas. Remember Iran as your author will bring them back in the fold at the close of this piece.

Now rewind back to June 1976 Syria, sharing the borders with Israel and Lebanon for those who are geographically challenged, sent 40,000 troops to Beirut. The group, along with the Arab-Catholic Maronite militia, pushed Palestinian forces out of the capital and into Southern Lebanon. Syria would remain in Lebanon providing their brand of justice until 2005. The removal was prompted only when the Bush administration and the post 9-11 attitude towards organized Muslim terrorist groups had changed. With the southern area of Lebanon being saturated with Palestinians launching rockets, Israel began to engage in a series of battles and eventual occupation to secure their northern border. Attempting to flex their collective muscle and seeking legitimacy, the United Nations established Resolution 728 in 1978. The decree called for the removal of Israeli troops but nothing in respect to the Palestinian occupiers. In other words Israel could engage in battle as long as it was south of the border but no global collective answer to the Palestinians. Israel wisely ignored this document and only in 2000, after increased global pressure and the idea that diplomacy may bring peace to the Middle East, withdrew from Lebanon.

Despite leaving Lebanon, the seed for what is being unfolded on the news wave was in place back in 1982. It was in that year that Hezbollah was founded as a radical political group representing the Shia or Shiite Muslim faction of Lebanon. The Shiite Muslims take their kool-aid from the ideology of the infamous and actually scary looking Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of the Iran Revolution in 1979 and top mullah until his death in 1989. The reader can thank Khomeini and his followers for about 90% of the upheaval in the Mid East and anywhere else in the world where Muslim terrorists are involved.

While Hezbollah gained political power in Lebanon they also began a series of social service implementations. While not fighting with the Lebanese government the group has established hospitals and schools. It is no great secret that Iran (see once again) finances Hezbollah. This should make the reader think next time they change the oil in their car.

So now you have Hezbollah kidnapping Israeli soldiers and playing quite possibly their last card in what will be a very nasty game. Strangely but a welcomed sign are Sunni nations such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia keeping quiet. Maybe, despite the United Nations’ inability to effectively deal with Iran’s Ahmadinejad, they know that all trails lead back to Iran? Now with the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Mid East effectively having one less tyrant, maybe Ahmadinejad will attempt to prepare for a jihad with expectations of being greeted by dozens of virgins in the afterlife? Israel has previously taken the Demo-Wimp (Democrat party) approach by trying to hold hands and sign agreements for peace now they will deal with this the only way it can be dealt with and one that ensures their own safety. Will they march to Tehran and lead an all out assault built on decades of rage and previous loss of life? Will the rest of the world see this is as a chance to finally shut down the terrorism spurned from the Mid East? If Israel fails to take it to the hilt and the global conventional thinkers of the left become critical then we will only be revisiting the same scenario in years to come.

Humor…

Big Media Machine’s Response

Maybe Israel and your author along with the Bush administration get the picture with Israel, Hezbollah, Iran and terrorism? Since the Israeli march into Lebanon began the big media machine have been spitting out Demo-Wimp catch phrases such as diplomacy, ceasefire, negotiations and peace process. PBS’s McLaughlin Group, a gaggle of media folks, contributed the same spew and failing to see that it is Israel’s time to finish off something that began because they have tried to attempt ‘diplomacy’, ‘negotiations’, etc.

In today’s issue (July 22) of The New York Times, the collective wisdom at that rag comprised a series of editorials. Here is a sample for your viewing pleasure:

Stop Bombs, Start Talks
THE international community should urgently insist on a cessation of hostilities. Such a measure is needed for two reasons. First, it will make it possible to organize humanitarian relief for the tens of thousands of civilians in southern Lebanon who are trapped in their villages and have already run out of water, food and basic medical supplies. Second, it would give international political efforts a chance to succeed. A week more of bombing will only delay the political process and cause further devastation and loss of life.
With a break in the violence, the international community could help the Lebanese Army assert its authority throughout the country, particularly in the southern suburbs of Beirut and in the south of the country. The political settlement to follow should induce Hezbollah to return the two soldiers it seized last Wednesday and to hand its heavy weapons over to the Lebanese Army. It should also require Lebanon and Israel to return to the Lebanese-Israeli armistice agreement of 1949, and it should insist that Israel release Lebanese captives from its jails.
PAUL SALEM, the director-designate of the Carnegie Middle East Center.

Resolve to Put Lebanon Back In Charge

THE United Nations Security Council must pass a new resolution insisting that Lebanon take full charge of its territory. Already, the Lebanese and Israeli governments agree that Lebanese control is necessary; that is sufficient common ground on which to build. This new resolution would also demand that the parties fulfill the militia disarmament clause of a 2004 United Nations resolution — a requirement that, together with the need for free Lebanese presidential elections, remains unmet.

The immediate question is how to minimize casualties, bring the hostilities to a halt and make the cease-fire permanent. Hezbollah should surrender the two Israeli soldiers to the Lebanese government, and ultimately to Israel, whereupon a cease-fire will go into effect. The resolution should demand that the Israeli and Lebanese governments begin negotiations through the Security Council to address all outstanding issues that are governed by international law: borders, refugees, water, Lebanese prisoners in Israel and Lebanese citizens who collaborated with the Israeli occupation from 1982 to 2000.

To keep spoilers and extremists at bay, the Security Council should issue a stern warning that any local or regional party that obstructs the process will face grave consequences, including the seizure of assets, travel bans and the possibility of indictment for war crimes. A robust international force can help the Lebanese government assert its exclusive sovereignty over its territory against any possible Syrian, Iranian or Israeli encroachment.
— CHIBLI MALLAT, a professor of law at St. Joseph University and a candidate for president of Lebanon.

Meet Your Enemies
THE United States must rekindle the kind of diplomatic activity that befits its status and furthers its interests. Of the six players most directly involved in the confrontation — Israel, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, Iran and the elected Palestinian government — the only one with which we talk is the one with which we agree. As a result, the United States, facing one of the more severe crises in decades, has been missing in action. Watching the United Nations from the sidelines, it has subcontracted diplomacy in a region it deems vital to a party it doesn’t trust.
American diplomacy should focus on immediate reciprocal and verifiable cease-fires, prisoner swaps, preliminary steps toward Hezbollah’s demilitarization and, on the Palestinian side, allowing the Hamas government to govern by easing the financial boycott. This cannot work without engaging Syria and Iran and renewing efforts to establish a comprehensive peace. None of this will be easy or tidy. But it is certainly preferable to a policy that in one breath tells innocent civilians that our thoughts are with them, and in another that the time for a cease-fire has not yet come. Our thoughts they can do without. It’s action they need.
— ROBERT MALLEY, the director of the Middle East Program at the International Crisis Group.

More Humor…

Beltway Provides More Fodder
Your author noticed that Washington response to Israel has been rather quiet. It is an election year and that certainly is an influential factor. To her credit Democrat Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz issued the following statement on July 13.
"I am following the rapidly changing events in the Middle East with deep concern, and I want you to know that as your representative in Congress, I will always use my platform to help advance the prospects for peace and security for Israel."

"The recent escalation of unprovoked attacks against the government and people of Israel is unacceptable and represents a very troubling deterioration of stability within the region. The first duty of a government is to protect its citizens, and I stand by Israel’s right to defend herself against these acts of aggression."

"Hezbollah’s capture of Israeli soldiers was unprovoked and only escalates the tension among all nations involved. I call on the governments of Iran, Lebanon and Syria, who have influence over the fate of the captured Israeli soldiers, to secure their immediate and unconditional release. Any nation that refuses to act against terrorist networks stands as a willing accomplice. The world community must be unified in its condemnation of these acts of aggression against Israel."

"We must send a strong message that our South Florida Jewish community stands with Israel during this tense and difficult time."

Schultz is best known for launching a speech in the House that criticized the federal government’s response to the Terry Schiavo ‘right to life’ plight. I find it strange that someone would launch their career with such passion on whether the feeding tube should be pulled for a comatose woman while her mother and father wish to care for her. She also supports banning offshore oil drilling despite the fact that America desperately needs a fresh crude strike and hopefully lessening the nation’s dependency on oil produced in such countries as Iran. Now couple with this with her stance on what she has deemed inflated gas prices. Her office supports oil companies disclose their pricing techniques. She fails to take in refinery capacity, oil supply and current demand along with prices impacted by futures trading pits. She also believes in economic protectionism or what amounts to such with regards to jobs in the United States. In other words don’t let Mrs. Schultz support for Israel fool you.

Speaking of Demo-Wimps, three others popped up and made the following statements:

"What's going on in the Middle East today" wouldn't be happening if the Democrats were in power” Howard Dean, Chairman Democratic National Party.

No a Demo-Wimp president would be haggling with the United Nations to determine when would be an ideal time to meet for lunch to discuss Iran. Then afterwards they would throw their hands up in the air when a goal wasn’t established and then deploy US troops to Lebanon to hand out bags of rice as bombs were blazing next to them. Who knows that President may cough up a stipend in the billions to payoff (extortion) that country’s threats and attempts ala Bill Clinton and North Korea.

The most cantankerous of all Demo-Wimps, no not Ted Kennedy, Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware told “Meet The Press” when asked last month if he would support troop deployment to Iran. Biden responded [only if the Iranians went] "full-speed-ahead with their program to build a nuclear bomb." In others only when a bomb is built so that it could be detonated on the world but not until then. No, no matter how much money they flow to Hezbollah, Hamas or any other Muslim extremist group content with destroying the world. No, not even then but let them advance their science and technology with Ahmadinejad’s finger on the button to launch it, then and only then will Biden support taking a pro-active step. No only when Hitler takes over Great Britain and is bombing the shores of United States’ East Coast will Biden react. However by then it will be too late.

Another focus by the media has been the displaced Americans caught in Lebanon. I have to wonder why thousands of Americans decided to take a vacation to Lebanon. Whatever the reasons cannot explain why individuals with assumed capable minds and cognitive thinking would venture to a country that just a year ago was occupied by Syria. Whatever the answer is, it doesn’t matter to old man Demo-Wimp Harry Reid who isn’t happy about the military’s response in getting them out of Lebanon. Reid responded to cameras stating that the handling of the Lebanon evacuation was “mini Katrina” in reference to Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans. Never mind the fact we are discussing a war zone and Katrina was a act of nature that played out on the Weather Channel long before hitting The Big Easy and residents making a conscience decision to stay behind for the fun.

And on the international front, well France’s President and Le Wimp Jacques Chirac issued a call for ceasefire and that only then, when everything is secure, will the big bad French troops be deployed to assist in relief. No we won’t assist our allies nor attempt to take substantial steps to knock out terrorism, despite having the streets of Paris filled with rioting Muslim youth back in 2005. Maybe when Iran’s Ahmadinejad points the nukes toward Europe Chirac and others will see the light.

Surprise, Surprise!

Something that is not related to the main topic but very funny given the Demo-Wimps attempt to garner Latino voters as it relates to illegal immigration-

Guess who received the National Hispanic Youth Initiative Award for Leadership? Was it Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts, Nancy Pelosi of California or Demo-Wimp chief Howard Dean? Wrong on any of your choices, it was former House Speaker and leader of the 1994 Republican revolution Newt Gingrich.


7/21/2006 12:13:00 PM
To: National Desk, Health Reporter
Contact: Megan Meehan of Center for Health Transformation

WASHINGTON, July 21 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Center for Health Transformation Founder Newt Gingrich has been honored by the Interamerican College of Physicians and Surgeons (ICPS), receiving the National Hispanic Youth Initiative Award for Leadership at the ICPS National Hispanic Youth Initiative Leadership Banquet, held on the evening of July 19, in Washington, D.C.

The National Hispanic Youth Initiative Award for Leadership was established by the Interamerican College of Physicians and Surgeons in order to recognize those individuals whose exceptional accomplishments and service set the standard for Hispanic students to emulate.
Dr. Rene Rodriguez, president, Interamerican College of Physicians and Surgeons, introduced and presented the Leadership Award to Speaker Gingrich at a dinner for the 2006 NHYI Scholars. Following the award ceremony, Gingrich spoke about current healthcare trends to an audience that included more than 100 Hispanic high school students, emphasizing the importance of careers in health-related fields as vital to America's continued prosperity and to the creation of a 21st Century Intelligent Health System.

Speaker Gingrich encouraged the Youth Leadership Banquet's attendees to focus on five rules for living: dream big, work hard, learn every day, enjoy life and be true to yourself. "If you don't dream big while you are young, you will never dream big when you're older. Have the courage to dream big," said Speaker Gingrich. He called on the students in the audience to challenge themselves to make the world a better place, encouraging them to make a commitment to transforming health and healthcare. "You could be the generation that makes an enormous difference -- really angels of health," he said.
-----
Tomorrow I will throw out my thoughts on the leftism in Central and South America coupled with the controversial election in Mexico and the tornado surrounding Senator Joseph Lieberman and support from the Clinton regime. Thanks for viewing this very long entry.