The same way that Iran cast doubts about the occurrence of the Jewish Holocaust by the Nazi party during World War II, Ahmadinejad is now casting doubts about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Ahmadinejad has condemned the AlQaeda attacks that killed close to 3,000 victims in New York. But now he is trying to say that since the U. S. has never publicized the names of the victims, maybe there were not that many dead, and the U. S. fudged the numbers so we could invade Afghanistan, and Iraq. Last year, he also started arguing that the conditions that originated the attack, and who attacked needed to be reinvestigated. This will probably give some sort of credibility to Rosie O’Donnell and the Looney toons that believe that the attacks on September 11, 2001 were originated by black ops within the United States.

Washington is calling such arguments “misinformed misguided rhetoric”. I call it stupid and disrespectful.

 

On an article in My Way titled: “Obama reassures Jewish leaders on Hamas, Wright”, Senator Barack H. Obama criticized Former President Carter for meeting with Hamas and attempted to reassure Israel that his candidacy is not a threat to Israel.

The problem that I see on that statement, as indicated in my previous article “Obama’s hypocrisy toward Israel” is that while he does talk the talk, he has not walked the walk. Obama has spent many years courting the pro Palestinian factions here in the United States. And even though pandering is common in politics today, unless you suffer a significant emotional event, you do not change your believes and emotions just like that. Running for the presidency of the United States is not as much a significant emotional event capable of making someone who supports events in which anti Semitism s rampant, people who spew anti Semitic Rhetoric (Farrakhan), and anti whites (Reverend Wright), suddenly support Israel against its enemies. That, in my book, is just simple pandering.

Obama goes on to continue to deny knowledge of Reverend Jeremiah Wrights anti Semitic sermons. And he finished his meeting still vowing to meet with Iran, and promising that he will work to diminish racial tensions between Jews and blacks.

This sounds good, but if he was meeting with pro Palestinian factions in the United States as late as a few years ago, and if he, after knowing good ole “Jerry” (Jeremiah Wright) for over twenty years, and did not realize that he was openly an anti Semite who went to the extreme of visiting Syria along with Farrakhan, either he is NAÏVE, or he is lying through his teeth.

Court Upholds Use of Lethal Injections By MARK SHERMAN, AP Posted: 2008-04-16 12:21:07 Filed Under: Law News, Nation News WASHINGTON (April 16) - The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the most common method of lethal injection executions, likely clearing the way to resume executions that have been on hold for nearly 7 months. The justices, by a 7-2 vote, turned back a constitutional challenge to the procedures in place in Kentucky, which uses three drugs to sedate, paralyze and kill inmates. Similar methods are used by roughly three dozen states. Poll on lethal injections... "We ... agree that petitioners have not carried their burden of showing that the risk of pain from maladministration of a concededly humane lethal injection protocol, and the failure to adopt untried and untested alternatives, constitute cruel and unusual punishment," Chief Justice John Roberts said in an opinion that garnered only three votes. Four other justices, however, agreed with the outcome. Roberts' opinion did leave open subsequent challenges to lethal injection practices if a state refused to adopt an alternative method that significantly reduced the risk of severe pain. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented. Executions have been on hold since September, when the court agreed to hear the Kentucky case. There was no immediate indication when they would resume, but prosecutors in several states said they would seek new execution dates if the court ruled favorably in the Kentucky case. Forty-two people were executed last year among more than 3,300 people on death row across the country. Another roughly two dozen executions did not go forward because of the Supreme Court's review, death penalty opponents said. The argument against the three-drug protocol is that if the initial anesthetic does not take hold, the other two drugs can cause excruciating pain. One of those drugs, a paralytic, would render the prisoner unable to express his discomfort. The case before the court came from Kentucky, where two death row inmates did not ask to be spared execution or death by injection. Instead, they wanted the court to order a switch to a single drug, a barbiturate, that causes no pain and can be given in a large enough dose to cause death. At the very least, they said, the state should be required to impose tighter controls on the three-drug process to ensure that the anesthetic is given properly. Roberts said the one-drug method, frequently used in animal euthanasia, "has problems of its own, and has never been tried by a single state." Kentucky has had only one execution by lethal injection and it did not present any obvious problems, both sides in the case agreed. But executions elsewhere, in Florida and Ohio, took much longer than usual, with strong indications that the prisoners suffered severe pain in the process. Workers had trouble inserting the IV lines that are used to deliver the drugs. Roberts said "a condemned prisoner cannot successfully challenge a state's method of execution merely by showing a slightly or marginally safer alternative." Ginsburg, in her dissent, said her colleagues should have asked Kentucky courts to consider whether the state includes adequate safeguards to ensure a prisoner is unconscious and thus unlikely to suffer severe pain. Justice John Paul Stevens, while agreeing with the outcome, said the court's decision would not end the debate over lethal injection. "I am now convinced that this case will generate debate not only about the constitutionality of the three-drug protocol, and specifically about the justification for the use of the paralytic agent, pancuronium bromide, but also about the justification for the death penalty itself," Stevens said. Stevens suggested that states could spare themselves legal costs and delays in executions by eliminating the use of the paralytic. Ty Alper, a death penalty opponent and associate director of the Death Penalty Clinic at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law, said he expects challenges to lethal injections will continue in several states. Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL. 2008-04-16 11:56:36

On a surprising report, the United Nations “Rapporteur” for the right to Food, Jean Ziegler stated that “the production of biofuels is a crime against humanity”; and the argument used to substantiate such statement is the one that conservatives with brains in the United States have tried to use time and time again: IT RAISES THE PRICES OF CROPS, THUS INCREASING THE PRICE OF FOOD, THUS CREATING FAMINE. To conservatives in the United States, this is just common sense.

 

The European Union however, is proving to be stubborn and unable to consider common sense arguments. They stated as a defense against this report, that reducing or eliminating the use of crops for bio fuels would delay the achievement of their goals of producing Ethanol.

 

Ziegler made another point well known by the conservative community. The importation of subsidized crops to Africa, where they are offered at half or one third of production price ruining Africa’s production. Why will they buy crops at production price when they can get them at fifty percent discount? These welfare mentality, even though is motivated by kindness, is actually ruining many African Nations economy, and preventing them from standing in their own two feet.

 

The rising cost of foods as a result of the diversion of crops to produce Ethanol, is not only affecting the United States, but is also causing riots all over the world. 

 

Amazingly enough, according to the article, the World Bank also pointed the obvious: "biofuel production has pushed up feedstock prices". In addition, the Head of Nestle, Mr. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe stated that: "to grant enormous subsidies for biofuel production is morally unacceptable and irresponsible".

 

And French Agriculture Minister Michel Barnier stated that food production should be a priority. The problem is that the process for producing second-generation biofuels, those made from leaves, straw, and algae, is far from being perfected. The problem is that first generation biofuels, those made from maize, wheat, sugar cane, colza, and sugar beets, are done at the expense of feeding the population of the planet.

 

Environmentalists however, advocate the subsidizing and use of food crops for fuel at the expense of the hungry, and we all can see the results when we go to the supermarket or when we hear about the violence created by those desperate to feed their families.

 

 

 

David Brock, George Soros, and Paul Begala put together a new corporation designed specifically with the purpose of attacking John McCain and derail his Presidential candidacy. With an apparent $40 millions in capital, but with the potential of raising up to $300 millions, Senator McCain is up for the fight of his life.

The problem is that these three individuals are known for their dirty tactics and for using defamation as a tool to achieve their goals. Bill O’Reilly calls them evil and when individuals like these join forces, the results are always dreadful.

Progressive Media USA is the name of their attack organization and we can be pretty certain that they will pull no punches, since their goal is nothing more than to turn our Nation into a socialist state, where they are kings.

This story was brought to light by Ben Smith of www.Politico.com and reflects the lengths that these three individuals are willing to go in order to achieve their goals.

The Star Tribune published an article under the title of: “Wall of Silence Broken at state’s Muslim Public School”. Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA), a K-8 charter school in Inver Grove Heights appears to be a fully functional Muslim indoctrinating public school. Yeap, it is a Charter School, thus, state funded, thus paid by the taxpayers dollars. Witnesses say that at lunch time, the students are led by the teacher to the gym where they “voluntarily” pray. The school conducts daily Islamic Studies where the students go over the Koran and have homework. Last time I checked and with my limited knowledge, I have not seeing any public school studying the Bible or any other holy book. As a matter of fact, Bible studies are prohibited in public schools. Islamic studies obviously promote Islam, just the same as Bible studies promote Christianism. The school officials stated that the Department of Education has inspected them regularly. Regularly appears to be three times in about four years. Now the question is: WHERE IS THE ACLU? If a local school offers Bible studies, wouldn’t they raise their voices to protest the use of State funding to promote a religion? Many concerned citizens have asked to review their curriculum; many concerned citizens have expressed doubts about the wisdom of an Islamic school on our Nation. I ask the ACLU to do what they do best… be a thorn on the side of anyone who attempts to promote religion and inspect this school, and their funding. I also ask the State Department of Education to perform a fair and thorough inspection of the facilities, curriculum, and practices of this so called charter school.

And I thought the Obama campaign was trying to make race a non-issue. As reported by the Tartan, at this event in Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the event organizers blatantly ask: “Get me more white people, we need more white people.” To an Asian girl sitting in the back row, one coordinator said, “We’re moving you, sorry. It’s going to look so pretty, though.” This alone is not illegal, but the problem is that the candidate has tried and tried again to distance himself from the race issue. “I didn’t know they would say, ‘We need a white person here,’ ” said attendee and senior psychology major Shayna Watson, who sat in the crowd behind Mrs. Obama. “I understood they would want a show of diversity, but to pick up people and to reseat them, I didn’t know it would be so outright.”

Roger Harrabin, from the BBC, showed some guts in writing a fair article about global warming. Soon, a global warming activist started emailing him, and a few emails later; he changed the article to represent the position of the activist. Here is the series of emails along with the original article, and here is the modified article. Pay attention to the highlighted paragraph below, and compare it to the same on the modified article.

 

Global temperatures 'to decrease'
By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analyst

Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years.

Rises 'stalled'

La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.

El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.

It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.

Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.

This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.

Watching trends

A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.

But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 1998 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.

"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.

"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."

Adam Scaife, lead scientist for Modelling Climate Variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, said their best estimate for 2008 was about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century.

Mr Scaife told the BBC: "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."

“But the new marine was fulfilling his father’s legacy in at least one way. John McCain had become a hero not for the missions he had flown or the men he had led, but for the privileges he had refused and the hardships he had endured. The North Vietnamese wanted to free Mr. McCain ahead of other captives because he was the son of a Navy admiral and Pacific commander. Mr. McCain refused. Now his son was carving a humble new path that the father, academy-bound since birth, never had.” (Jodi Kantor 7 April 2008) Like father like son, Lance Corporal McCain, a Marine, served his country in a region of the world that not many know of, if not for the news. The Al’Anbar provinces, home of the dreaded Sunny Triangle, Fallujah, Ramadi, Al’Asad, remain fresh in the mind of this writer, since I was also there. The area can be described as “not for the faint of heart”. Today, still a Marine, young McCain is an example of what Americans should strive to be: a Patriot. And, as parents, Senator McCain and Mrs. McCain showed what Americans do best. They supported their son’s decision, and with undeniable worries and fears, they signed the papers allowing him to follow in his grandfather’s, and father’s footsteps. I still remember my mother’s despair, twenty-two years ago, when I disclosed to my father and to her, that I had joined the Army. I still remember when I wrote to them and told them that I would be boarding a plane that would take me from Germany to Saudi Arabia for Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and I still remember writing to my sister and father, my mother had passed away, letting them know that I would be going back to the Sands of Iraq in 2003 and 2005. the proverbial knot on the throat, the butterflies in the stomach, and the pain, not so much for what the experience you are about to embark on, but for the thoughts and pain you know that your parents and loved ones go through when you take that step and board the plane that would take you to a war zone. The first time, you really do not know what is on the other side. Your high school geography classes do not really prepare you to understand what being on the other side of the planet feels like, or what being in a country in which you cannot communicate with the locals fells like. And it does not matter how many hours of video games you have wasted, you really do not understand what it means having someone in front of you with a loaded weapon, who is probably as scared as you are, ready to pull the trigger. Americans for the most part, are good at heart. The new generation does not really appreciates the virtue of “being humble”. With so many loud mouth rockers, rappers, and wanna be reality TV stars, who believe that they are better than everyone else, and that they deserve their brand new car they did not work for, or that believe that their parents owe them a lavish party for their sixteenth birthday, it is refreshing to see young McCain’s humility and courage. As much as I disagree with some of Senator McCain’s policies, I have to tip my hat to him and his family. They are an example of what real Americans should strive to be.

A friendly salute lands Australia's leader in hot water.

And Farrakan and the likes want us to embrace the people that brainash their children in order to kill those who does not look or think like them.

This film shows the indoctrination program of Islamist leaders in order to perpetuate the hate, terrorism, and death.

Jerry Zeifman, the man who hired a young attorney in her late twenties to work in the House Judiciary Committee, investigating the Nixon scandal, regrets that after he fired the young 27 year old lawyer, he did not exposed her unethical behavior. Behavior that under normal circumstances gets lawyers disbarred.

Mr. Zeifman quotes from his noted the following:

“John Labovitz apologized to me for the fact that months ago he and Hillary had lied to me[to conceal rules changes and dilatory tactics.] Labovitz said, "That came from Yale." I said, "You mean Burke Marshall [Senator Ted Kennedy's chief political strategist, with whom Hillary regularly consulted in violation of House rules.] Labovitz said, "Yes." His apology was significant to me, not because it was a revelation but because of his contrition.”

 

Here is the complete article:

 

Hillary’s Crocodile Tears in Connecticut

AIM Column  |  By Jerry Zeifman  |  February 5, 2008

Only a few far-left Democrats supported Hillary’s recommendations.

(Exclusive to Accuracy in Media)

I have just seen Hillary Clinton and her former Yale law professor both in tears at a campaign rally here in my home state of Connecticut. Her tearful professor said how proud he was that his former student was likely to become our next President.  Hillary responded in tears.

My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.

Hillary as I knew her in 1974

At the time of Watergate I had overall supervisory authority over the House Judiciary Committee's Impeachment Inquiry staff that included Hillary Rodham-who was later to become First Lady in the Clinton White House.  

During that period I kept a private diary of the behind the scenes congressional activities. My original tape recordings of the diary and other materials related to the Nixon impeachment provided the basis for my prior book Without Honor and are now available for inspection in the George Washington University Library.

After President Nixon's resignation a young lawyer, who shared an office with Hillary, confided in me that he was dismayed by her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel-as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon. In my diary of August 12, 1974 I noted the following:

John Labovitz apologized to me for the fact that months ago he and Hillary had lied to me[to conceal rules changes and dilatory tactics.] Labovitz said, "That came from Yale." I said, "You mean Burke Marshall [Senator Ted Kennedy's chief political strategist, with whom Hillary regularly consulted in violation of House rules.] Labovitz said, "Yes." His apology was significant to me, not because it was a revelation but because of his contrition.

At that time Hillary Rodham was 27 years old. She had obtained a position on our committee staff through the political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Senator Ted Kennedy. Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.

Her patron, Burke Marshal, had previously been Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Robert Kennedy. During the Kennedy administration Washington insiders jokingly characterized him as the Chief counsel to the Irish Mafia. After becoming a Yale professor he also became Senator Ted Kennedy's lawyer at the time of Chappaquidick-as well as Kennedy's chief political strategist. As a result, some of his colleagues often described him as the Attorney General in waiting of the Camelot government in exile.
   
In addition to getting Hillary a job on the Nixon impeachment inquiry staff, Kennedy and Marshall had also persuaded Rodino to  place two other close friends of Marshall in top positions on our staff. One was John Doar; who had been Marshall's deputy in the Justice Department-whom Rodino appointed to head the impeachment inquiry staff. The other was Bernard Nussbaum, who had served as Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York-who was placed in charge of conducting the actual investigation of Nixon's malfeasance.           

Marshall, Doar, Nussbaum, and Rodham had two hidden objectives regarding the conduct of the impeachment proceedings. First, in order to enhance the prospect of Senator Kennedy or another liberal Democrat being elected president in 1976 they hoped to keep Nixon in office "twisting in the wind" for as long as possible. This would prevent then-Vice President Jerry Ford from becoming President and restoring moral authority to the Republican Party.  

As was later quoted in the biography of Tip O'Neill (by John Farrell), a liberal Democrat would have become a "shoe in for the presidency in 1976" if Nixon had been kept in office until the end of his term. However, both Tip O'Neill and I-as well as most Democrats-regarded it to be in the national interest to replace Nixon with Ford as soon as possible. As a result, as described by O'Neill, we coordinated our efforts to "keep Rodino's feet to the fire." 

A second objective of the strategy of delay was to avoid a Senate  impeachment trial, in which as a defense Nixon might assert that  Kennedy had authorized far worse abuses of power than Nixon's effort to "cover up" the Watergate burglary (which Nixon had not authorized or known about in advance). In short, the crimes of Kennedy included the use of the Mafia to attempt to assassinate Castro, as well as the successful assassinations of Diem in Vietnam and Lumumba in the Congo.  

After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her I told her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader Tip O'Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler and I had previously all agreed that we should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes. I also quoted Tip O'Neill's statement that: "To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series." 

Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules changes. However, as documented in my personal diary, I soon learned that she had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate  them. In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee's then-most-recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.        

I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff-where they were no longer accessible to the public.  

Hillary had also made other ethically flawed procedural recommendations, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should:  not hold any hearings with-or take depositions of-any live witnesses; not conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon; and should rely solely on documentary evidence compiled by other committees and by the Justice Department's special Watergate prosecutor.  

Only a few far-left Democrats supported Hillary's recommendations. A majority of the committee agreed to allow President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to hold hearings with live witnesses. Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to question witnesses. This recommendation was voted down by the full House. The committee also rejected her proposal that we leave the drafting of the articles of impeachment to her and her fellow impeachment-inquiry staffers. 

It was not until two months after Nixon's resignation that I first learned of still another questionable role of Hillary. On Sept. 26, 1974, Rep. Charles Wiggins, a Republican member of the committee, wrote to ask Chairman Rodino to look into "a troubling set of events." That spring, Wiggins and other committee members had asked "that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon." And, while "no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use," Wiggins had just learned that such a study had been conducted-at committee expense-by a team of professors who completed and filed their reports with the impeachment-inquiry staff well in advance of our public hearings.                                                                                    

The report was kept secret from members of Congress. But after the impeachment-inquiry staff was disbanded, it was published commercially and sold in book stores. Wiggins wrote: "I am especially troubled by the possibility that information deemed essential by some of the members in their discharge of their responsibilities may have been intentionally suppressed by the staff during the course our investigation." He was also concerned that staff members may have unlawfully received royalties from the book's publisher.                                                                      

On Oct. 3, Rodino wrote back: "Hillary Rodham of the impeachment-inquiry staff coordinated the work. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form." No effort was ever made to ascertain whether or not Hillary or any other person on the committee staff received royalties. 

Two decades later Bill Clinton became President. As was later to be  described in the Wall Street Journal by Henry Ruth-the lead Watergate courtroom prosecutor-"The Clintons corrupted the soul of the Democratic Party." 

Mr. Zeifman is a life-long Democrat, served for 17 years as Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, and is the author of Without Honor: Crimes of Camelot and Impeachment of President Clinton (1995) and Hillary’s Pursuit of Power (2007) See his website http://www.Jzeifman.com