December 04, 2006

Monday News Roundup – December 4, 2006

1) Shortly after the New Year, Congress will pass and the President will sign an immigration bill granting amnesty and eventual citizenship to border-jumping immigration criminals -- guaranteeing that a new generation of 20 million new illegal immigrants will be granted amnesty sometime in the next quarter century. After all, the amnesty of the 1980s led directly to the increased illegal immigration of the 1990s and 2000s because there was an expectation of another one. Why should things happen differently this time?

2) Will the Saudi Peace Initiative of 2002 finally bear fruit? Perhaps, if Israeli PM Olmert agrees to the framework This could lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state, as well as peace between Israel and seven Arab countries: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, the Emirates, Morocco and Tunisia. Are the Arabs willing to guarantee Israeli security against the various terrorist groups they have encouraged in the region over the last several decades?

3) When even the incoming head of the Congregation for the Clergy says that the abolition of mandatory celibacy should be considered, can the elimination of the practice be that far away?

4) Fresh from his reelection as dictator, Hugo Chavez now plans on throttling the free press of Venezuela with a new censorship law aimed at those who criticize his government.

5) Here we have it – Steven Breyer is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court, as evidenced by his own words. If it is his intent to look beyond the Constitution to determine the validity of American law, he is in violation of his oath of office.

6) The New York Times is lamenting the possibility that the Supreme Court might interfere with local control of school districts that want to use race in assigning students to schools based upon race and ethnicity. Have the editors really moved so far from the principles of Brown v. Board of Education? And here is an early report on oral arguments on the topic before the Court today. And SCOTUS Blog offers a great analysis of why the race-based programs will likely fall.

7) More troops in Iraq, not fewer? That is the call of military leaders, not politicians – you know, the folks who are experts about the situation on the ground and what is needed to win. Sounds like a great idea to me.

Terrorists promote ignorance to get a grip on Iraq. I guess that means that only stupid people can support sharia law and jihadi murder.

9) Even though Prager was dead wrong in his column, I don’t believe he should lose his position on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council – an especially not at the urging of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization associate with groups out to finish what Hitler started.

10) John Bolton to leave the UN due to Democrat intransigence on his confirmation, despite doing an excellent job as UN Ambassador.

11) Another one bites the dust. The IDF does good work to eliminate terrorist scum.

12) NASA has interesting new plans for a permanent presence on the moon.

Posted by: Greg at 12:01 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 530 words, total size 5 kb.

1

Zionist Lobby pressure will fight the Saudi plan every step of the way and until we extricate Congress from its grip the plan is a non-starter.

More troops in Iraq? Only if the sub par siteowner volunteers. One might say this is self-evidently foolish if not mere baiting, but not so: Iraq is so far LOST, if further US life is to be wasted, let it be the physically sub par.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Mon Dec 4 13:48:48 2006 (7GYBH)

2 Hold it -- I thought that Israel controlled the US, not the other way around, KKKen. Why does Congress need to be cleansed of Zionists before it will allow Israel to make peace if Israel is calling the shots? I think the inconsistency of your anti-Semitism is showing, you pathetic hate-monger. And it is the top leaders of our military, not me calling for more troops to finish the jihadis you call "soldiers of Christ", KKKen. Have the Zionists infiltrated the top ranks of our armed forces, KKKen? Your paranoia is rather amusing. Don't look behind you KKKen -- you might find JOOOOOOOOO looking at you somewhere in the library. Wait -- I think that is one behind that booksheld! Could she be with the Mossad?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Dec 4 15:27:25 2006 (bTPlv)

3

I am not as simplistic as the siteowner in my view of power blocs-a simplicity which is also revealed in his belief that the bulk of the military actually believes Iraq is still winnable.

There were important power blocs in israel which opposed their government's funding of Hamas to offset the PLO back in the formative days, warning that religious anti-Zionism would prove more lethal than secular nationalist anti-Zionism. Would the siteowner believe my anti-Zionist politics should have enabled me to predict which Israeli faction's strategy would ultimately win out during the discussions?

There were Israeli factions who opposed the dominant American Jewish neocons' strategy to oust Hussein, predicting ,correctly as it turned out Iran would be the more dangerous winner.

The most important fact relating to the Saudi issue is, if the American Zionist Lobby was eradicated from major influence here, the American government would force Israel to settle with the Palestinians by vacating the West Bank and Samaria under threat of cutting off all aid. Since the siteowner realizes this won't happen (until further series of political defeats in the Mideast for America, which are unfolding) he can toss a few bones of feigned approval of the Saudi plan at this time, the better to pose as "fair."

This is something akin to McCain's  calling for more troops so he can blame the inevitable defeat on other than he, as the charlatan realizes no more are available to be sent.

 

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Tue Dec 5 08:31:29 2006 (DZbll)

4 No, KKKen -- I simply want real peace with real security for God's Chosen People, not genocide like you and the Terrorstinians want. If the Saudi plan accomplishes it, so be it. If pushing every Terrorstinian out of the West Bank and Gaza accomplishes it, so be it. Personally, I'd prefer the peaseful route, if only the Arabs would agree to it.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Dec 5 12:32:11 2006 (MNaSa)

5

God has one set of chosen and my humility prevents me from capitalizing the word,unlike deviant cultists who worship as much a "stranger" as the Indians did who exalted the "great white Gods" who came from Europe, (tee-hee) much to their later chagrin.

That "chosen" of course are Christians, not Jews.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Tue Dec 5 12:41:29 2006 (nUAbS)

6 KKKen, I follow the convention of capitalizing those words when referring to the Jews -- a convention that dates back several hundred years to at least the period of Shakespeare. Your anti-Semitism is getting worse and worse -- seems to me that you need to get back to the State Hospital for a new round of psychotropes to control that paranoid schizophrenia that you have recently exhibited.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Dec 5 14:00:45 2006 (Vf/mU)

7

Groggy does his best imitation of a Stalinist who medicalizes threatening dissent.

Speaking of which, is your diabetes etc. under control, sub-par?

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Thu Dec 7 11:05:28 2006 (DZbll)

8 Actually, KKKen, yes it is, though I've had a struggle keeping it there while dealing with the stress of my wife's ongoing health crisis. Your expressions of concern and offer of prayers during this time have been so welcome -- oh, that's right, you ignored the request for prayers and merely continued your anti-Semitic rants, probably because I have in the past mentioned she has Jewish ancestry. And given your reference to me in terms that describe me as a genetic inferior, it would appear that you see both of us as candidates for the gas chamber and ovens if you and your type ever gain control of America. And by the way, my choice of a psychiatric diagnosis had nothing to do with Stalinism -- it had to do with Christian charity. That virtue requires me to presume you to be mentally ill, rather than simply evil. Thank you for indicating that the latter, and not the former, is the source of your problem.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Dec 7 12:59:24 2006 (a5bGD)

9

Maybe you should write a letter of protest to the Baker/Iraq study group and carefully capitalize "Chosen People" when you argue against their sanctioning the right of return for the real owners of the land. You will gain much more credence.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Thu Dec 7 13:30:03 2006 (7GYBH)

10 (As a nut)

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Thu Dec 7 13:30:50 2006 (7GYBH)

11 And I'll be sure to reference the document giving the Jews title to the Land -- the Holy Bible.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Dec 7 13:55:23 2006 (a5bGD)

12

The Jews rejected Christ and lost all claim to conditional-upon-obedience agreements, nutcase. Of course you excuse disobedience in Jews apart from all less fortunate "un Chosen."

Speaking of which , Jews have had a 50% intermarriage rate in America for fifty years.Are the approximately 80% progeny "half-Jews" raised as Christians "half-Chosen" or do they relinquish all "Chosen" rights to the 20% who are reared as Jews, (that is,reared as members of a religion with an anti-Christian history and doctrine, you self-hating buffoon?)

Are the Ashkenazi Jews less "Chosen" than the Sephardic? They spring largely from non-Semitic conversions and intermarriages  such as the Khazar mass conversion circa 900 when the Khazar Khan selected Judaism over Christianity for the new religion for his people to adopt. Did his non-Semitic people suddenly become "Chosen" on adopting a belief system which calls Christ a false prophet?

You're as indocrinated  as a street-corner, flower-selling Moonie.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Fri Dec 8 08:28:30 2006 (7GYBH)

13 Funny, KKKen -- you have never shown me where the Bible contains the verse that says "And the Lord said, 'Oops, I changed my mind about the Jews.'" Where, exactly, is your theology supported in Scripture?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Dec 8 13:21:40 2006 (xndvz)

14

You cannot  link modern Jews genetically with Bible Jews nor define who is "Chosen,"-- nor have you mastered basic traditional Christian doctrine,except to rebel against it so you can worship at the altar of Jewish supremacists.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Fri Dec 8 13:49:17 2006 (7GYBH)

15 In other words, you can find no support for Jew-hatred in the Bible -- and argue that the Jews are not really Jews any way. But in that case, why doyou hate them given that they have no connection to the people you claim God wants you to hate?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Dec 8 15:05:18 2006 (rcI03)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
18kb generated in CPU 0.0173, elapsed 0.0242 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0142 seconds, 44 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]