Yeah and #2 is Jimmy Carter and #3 Michael Moore. So what? SM
Posted By: LOL on 2005-07-22
In Reply to: That is HILARIOUS!! - Stranger than fiction.nm
Wow, you are easily amused.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Yes, but they are and it's the left that's doing it. Jimmy Carter even said so. nm
.
Does anyone know what happened to Jimmy Carter's eye?
I'm just wondering, I'm watching the democratic convention and it looks really bad! Is it an infection or something??
Falling for O's promises, just like Jimmy Carter
nm
Ever heard what Jimmy Carter has to say on this issue -
Obama has not said much of anything in light of this recent development. Looks like he may be keeping an open mind and may be exercising alternative options once he takes office.
Jimmy Carter tries to rewrite history...
December 1, 2006 by Lee Green
Jimmy Carter Distorts Facts, Demonizes Israel in New Book
Former President Jimmy Carter has written an egregiously biased book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and is currently doing numerous interviews to sell the book and its ideas. Carter is attempting to rewrite history, and in his alternate universe, Arabs parties are blameless and Israel is at fault for almost all the conflicts in the world. One gets the feeling after reading just a few pages that if he could have blamed Hurricane Katrina on Israel, he would have. His main messages are that Israel is badly mistreating the Palestinians and that the cause of the conflict is Israel's refusal to return to what he calls its "legal borders" (sic), the pre-67 armistice lines.
Because the Palestinian Arabs have been offered a viable state of their own numerous times, including with the same borders that Carter desires, but turned it down since it meant recognizing Israel's legitimacy and permanence and ending the conflict, Carter either ignores or mischaracterizes the offers. He never lets the facts get in the way of his "must blame Israel" theories. In Carter's twisted universe, it is the Arabs who have always been eager for peace, with Israel opposing it at every turn.
Almost every page of Carter's book contains errors, distortions or glaring omissions. The following list is just a small portion of the many problems in the book:
• Carter claims Israel has been the primary obstacle to peace, that Arab leaders have long sought peace while Israel preferred holding on to "Palestinian land" over peace, and that if only Israel would "[withdraw] to the 1967 border as specified in the U.N. Resolution 242...", there would be peace.
Aside from his obviously questionable opinions, Carter is factually wrong when he asserts that U.N. Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw to the 1949 armistice line that was in place until 1967. He has repeated this serious falsehood in many interviews, such as on the November 28 PBS NewsHour:
"The demand is for them to give back all the land. The United Nations resolutions that apply, the agreements that have been made at Camp David under me and later at Oslo for which the Israeli leaders received the Nobel Peace Prizes, was [sic] based on Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories."
He mischaracterizes UN resolutions and apparently has forgotten what he himself signed as a witness to the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, which states in Section A1c: "The negotiations [concerning the West Bank and Gaza] shall be based on all the provisions and principles of UN Security Council Resolution 242. The negotiations will resolve, among other matters, the location of the boundaries and the nature of the security arrangements."
To claim now that the very agreement he witnessed and signed specifies withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines is outrageous. [While the 1979 Camp David document again mentions UN Resolution 242, it makes no further mention of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. It instead deals with Israeli-Egyptian relations, and includes a map of the Israel-Egypt International Boundary (Annex II). Tellingly, no maps demarcating any boundary between Israel and the Palestinians are appended to the Camp David documents, Resolution 242, the Oslo Accords, or the "road map".]
UN Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all the land to the "1967 border", since there is no such border. The "green line" is merely the 1949 armistice line and the drafters of 242 explicitly stated that this line was not a "secure border" -- which 242 calls for.
The British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution to the Council, has stated that, "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."
The American UN Ambassador at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, has stated that, "The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and the 'June 5, 1967 lines' ... the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal." This would encompass "less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure."
The reasoning of the United States and its allies at the time was clear: Any resolution which, in the face of the aggressive war launched in 1967 against Israel, required complete Israeli withdrawal, would have been seen as a reward for aggression and an invitation to future aggression. This is assuredly not what the UN voted for, or had in mind, when it passed Resolution 242.
For more details on the meaning of 242, click here.
- Many media outlets have corrected erroneous characterizations of 242 (prompted by CAMERA), including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. The corrections clarify that 242 does not require Israel to give all the land acquired in the 67 War to the Palestinians. For example:
Correction (New York Times, 9/8/00): An article on Wednesday about the Middle East peace talks referred incorrectly to United Nations resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict. While Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 Middle East War, calls for Israel's armed forces to withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict," no resolution calls for Israeli withdrawal from all territory, including East Jerusalem, occupied in the war.
Correction (Wall Street Journal, 5/11/04): United Nations Security Council resolution 242 calls on Israel to withdraw "from territories occupied" in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, but doesn't specify that the withdrawal should be from all such territories. An International page article Friday incorrectly stated that Security Council resolutions call for Israel to withdraw from all land captured in the 1967 war.
• Similarly, Carter repeatedly errs when he asserts that the West Bank is "Palestinian land," rather than disputed land whose (likely) division and designation will be decided through negotiations (as per Resolution 242).
For example, Carter said on the Nov 28 Newshour:
"And I chose this title very carefully. It's Palestine, first of all. This is the Palestinians' territory, not Israel."
• In his book, Carter almost always presents Israeli leaders in a negative light, and they are frequently described as trying to impede the peace process. In contrast, Carter describes despotic Arab leaders in glowing terms, quotes them at length, without any comments about the accuracy of their statements. He writes, for instance,
"When I met with Yasir Arafat in 1990, he stated 'The PLO has never advocated the annihilation of Israel.' "
Carter fails to note that Arafat and the PLO have frequently called for the destruction of Israel and that the destruction of Israel is a key part of the PLO Charter (most explicitly in Articles 15 and 22):
"Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence..." (from Article 22).
Arafat regularly called for violence against Israel. In a speech to Palestinian Arab leaders from Hebron, broadcast on official PA Television on January 26, 2002, Arafat urged:
"Jihad, jihad, jihad, jihad!"
Carter follows up the absurd quotation from Arafat by describing the PLO in admiring language, without mentioning the terror so central to their agenda.
• Carter spends much of the book conveying Arab grievances against Israel, while rarely providing any context from the Israeli perspective. When he does, it is perfunctory and brief. While terror against Israel is mentioned, it is rare and sharply minimized.
• The vicious incitement against Israel and Jews by the Arabs is treated as a trivial complaint rather than as the fuel that keeps the flame of bigotry and violence alive. The only time Carter mentions incitement is to complain that the Israelis insisted on cessation of incitement against Israel, "but the Roadmap cannot state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians."
Since there is no state-sponsored anti-Arab incitement in Israel, and incitement against Arabs is actually a crime in Israel, it would have been misleading to include a proscription against it in the Roadmap. That would have made it seem that incitement in Israel was comparable to the massive, systemic incitement in Palestinian society.
As for his reference to "Israel must cease violence...against the Palestinians," he appears to morally equate Israeli counter-terror measures with Palestinian terror against Israeli civilians.
• In describing what led to the conflicts this year between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and Hezbollah, Carter continues his pattern of minimizing Arab violence, thereby placing Israel's military responses into question due to the lack of context. Carter mentions the abduction of the Israeli soldiers, but fails to inform his readers about the rockets from Gaza that were being fired daily at Israeli civilians in southwest Israel and omits that Hezbollah did much more than abduct 2 soldiers; before the abduction, they fired missiles at Israeli communities in northern Israel.
• Carter obfuscates important aspects of history. Here's how he describes the British giving almost all of Mandate Palestine—78 percent—to Emir Abdullah after World War I to create Transjordan (later renamed Jordan): "Another throne was needed, so an emirate called Transjordan was created out of some remote desert regions of the Palestine Mandate ..." [emphasis added]
• He writes of various Arab leaders accepting the two-state solution, and sometimes mentions that they also require the so-called right of return (of the millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees to Israel, as opposed to the future state of Palestine). But Carter doesn't explain that due to the high Arab birthrate, the so-called right of return would quickly turn Israel into another Arab state, transforming the two-state (Arab and Jewish) solution into a two-Arab states solution. While he writes of the many items he feels are unreasonable deal-breakers demanded by Israel, he never addresses the Arab demands that are deal-breakers for Israel.
• In his conclusion, Carter accuses the American government of being "submissive," claiming that due to "powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Israel dominate in our media ..."
Carter's claim that "voices from Israel dominate in our media" is especially ironic at a time when Carter himself is all over the media spreading his anti-Israel message. And since Carter is prone to demonizing Israel, it likely never occurred to him that perhaps our politicians don't frequently criticize Israeli government decisions because Israel shares our values of democracy, pluralism and the sanctity of life, and its decisions are, on the whole, fair and just.
• Apparently admiringly, Carter writes: "At the same time, political leaders and news media in Europe are highly critical of Israeli policies, affecting public attitudes. Americans were surprised and angered by an opinion poll, published by the International Herald Tribune in October 2003, of 7500 citizens in fifteen European nations, indicating that Israel was considered to be the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan." That Carter apparently feels this is a more realistic, helpful worldview is revealing.
In general, Carter holds Israel to an unreasonably high standard of almost pacifist behavior, while holding the Arabs to no standard at all. In his world, the terror against Israel has been minimal, hardly worth mentioning and certainly not important enough for Israelis to respond to or for the world community to condemn. The Arabs should suffer no consequences for continuing to attack and terrorize Israel, for continuing to indoctrinate their population to see Jews as sub-humans who deserve to be murdered. Carter advocates having the Arabs' maximalist demands rewarded. It is Israel who must make all the concessions and sacrifices. The Arabs' bigotry and supremacist attitudes regarding non-Muslims and the west - attitudes central to the conflict -- are entirely ignored by Carter.
Since Carter is a former president, and because he is well known for his work on Habitat for Humanity, interviewers are for the most part being entirely deferential to him, while rarely pointing out that his book and statements are filled with inaccuracies and distortions. But Carter should not be allowed to rewrite history and erase decades of Arab bigotry, rejectionism and terror, while inventing Israeli intransigence and opposition to peace.
Lee Green did not monitor the elections, Jimmy Carter did.
Lee Green is the director of CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy on Middle East Reporting) which is a Pro-Israeli American Media Monitor. I prefer to read a book and make up my own mind and certainly am not surprised that Zionist critics would hate Carter and the truths he exposed in his book. They can protest to their heart's content, but they can't turn lies into truth.
Not the worst...Jimmy Carter holds that dubious honor....
Mr. Democat Jimmy Carter. Check out the economy while he was in office...and what Obama is doing will make that look like a walk in the park. Oh, but the rest of the world will love us....LOL. Ya kill me. LOL.
She gets by with it the same way Michael Moore gets by with it...
he has said some pretty hateful things himself. And here is a pretty hateful personal attack from AL Franken: *I said that Sean Hannity took residence up
Newt Gingrich's butt from 94 to 98. I got
that from British intelligence. It turns out
he only took up residence in 95* but you did not see that reported in the media with conservatives running backward and screeching. That is a hateful tasteless personal attack. Here is another: Republicans are shameless d**ks. No, that's not fair. Republican politicians are shameless d**ks. Lovely, eh? And another one: Minnesota Republican Norman Coleman is one of the administration's leading butt boys. Classless, tasteless.
So you see what I am saying...the left accepts crap from Al Franken but will not accept crap from Ann Coulter. Crap is crap in my opinion.
I think Michael Moore
is a brave patriot, but that would feed into the conspiracy theory. I would be happy with any of recognized Sunday interview programs to start with.
Michael Moore
I've seen some of his movies, not all. I happen to also agree with his documentary on 9/11. There is evil afoot in our government and it's been going on for a very long time. Neither party is exempt from blame which is why I am independent. I would vote for (and have done so)a republican in a New York minute if I felt they had the best agenda for REAL change. I will admit that I probably lean more toward Democrats than Republicans as I feel they get their riches more from the middle class (i.e. labor) and the Republicans get their's from big business but please do not get busy calling me a DEMOCRAT!!!!! I have a brain that I use for reasoning and I don't support EITHER party as a whole.
Actually....Michael Moore did just that...
in his move. He went around the world and asked about healthcare. He also took Americans who could not afford medications here in the US to other countries with universal health care and guess what? They were actually treated! You might want to go to Blockbuster and check that one out....LOL.
and don't forget Michael Moore!
Michael Moore Message
My response:
I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand. Gee thanks, Mike, but I am not in a funk. I know in whom I believe and it is not a political party and not you. As to things left undone...yer pal Bill left many things undone also...terrorists running amuck free to plot and plan 9-11 because he was too busy in the cigar bidness with Monica Lewinsky to react decisively to them, too busy lying to a grand jury, too busy obstructing justice, too busy taking care of Vince Foster (though I believe Hillary had more to do with that than Bill did)....as AG said: pot, kettle, pot kettle.
Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you. Oh, yeah, you cannot imagine how jazzed we are that YOU and the Democrats are in charge now. Whoopeee. ROFL. You value us as fellow Americans? What a load of hooey. Oh I know what you plan to do TO us...I believe it is calling hosing. For us? Nada.
Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:
Dear Conservatives and Republicans,
I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:
1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you unpatriotic simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us. You should look up respect in your Funk and Wagnall's, Mikey. You have never shown it...how could you? You have no clue what respect means. You were called unpatriotic because it is unpatriotic to criticize publicly your country and its leadership in a time of war. Look up patriotic in your Funk and Wagnall's.
2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be different or immoral. Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift. Umm, down there where you say you will respect (again, you need to look that one up!) our beliefs...well this one flies in the face of that. But...oh....your moral compass went wonky years ago. Might want to look up morality while you are in the dictionary. Look, Mike....what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is up to them, but do not expect us to agree that it is right and it is not wrong, because we are not going to do it. If they are sure they are right, they should not need our blessing. I am not telling them that they cannot do it...I am telling them I will not, cannot condone it. Period, end of sentence. What next? Stealing will be okay because you have not and and you want to have? And then what?
3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you. Oh, that's rich, coming from you. The tax and spend group. You want to spend our grandchildren's money on programs that keep people enslaved to your philosophy so they will keep voting for you. You actually think we don't know that?
4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie. You are so full of it, Mikey. When are you going to stop beating that dead horse?
5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too. And when the quality of that care tanks and it takes months and years to get treatment, if America is so deluded as to go down that road...you with all the bucks will be fine. These poor and downtrodden you want to champion will get the short end of the stick...you know it and I know it, trouble is, THEY don't know it. You have got the wool pulled snugly down around their toes. Shame on you.
6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water. Yeah, yeah, yeah. What do you drive? How many times a month do you fly? How much have you PERSONALLY done about any of those things? Gimme a break.
7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you. HA! That is the biggest lie of all. It was when your boys were in charge that terrorism escalated to unimaginable heights. Your boy Bill could have put bin Laden in the slammer BEFORE 3000 people were killed. You protect us??? The fox is in the hen house, Mikey. You couldn't protect a flea in Fort Knox.
8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived. Thanks for nothing! Flying a plane into a building and killing 3000 was terrible, but you are condoning mass murder on a grand scale of the most innocent among us. Millions. What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. Morally bankrupt. That aptly describes the liberal view espoused here.
9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours. Thank you but no thank you. I will protect my own children. I wouldn't trust you to protect a gerbil.
10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too. Then why do you and your ilk keep going to Canada to do your movies, etc., where you don't have to pay American Union wages and can do it cheaper? You are so full of crap. Don't know how you are still able to talk.
11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. We do put them into practice. You hate it when we do, when we call wrong, wrong. Like abortion...like same sex marriage....like.....you are the most intolerant of the intolerant. Why people cannot see through your facade is beyond me. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs (Blessed are the poor, seeking to keep them poor and under your thumb is not helping the poor) Blessed are the peacemakers (we do believe in peace, but we do not believe in letting those who DO NOT come here and kill us), Love your enemies (when you get that one down pat, call me), It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (yep, if you worship money above God, it is, hellooo Mike) brothers of mine, you did for me.(sorry, but hearing you quote scripture is really hard for me when I know you don't believe a word of it...and these are not RADICAL beliefs. Chopping off your head if you don't agree is radical, you goof. Saying convert or we will kill you is radical. We just call what is wrong wrong. We agree to disagree). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world. You would not know a good example if it bit you on your rather large rear end. I believe you are wrong about God blessing everyone. Yes, he does not want even one to perish, that is why Christians try to get the word out. We would like everyone to have eternal life. EVERYONE. But we don't chop off dissenters' heads. It is a free choice, Mikey. You come to Him or you don't. YOUR choice. Not MINE. Which is probably what chaps you so much. Because you are so fond of telling people what they should do, and to do it YOUR way. Look up intolerance while you are in your F&W. Fits the liberal view much more than the conservative view.
12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition. We will not tolerate corrupt politicians. Oh, boy, that is rich!! I can hardly type through tears of hysterical laughter. Bill - felony perjury and obstruction of justice; Bill and Hill...convicted of several things back in home state...and still have yet to explain dead Vince Foster--- Murtha, unindicted co-conspirator--Harry Reid, all kinds of shady deals....pullleezzzzeeee. Pot kettle pot kettle.
I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.
Wow, I bet you had to grit your teeth while you wrote that one. But I see through ya, Mikey. You are going to try the get more bees with honey because your true colors during the last Presidential election didn't work, did they big guy? You are so transparent. Just wish those who hang on your every word realized it. You wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you upside your rather large head.
Ya know, Mikey, conservatives don't hate liberals. We don't hate you. We are afraid for them and you and afraid for ourselves with you in control..but we don't hate you. I pray for them. I pray for you. I hope one day the light will really come on and you will know the truth. I pray it happens before you take us all down with you. I pray it happens before the radical Muslims start blowing up children in our malls, when cars are no longer safe and we do not feel safe even in our homes. I sincerely pray that it happens before that. Yes, we should all sink or swim as one, but if we hold onto the guidebook, the Bible, as one, our chances are much greater to swim.
God bless!
Observer
Signed,
Michael Moore
Michael Moore a patriot? sm
in WHAT alternate universe? Investigate? He wouldn't know a true investigation if it bit him on his very large butt. During the last election when he called Americans in general and Democrats in particular stupid...well I guess he loves the country but holds the people in contempt...particularly liberals as that is what he said...a patriot? Well the founding fathers would spin in their graves on that one. LOL...omg. Michael Moore a patriot. LOL.
MIchael Moore should be grateful
to live in America - a place where he can get rich off of blasting everything that is American. I believe everyone has a right to thier opinion, but to honestly say that one party is responsible for the way the economy is going right now is reprehensible.
You really think that it's the government's fault about the housing crisis? Sure, they set the plans in motion (plans that were started by the Clinton administration so that lower income people could get a home loan - Bush's mistake was to keep those plans going - this crisis has been coming on for a long time and everyone ignored it), but what about the people that actually went ahead and got those loans, knowing full well that they wouldn't be able to carry that mortgage out?
We all need to stop pointing the fingers at Washington and take a little of the responsibility ourselves. We're a nation that became very comfortable in our easy lifestyle and the more we could get, the more we would take. Now we want our government to give us more?
Left to his own devices, Michael Moore would probably declare himself dictator and rename our country Mooreland or something crazy like that. Gotta disagree with you on this one, gourdpainter; check out some of his movies and articles and I think you may find that you agree with him maybe 32%.
Michael Moore is disgusting any way you look
nm
Michael moore only cares about two things....
Michael Moore and his checkbook.
Michael Moore fans will get a good
He sure has a special talent for making stuupid people look even stuupider. Take, for example, the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_fAYl4Th4&NR=1
Michael Moore is a known liar on many stories,
nm
You related to Michael Moore? You twist
nm
They usually don't listen to the truth - they probably get their info from Michael Moore.
oh yeah, and we can trust him???? NOT.
Michael Moore has a slanted view of America
He's been trying to "subvert" everyting in American since the ྌs. He's a really big jerk (no pun intended on size) and I wouldn't give him the time of day if he asked.
He's a creep. He's the one who should move to a different country since he finds so much wrong with this one.
JMO
First thing is a Biography of Pres. Bush, then Welcome to Michael Moore...nm
x
I think that it was Jimmy Swaggert that
the poster was referring to. He indeed did seek out prostitutes for awhile there; however, he admitted it and apologized to his congregation which I thought was commendable, even though his personal delivery of **the good news** is a bit too theatrical for me. You can't be forgiven if you show no remorse.
So Jimmy Buffet does a benefit concert for Obama.
How is this a division of the races? There are all different races in this country ya' know.
The Carter Doctrine.....
hmmmm. Very, very interesting article. I'm not sure I agree with some of the broad unsubstantiated statements but all in all, a very interesting article. Thanks for posting!
Carter and Clinton snooped on you too
I bet you weren't screaming about this..
Drudgereport.com
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval
Clinton, February 9, 1995: The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.
WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order.
Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes.
Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
Unemployment isnt even down to the Carter
nm
Clinton & Carter DID NOT ORDER any such things.
Do you lie on purpose to emulate your God Bush or are you just so lacking in common sense and intelligence that you unquestioning believe everything ANY neocon says?
Either way, YOU'RE SPREADING LIES. In case you haven't noticed lately, AMERICANS ARE GETTING FED UP WITH LIARS....especially UNDEREDUCATED, ILLITERATE, HATEFUL, JUDGMENTAL liars.
CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
Here's what Clinton signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that Clinton allowed warrantless searches if and only if the AG followed section 302(a)(1). What does section 1822(a) require?
- the physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers. Translation: You can't search American citizens.
- and there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person. Translation: You can't search American citizens.
- Moreover, Clinton's warrant waiver consistent with FISA refers only to physical searches. Physical searches, as defined by 1821(5), exclude electronic surveillance.
CARTER DID NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
And now, Carter's turn:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
Here, Carter refers to electronic surveillance, rather than physical searches like Clinton. But again, Carter limits the warrantless surveillance to the requirements of Section 1802(a). That section requires:
- the electronic surveillance is solely directed at communications exclusively between or among foreign powers. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.
- there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.
Section 1803(a)(2) requires that the Attorney General report to Congress (specifically, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) about whether any American citizens were involved, what minimization procedures were undertaken to avoid it and protect their identities, and whether his actions comply with the law.
It's called check and balance!
No, I think Carter was the worst president in history.
nm
Carter = worst president ever...yes, I agree with you.
Nixon = Carter; Bush = Obama
It looks as though both of these democrats were handed a huge bag of flaming s*it that they were/are expected to clean up in a nanosecond. No, I'm not a democrat, either. But I am fed up with the label "liberal" being used like an expletive. Liberal means "free thinking," and I am honored to be a liberal. I don't need to walk in lockstep so others can do my thinking for me. I want our country to prosper and survive and I'm placing my trust in Obama's hands. I pray he succeeds.
moore
Michael Moore's Open Letter to Bush
Friday, September 2nd, 2005 Dear Mr. Bush: Any idea where all our helicopters are? It's Day 5 of Hurricane Katrina and thousands remain stranded in New Orleans and need to be airlifted. Where on earth could you have misplaced all our military choppers? Do you need help finding them? I once lost my car in a Sears parking lot. Man, was that a drag. Also, any idea where all our national guard soldiers are? We could really use them right now for the type of thing they signed up to do like helping with national disasters. How come they weren't there to begin with? Last Thursday I was in south Florida and sat outside while the eye of Hurricane Katrina passed over my head. It was only a Category 1 then but it was pretty nasty. Eleven people died and, as of today, there were still homes without power. That night the weatherman said this storm was on its way to New Orleans. That was Thursday! Did anybody tell you? I know you didn't want to interrupt your vacation and I know how you don't like to get bad news. Plus, you had fundraisers to go to and mothers of dead soldiers to ignore and smear. You sure showed her! I especially like how, the day after the hurricane, instead of flying to Louisiana, you flew to San Diego to party with your business peeps. Don't let people criticize you for this -- after all, the hurricane was over and what the heck could you do, put your finger in the dike? And don't listen to those who, in the coming days, will reveal how you specifically reduced the Army Corps of Engineers' budget for New Orleans this summer for the third year in a row. You just tell them that even if you hadn't cut the money to fix those levees, there weren't going to be any Army engineers to fix them anyway because you had a much more important construction job for them -- BUILDING DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ! On Day 3, when you finally left your vacation home, I have to say I was moved by how you had your Air Force One pilot descend from the clouds as you flew over New Orleans so you could catch a quick look of the disaster. Hey, I know you couldn't stop and grab a bullhorn and stand on some rubble and act like a commander in chief. Been there done that. There will be those who will try to politicize this tragedy and try to use it against you. Just have your people keep pointing that out. Respond to nothing. Even those pesky scientists who predicted this would happen because the water in the Gulf of Mexico is getting hotter and hotter making a storm like this inevitable. Ignore them and all their global warming Chicken Littles. There is nothing unusual about a hurricane that was so wide it would be like having one F-4 tornado that stretched from New York to Cleveland. No, Mr. Bush, you just stay the course. It's not your fault that 30 percent of New Orleans lives in poverty or that tens of thousands had no transportation to get out of town. C'mon, they're black! I mean, it's not like this happened to Kennebunkport. Can you imagine leaving white people on their roofs for five days? Don't make me laugh! Race has nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with this! You hang in there, Mr. Bush. Just try to find a few of our Army helicopters and send them there. Pretend the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are near Tikrit. Yours, Michael MooreMMFlint@aol.com:ol('http://www.michaelmoore.com'); target=_blank>www.MichaelMoore.comP.S. That annoying mother, Cindy Sheehan, is no longer at your ranch. She and dozens of other relatives of the Iraqi War dead are now driving across the country, stopping in many cities along the way. Maybe you can :ol('http://www.bringthemhomenowtour.org/userdata_display.php?modin%3d50'); target=_blank>catch up with them before they get to DC on September 21st.
__________________
We passed upon the stair, we spoke of was and when
Although I wasn't there, he said I was his friend
Which came as some surprise I spoke into his eyes
I thought you died alone, a long long time ago
Moore
I'm probably the only person in the world who hasn't seen a single Michael Moore movie, and I don't know very much about him.
After reading his very well written letter, though, I think it's time to change all that. He very eloquently called a spade a spade!
Neither has Moore been convicted...sm
of any wrong doing against Damon, but that point flew right over.
Don't bother wasting your time on my posts AG.
Moore has always told the truth.
That's why the Wrong Right hates him to viciously. Really all you have to do is look at who they smear the most vehemently and you will find some of the bravest, most honest, humanitarian and patriotic people in the nation.
Coulter/Franken/Moore
Not even in the same league. Moore and Franken care deeply for our country and presents opinions and facts to make people aware and think about issues. Coulter churns out books with juvenile insults as titles.
Cant trust anything Moore puts out there
nm
What about Roger Clinton, Bill's drug addict brother. Or Billy Bob Carter, sm
Jimmy's alcoholic brother. Man, we could do this all day. You know you posted that article to make the Bush's look bad. If you judge people by their families, that says a lot about you.
I think Micheal Moore is a lot smarter than most people
give him credit for.
I'm not in favor of the bail-outs starting with Wall Street. That didn't accomplish much in the way of helping the economy. I really think the auto workers will continue to be laid off because no one will be above to afford new vehicles. I MIGHT consider supporting a loan if I saw proof that the execs were indeed going to work for $1 a year...with NO bonuses or other underhanded payments, proof that they had sold their luxurious jets and most of all that they WOULD USE ONLY PARTS THAT WERE MANUFACTURED IN THE U.S. AND THAT NO NEW PLANTS WOULD BE BUILT IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING THE PRODUCTS BACK HERE TO BE SOLD. This exporting mess is what started this whole melt down IMHO.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've said before that you're leaving, but you and your goons can't sta
Michael J. Fox. sm
I read that he did not take his medication deliberately so that people could see the full effects of his disease. That's just a tad manipulative, if you ask me. At any rate, I don't believe, and will never support, stem cell initiatives. There is much much more to these programs than is being presented to the public.
Michael J. Fox. sm
IT IS MANIPULATIVE. I believe capitals were warranted in this occasion and it IS about MJF and his ad. The MJF we have seen through the years is not the MJF in the video. I have seen it, have you? There is no guarantee that stem cell research will do anything for him. It is manipulative to the extreme. I believe Rush has apologized. But of course, the left never accepts apologies of any kind.
Aw, too bad. But, now Michael Jackson...
...is in the Middle East doing consulting about theme parks??? Did I hear that right, what's up with that?
Michael Rupert.
THE INCOMING REPRESENTATIVE FROM GEORGIA'S 4th congressional district is the outspoken Cynthia McKinney. She is a Democrat, she is 49 years old, and she has held the job before. She held it for a decade, in fact, from 1992, when she became the first black woman elected to Congress from Georgia, to 2002--when, she says, the hostile corporate media, allied with Republicans, repeated falsehoods about her, distorted her positions, and drove her from my seat.
That is McKinney's explanation for her 2002 primary defeat, and she is sticking to it. But there are other explanations. Her father, Georgia state legislator Billy McKinney, shared his version with an Atlanta television reporter on August 19, 2002, the night before she lost. The reporter had asked Billy McKinney about his daughter's use of a years-old, moth-balled endorsement from former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young. Such endorsements were worthless, the elder McKinney replied, because Jews have bought everybody. Jews. In case the reporter didn't understand, he spelled the word: J-E-W-S. (A few weeks later, in a runoff against a political neophyte, Billy McKinney became a former Georgia state legislator.)
The actual reason why Cynthia McKinney left Congress in 2002 was that, for once, she couldn't outrun her mouth. She had walked along the cutting edge of progressive politics for years--appearing with Louis Farrakhan, calling globalization a cruel hoax, advocating for Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe--but then, in a March 25, 2002, interview on KPFA Pacifica radio, she suddenly fell off.
We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11, McKinney said that day. What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide? McKinney thought she knew the answer. What is undeniable, she explained, is that corporations close to the administration have directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath of September 11th.
It was all downhill from there. On April 12, 2002, a synopsis of the interview appeared in the Washington Post. Democrats began distancing themselves from McKinney. She released a statement admitting she was not aware of any evidence proving President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9/11, but a complete investigation might reveal that to be the case. Then again, it might not. For that matter, McKinney might have had no idea what she was talking about.
Appearing in print just months after the September 11 attacks, McKinney's charges couldn't be excused. Nor could her list of campaign donors, which included both terrorist sympathizers like Abdurahman Alamoudi, the former executive director of the American Muslim Council, and apparent actual terrorists like former college professor Sami Al-Arian. Nor could her October 12, 2001, letter to Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal, in which she rebuked New York mayor Rudy Giuliani for returning the prince's post-9/11 gift of $10 million and urged bin Talal to donate the funds to charities outside the mayor's control, especially those that dealt with poor blacks who sleep on the street in the shadows of our nation's Capitol. Giuliani had returned the Saudi's money because it came with the implicit condition that America address some of the issues that led to such a criminal [9/11] attack, among them its policies in the Middle East, where our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek. To Giuliani, such a statement made excuses for terrorism. This wasn't a problem for McKinney.
And why should it have been? Her bent for conspiracy theories and racebaiting had never cost her politically. When she said in 1996 that we need to get the government out of the drug business, she was not talking about a possible prescription drug benefit. Whether it was the time she told USA Today that My impression of modern-day black Republicans is they have to pass a litmus test in which all black blood is extracted, or the time she accused Al Gore of having a low Negro tolerance level, she emerged unscathed from the ensuing kerfuffles. Facing a tough race in 1996, McKinney said Georgia Republicans like her opponent John Mitnick were neo-Confederates remaindered from Civil War days. Amazingly, McKinney ignored the fact that Mitnick was Jewish.
Her father did not. Over and over again, Billy McKinney called Mitnick a racist Jew. As Slate's Chris Suellentrop noticed, when the New York Times asked Billy McKinney to elaborate on his comments, he simply repeated that Mitnick is a racist Jew, that's what he is, isn't he? The controversy over Billy McKinney's comments lasted weeks. Disgraced, he resigned from his daughter's campaign. That year, Cynthia McKinney won 58 percent of the vote.
In 2002, though, thanks to McKinney's interview with Pacifica radio, the tiny streams of anti-McKinney criticism that had been collecting in pools for years turned into a flood. The September 11 attacks were vibrant and terrifying memories when McKinney accused the president of profiting from them. Remember, too, that when McKinney accused the president of being a calculating war profiteer, his approval rating was over 75 percent.
But times change. Two years later, McKinney is still her old self, while the world has become a lot more accommodating to loony theories about President Bush. Apparently her own district is no exception. The 4th District this year was an open seat; Denise Majette, who defeated McKinney in 2002, decided to run for the Senate instead, but McKinney still faced five opponents in last summer's Democratic primary and dispatched them all without a runoff. And while she avoided making any controversial statements, and politely deflected criticism of things she had said in the past, her conspiracism and racialism were still there beneath the surface.
Occasionally they would bubble up. McKinney is defensive about the Pacifica interview, and there are links on her campaign website to two articles by the left-wing BBC journalist Greg Palast that attempt to absolve her of conspiracy-mongering. One of these articles is entitled The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney. The other is entitled Re-lynching Cynthia McKinney. Palast writes that McKinney has never actually said President Bush had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks. Which is true. She hasn't. She's just implied it repeatedly.
What's striking about McKinney's website is that, even as it attempts to debunk a variety of misinformation about her, it also takes great pains to claim vindication for that same misinformation. There is a link, for example, to Exposed: The Carlyle Group, a 48-minute documentary that purports to reveal the depth of corruption and deceit within the highest ranks of our government. There is a link to an article in the South DeKalb County CrossRoads News entitled Where is Cynthia McKinney During 9/11 Hearings? in which the author describes being enraged that McKinney was not included in the public hearings of the 9/11 Commission, since she was the only elected official who had the guts to bring President Bush's war profiting scheme to the light.
A few links more, and you wind up at McKinney's speech Democracy Is Under Attack--Let's take it Back. The speech is a sort of lodestone for McKinniacs. It is a rambling series of remarks delivered at the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem in July 2003. It is an angry speech. I can't be calm when I drive through sections of Atlanta that look more like Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, than America, McKinney explains. Yet the speech is notable mainly for the way in which it references McKinney's conspiracy theorist guru, a man named Michael Ruppert.
Michael Ruppert is a former LAPD detective who is best known for his theories on CIA drug trafficking. Those theories--namely, that the CIA was behind the crack cocaine epidemic in America's inner cities--briefly made headlines in mainstream newspapers in 1996, and Ruppert is hoping for a sequel. Since 9/11, he has toured the country discussing how the Bush administration, Enron, Israeli intelligence, the Pakistani ISI, the Saudis, and Osama bin Laden were behind the terrorist attacks. Ruppert's theories are lucrative. Chip Berlet, who studies conspiracism as a senior analyst at Public Research Associates, a progressive group, told me that Ruppert speaks regularly to sold-out crowds.
As you may know, I'm involved with Mike Ruppert of From the Wilderness, McKinney says in her Democracy Is Under Attack speech. From the Wilderness is the title of Ruppert's newsletter and website. McKinney probably got the idea that the USS Abraham Lincoln was really in San Diego harbor when Bush landed on it in May 2003 from Ruppert. So, too, her idea that Bush and his friends stood to profit from the 9/11 attacks, which she expands upon in another manifesto, the March 2002 Thoughts on Our War Against Terrorism:
Former President Bush sits on the board of the Carlyle Group. The Los Angeles Times reports that on a single day last month, Carlyle earned $237 million selling shares in United Defense Industries, the Army's fifth-largest contractor. The stock offering was well timed: Carlyle officials say they decided to take the company public only after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Such ideas figure prominently in The Truth and Lies of 9/11, a videotaped lecture that Ruppert delivered at Portland State University on November 28, 2001. The lecture is 135 minutes long. It feels much longer. In it, Ruppert talks about the CIA, the Bush administration, the Carlyle Group, UNOCAL oil pipelines in Afghanistan, the Mossad, and--go figure--orange juice. The bottom line is that the Bush administration knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and allowed them to happen for profit. Also, the world financial system is on the brink of collapse.
In its apocalyptic overtones, in its internationalist plot, in its view that apparent enemies are secretly collaborating, Ruppert's The Truth and Lies of 9/11 is a textbook conspiracy theory. It is also a vehicle for Cynthia McKinney. She utters the penultimate line, and it's a doozy. The American people, she says, might have a criminal syndicate running their government.
It's a sinkhole, said Chip Berlet, when I first asked him about these conspiracy theories. He sounded a note of regret about McKinney. A lot of McKinney's complaints about the government are standard progressive fare.
But which ones? Her conspiracy theories, or her hard-left politics? In truth, the line between the two is increasingly difficult to discern. I bought my copy of The Truth and Lies of 9/11 last June, at the Take Back America conference for progressive and Democratic activists in Washington, D.C. In a ballroom nearby, in earshot of the bookstand where Ruppert's video was being sold, Hillary Clinton and George Soros delivered keynote speeches. A few weeks after the conference, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which glibly hints at possible government foreknowledge of the terrorist attacks, was screened for the Senate Democratic caucus at the Uptown Theater in Washington. The film received a standing ovation.
Maybe all of this helps explain why Cynthia McKinney got her seat back. Maybe when McKinney shared her disturbing theories about President Bush in 2002, she was not so much falling off the edge of progressive politics as anticipating it. And she shows no signs of slowing down. I will probably get in trouble for what I've said to you tonight, McKinney told her audience at the Abyssinian Baptist Church in 2003. But it won't be the first time I get in trouble for telling the truth. And I'll continue to tell the truth. As I have said before, I won't sit down and I won't shut up. Too bad.
Michael Steele. I really like this guy.
nm
Michael Steele....(sm)
As noted by someone on SNL (I think).....You do know it doesn't work with just any black guy? ROFL.
Michael Jackson did it
practically overnight!
I am not a fan of Michael Savage...
but certainly don't think he should be banned from the U.S. As far as Britain, I really don't care who they ban. There is a reason we declared our independence--this is pretty much it. We certainly should not emulate them. As far as Michael Savage goes, I am very conservative and I listen to conservative talk radio. I turn it off when Savage comes on. It's a great place we live in where Michael Savage can be on the radio saying whatever he wants to say and I am free to turn it off.
Michael Savage interview
When you have time and want to listen it's an excellent interview. His interview is with Berg - a lifetime democrat/lifetime liberal
http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/2-news/43-phil-j-berg-on-michael-savage-audio
Once on that page there is a link to click to hear the show (the direct link was too long to post here)
P.S. - I just heard this on the show and it does bring up a question. Why isn't Obama bringing his wife and kids to visit his ailing grandmother. The one who raised him. Wouldn't he want his ailing grandmother to see his wife and kids? It does not make sense that these could be her last days why didn't he bring his wife and daughters.
it is a term that Michael Savage came up with. But then he may not be the only one. sm
Michael Savage uses the term in talking about people who follow in a group blindly, just like sheep in a flock. He uses it a lot when referring to people who don't think for themselves and just follow the crowd along repeating what the crowd wants them to. And he uses it as a bipartisan term.
|
