The Inmates are officially in control of the asylum

You know, most of the time those Yahoo News stories are just boring pablum, but occasionally, they put up a real gem...like this one;

New Jersey Weighs Cutting "Idiot" From Constitution

"New Jersey is to consider cutting the word 'idiot' from its constitution so that people with some mental disabilities won't be barred from voting.


State Senate President Richard Codey introduced a bill on Monday that would remove language from the New Jersey constitution that was designed more than 150 years ago to prevent people suffering from mental illness or handicap from casting their vote in national, state or local elections..."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070108/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_newjersey_idiot


Taken in part from this story in the Star-Ledger;


Pushing to Scrap a Lawful Indignity


http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1168234756255060.xml&coll=1&thispage=1



Yeah, so imagine this...


“In the bad old days, we used to keep idiots, imbeciles and other mental defectives locked up in institutions, where they got free medications and lots of supervision, but today in our more enlightened era, we give them all the respect, adulation and delusions of grandeur their bipolar hearts could possibly desire – we elect them to political office, right here in good old New Jersey!


“Yup, and it’s worked out just great!
...



"Why they're just as effective and nearly as coherent as our old, out of date, non-idiot state legislators... and they don't take as many junkets or "vacations," either.


“Oh look!
...



"One of the state Senators has thrown a huge wad of feces again!


“Oh and guess what we’ve done with all our Westinghouse Scholarship winners and other assorted geniuses and “brainiacs?”


“Nope, guess again!


“No, silly, we made mop-boys out of them. Yeah they get to clean up all the puke, feces and spittum from our new leaders - and boy is that a really demanding job!


“Now I don’t know where we’re headed, but I do know we’re moving into uncharted territory with this. Sure, our standard of living has gone down and we seem to be moving back toward some kind of hunting and gathering economy, but not the old efficient bushman kind, no, we’re moving toward some combination stupid and insane hunter-gathering where no one really knows what we’re hunting, which is great cause none of us really know how to hunt anyway.


“I think, sooner or later, we’re all gone starve.”




Well if that’s your idea of utopia, have I got some great news for you!

That’s right New Jersey is going to officially give “idiots”and the insane (I know, they prefer "mentally challenged" and "mentally ill") the right to vote!

I can’t wait til their next great idea, which I hope will be trying out various forms of euthanasia on the state legislators to see which ones work the best.

I’ll keep you posted.
...
I must admit that at first blush, this whole idea sounds rather idiotic (please excuse the moronic pun), but the more you consider it, well, it's not nearly as retarded as say giving felons the right to vote...right?

Oh wait a minute, my bad, that's already been suggested;

Clinton/Kerry Bill to Give Vote to Felons Opposed by Americans


"While Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John Kerry (D-MA) attempt to push a bill through the Senate that would restore voting rights for felons -- including killers, rapists and child predators -- such a law would receive a cold reception by most Americans, according to a just-released poll. And some believe Clinton and Kerry -- with the help of some news organizations -- are trying to sneak their bill under the public radar.

"A new poll conducted by Zogby Interactive for Associated Television News and The O'Leary Report shows that a clear majority of Americans, including blacks and Hispanics, are opposed to the restoration of voting rights for former felons.

"The Zogby/Associated Television News poll findings show that Americans oppose aspects of the Count Every Vote Act sponsored by Senators Hillary Clinton and John Kerry that would restore the voting rights of former convicted felons. Fifty-three percent of the American public believes that such a law giving back the right to vote to felons is bad for the country..."

http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/294/12977/printer



And in a related turn of events, it turns out I’m going to be sworn into the New Jersey legislature even though I’m not from there, something to do with an IQ test I took awhile ago.

I don’t know y’all gonna have to figure some of this out for yourselves.

Why Are Some Americans Sympathizing With Abdullah al-Muhajir (Jose Padilla)?

Since his arrest on charges of conspiring to "murder, kidnap and maim persons in a foreign country", Jose Padilla (now Abdullah al-Muhajir) has been the poster-boy for “the inherent abuses of the Patriot Act.”

And that would be fine, except for one thing, Abdullah al-Muhajir is everything the U.S. government claims he is, but the Left rarely lets reality get in the way of good theater, so why make an exception here?

This past August, one charge was dropped against Padilla/al-Muhajir on a technicality by Judge Marcia Cooke.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke said in a written opinion that the charge - conspiracy to "murder, kidnap and maim persons in a foreign country" - duplicated other counts in a federal grand jury indictment handed down last year.

"An indictment is multiplicitous when it charges a single offense multiple times, in separate counts," Cooke wrote. As charged, she added, the indictment exposes Padilla and his co-defendants to multiple punishments for a single crime.

The indictment, Cooke noted, "alleges one and only one conspiracy" and that the same facts are "re-alleged in each of the consecutive counts."

“We stand by the charges in this indictment and will respond after a full review of the court's order," U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta said.

Padilla/Muhajir was arrested in May 2002 returning from overseas at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. He was arrested carrying $10,526, a cell phone and e-mail addresses for al-Qaida operatives.

President Bush designated him an enemy combatant the next month and turned him over to the military.

Padilla/Muhajir has pleaded “not guilty” to the charges. Two co-defendants -- Adham Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi -- also have pleaded not guilty. A fourth defendant, Mohamed Hesham Yousef, is in custody in Egypt. The whereabouts of a fifth defendant, Kassem Daher, is not known.

The indictment alleges the men belonged to a North American terrorist support cell and intended to carry out jihad, or holy war, in foreign countries.

Padilla/Muhajir was originally accused of -- but never charged with -- being a potential "dirty bomber," plotting to detonate a crude radioactive device in the United States, and later scheming to blow up apartment buildings using natural gas.

The U.S. government maintains that Padilla/Muhajir trained at al Qaeda military camps in Afghanistan in 2000, after being recruited by a Yemeni man whom he met on a pilgrimage to Mecca.

Born in Brooklyn, New York in October of 1970, Jose Padilla became a member of the violent street gang, the Latin Kings, after moving to Chicago.

He was convicted of aggravated assault as a juvenile when a gang member he kicked in the head died. After serving his last jail sentence, he converted to Islam and professed a nonviolent philosophy. He went to the Masjid Al-Iman mosque in Fort Lauderdale, Florida with Adham Amin Hassoun, who at that time was the registered agent for Benevolence International Foundation, a charitable trust which U.S. investigators have accused of funding terrorist activities. Padilla and Hassoun became friends. U.S. authorities accuse Hassoun of consorting with radical Islamic fundamentalists, including Al-Qaeda. Hassoun was arrested in 2002 for overstaying his visa.

On June 9, 2002 President Bush issued an order to Secretary Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant," and Padilla was transferred to a military brig in South Carolina without any notice to his attorney or family. The order legally justified the detention using AUMF, which authorized the President to "use all necessary force against . . . such nations, organizations, or persons" and by opining that a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil can be classified an enemy combatant. (This opinion is based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of ex parte Quirin, a case involving the detention of a group of German-Americans working for Nazi Germany).

That decision was appealed and a decision in Padilla's favor was issued in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.

On June 13, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the government's petition to have his case heard directly by the court, instead of the appeal being first heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia.

On September 9, 2005, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush does indeed have the authority to detain Padilla without charges, in an opinion written by judge J. Michael Luttig. In the ruling, Luttig cited the joint resolution by Congress authorizing military action following the September 11, 2001 attacks, as well as the June 2004 ruling concerning Yaser Hamdi. Attorneys for Padilla, plus a host of civil liberties organizations, blasted the detention as illegal. They said it could lead to the military holding anyone, from protesters to people who check out what the government considers the wrong books from the library. The Bush Administration denied the allegations.

Padilla was indicted on three criminal counts in the Miami, Florida criminal proceeding to which he was transferred from military custody. As of August of 2006, the trial was scheduled to commence on January 22, 2007

Timeline
March 2002: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, purported mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and al-Qaida's operational planner and organizer, allegedly suggests Jose Padilla target up to three high-rise buildings that use natural gas with a radiological "dirty bomb."

May 8, 2002: Padilla arrives at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after an overseas trip, carrying $10,526, a cell phone and e-mail addresses for al-Qaida operatives. He is arrested on a material witness warrant.

June 9, 2002: Padilla is listed as an "enemy combatant" and transferred to the Defense Department.

Dec. 18, 2003: The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals orders Padilla to be released from military custody within 30 days and if the government chooses, tried in civilian courts.

Jan. 22, 2004: The 2nd Circuit suspends its ruling after the Bush administration appeals the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

March 3, 2004: Lawyers for Padilla meet with him for the first time since his incarceration at a naval brig in June 2002.

June 28, 2004: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rules that Padilla should have filed his appeal in federal court in Charleston, S.C., because he is being held at a Navy brig there, rather than in New York.

Sept. 9, 2005: A panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that the government can continue to hold Padilla indefinitely.

Oct. 25, 2005: Padilla appeals the appeals court decision to the Supreme Court. The Bush administration's deadline for filing arguments is Nov. 28.

Nov. 22, 2005: Padilla is indicted by a federal grand jury in Miami on charges that he conspired to "murder, kidnap and maim" people overseas. The charges do not include any allegations of a "dirty bomb" plot or other plans for U.S. attacks.

Dec. 21, 2005: 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig chastises the administration for using one set of facts to justify holding Padilla without charges and another set to persuade a grand jury in Florida to indict him. Luttig said the administration has risked its "credibility before the courts."

Jan. 4, 2006: Supreme Court agrees to let the military transfer Padilla to Miami to face criminal charges, overruling the 4th Circuit.

Jan. 12, 2006: Padilla pleads not guilty to charges alleging he was part of a secret network that supported Muslim terrorists. The charges could bring a life in prison sentence.

April 3, 2006: Supreme Court rejects Padilla's appeal, although Chief Justice John Roberts and other key justices said that they would be watching to ensure Padilla receives the protections "guaranteed to all federal criminal defendants."

Aug. 16, 2006: Federal trial court in Miami, Florida dismisses conspiracy to murder charges against Padilla, leaving the most serious charge still pending a charge that could bring a 15 year prison sentence.

Oct., 2006: Padilla moves to dismiss the federal criminal case against him alleging that he had been tortured and that proceedings had been delayed too long from his arrest in May of 2002.

The Asset Tax

For a very long time, I’ve supported a switch away from the income (“productivity) tax and toward some sort of consumption based tax (ie. The Fair Tax; http://www.fairtax.org/)

I’ve even opposed the Flat Tax as a “half measure” that still puts the complete onus on productivity, doesn’t touch those in the “off-the-books” black market, nor those who don’t depend on income for wealth (the truly “rich”).

But a co-worker of mine (Antonios Benetatos) came up with another tax plan that would probably more closely resemble that proposed by the late, great social reformer Henry George.

I've found Antonio's proposal so interesting that I decided to try and evaluate its pros and cons right here. Depending upon the input, this could be continue as an ongoing tax policy review. Since Henry George's ideas were reviled on the Left as much as on the Right, I expect that Antonio's will be no less controversial.

So in the spirit of an even more extreme idea making another one seem less extreme, by comparison, I figured I’d unveil the basic outline of this so-called “Asset Tax.”

Perhaps the reason I like Tony’s idea so much is that it embodies some of Henry George’s views, many of which I found very appealing. Ironically enough, Tony Benetatos is unfamiliar with George’s works, or even Henry George himself, so that made his “Georgist” idea that much more fascinating to me.

What Tony proposed is basically a “tax on money,” that is a tax on savings, pension plans, all manner of investment vehicles, even all fungible assets.

Tony’s plan allows the first $100,000 of accrued monies to be tax exempt, as well as the value of your primary (living residence) would also be tax exempt. This Asset tax would, of course, replace all current Federal taxes – the personal and corporate income tax, FICA taxes, etc.

Beyond that, the total of your assets would be taxed incrementally, maybe 5% on assets from $101,000 $10 million, 8% on assets between $10 million to $50 million, 10% on assets from $50 million to $100 million, 15% on assets between $101 million and $500 million 20% on assets between $501 Million and $1 Billion, 25% on assets of over $1 Billion.

Those who argue that this tax wouldn’t raise near enough revenue apparently fail to take into account that the richest 10% of Americans have accrued appx. 39% of the nation's real wealth.

This asset tax would, in effect, like Henry George’s “Single Tax,” put the onus or tax burden on the hoarding of wealth.

A Fatal Flaw?

Of course, the fatal flaw in this idea is that it makes no distinction between invested monies and hoarded monies...and THAT is indeed problematic.

The primary problem with this idea is that in taxing fixed assets and not growth it amounts to an unconstitutional taking by the government.

But like Henry George’s system that sought to levy a high, punitive tax on hoarded land, this tax would merely tax hoarded monies, but taxing an asset and not its growth results in a taking that could very well undermine the major investments that are the foundation of our economy. Consider that a fixed asset taxed at 10% per year would be taxed 100% of its value in just 10 years.

Proponents like Antonios argue, “That if you consider the extreme disproportionate distribution of wealth, note that the top 20% of American households control 83 percent of the nation’s wealth, while the bottom 80 percent of Americans control only about 17 percent of the nation’s wealth, to be a problem, then the asset tax may be the only vehicle that actually addresses that problem.”

Killing the Golden Goose (Investor)?

But at what cost?

Especially if the result is that mega-investors like Gates, Forbes and Buffet are forced to liquidate their invested assets to pay this tax meant to remedy the hoarding of wealth and deal with the extreme disparity in wealth noted above.

Certainly there is no doubt that the asset tax would be a grossly redistributive tool and one that would perhaps do terrible damage to the foundation of our economy – private investment.

We complain about our economy a lot in America and that’s probably because so many of us are blithely unaware of how well off we are!

Those who decry the “huge and growing” disparity in wealth, look at the fact that the richest 10% of Americans today control 39% of the nation’s wealth.

Well back in 1935, the richest 10% of Americans controlled 37% of the nation’s wealth.

That’s an awfully small amount of growth in that gap. Moreover, the gap in other countries is not significantly less than here!

Unfair America?

How about America’s so-called “disgraceful” poverty rate?

OK, how about it?

The United States poverty rate stands at 12% right now (appx. 36 million Americans), but our utopian neighbor to the north, Canada, has a poverty rate of 15.9%, even merry old England has a poverty rate of 17%, while Chile's (the jewel economy of South America), is 18.2%, and Argentina has a whopping 38.5% of its population living in poverty!

While Belgium has a significantly lower poverty rate than the U.S. (4%), it also has an unemployment rate nearly double ours (8.7%).

As a sidelight, the much ballyhooed economy of Venezuela, one often lauded by many misguided American Leftists, has a staggering 47% of its population living in poverty, an unemployment rate of over 12%!

Compare Chavez’ Venezuela NOT to the U.S., but to Chile (whose economy is still largely based on the Free Market Friedman reforms) and it comes up woefully short to its South American neighbor, with a poverty rate some 2½ X higher than Chile’s, with an unemployment rate more than 50% higher (8% for Chile to 12% for Venezuela), not to mention the huge difference in the inflation rates – 3.1% for Chile, to 16.1% for Venezuela.

Compared even to Chile, Venezuela is an economic basket-case!

Looking at things globally should make it clear that we Americans don’t have a bad economy at all. In fact we have a remarkably stable and relatively equitable one, compared to most other nations.

That’s why, when all is said and done, after considering Antonio’s proposed Asset Tax, I’d still much prefer a switch to a Consumption Tax. It wouldn't eliminate the natural disparity in wealth that seems to occur in all socities, but at least it wouldn't punish productivity and it would reach those currently avoiding their tax burden by working "off-the-books," and impose a much more representative tax liability upon the truly wealthy.

Is This a Great Economy or What?

With low inflation (2.2%), near record low unemployment (4.5%), low interest rates, rising personal income, healthy GDP growth and a Dow above 12,000, this may be the best economy we’ve had post-WW II (the late nineteen-nineties mania doesn’t count as it was predicated and evaporated on a false “Tech Bubble” that was created out of a few rules changes at the SEC).

Still, there are detractors who claim that the current national debt overrides those other economic indicators and changes that picture altogether.

I profoundly disagree.

Detractors often claim that our current level of national debt is reckless, irresponsible and unsustainable, saying things like, “If this government were a household, it’d be in foreclosure and we’d all be facing eviction,” implying that our current debt level is much higher than even an average American household could sustain.

It’s easily proven that America’s current national debt is NOT at all high, even by average household standards. Most American homeowners have a total debt (mortgage, car payments, consumer debt) level that is often 300% or 400% of their annual net (after tax) income, with an annual debt servicing cost of around 50%.

By comparison, the U.S. has a national debt of about 66% of its GDP, with an annual debt servicing cost of about 5% of GDP.

Moreover, it’s NOT much higher than that of many other nations.

England has one of the lowest amounts of national debt at 43% of its GDP. Germany’s is 67% of its GDP, France’s is 66% of GDP, Sweden and Norway’s are both slightly over 50% of GDP. Canada’s is nearly 70% of GDP, Italy’s is 108% of GDP, Japan’s is 158% of its GDP and Israel has a national debt of 99.7% of GDP!

Given that virtually all nations have a significant national debt, the lowest I found was England’s (43% of GDP), with almost all the rest over 50%, many, many nations with 60% of GDP or higher, and a fair amount with more than our current national debt of about 66% of GDP, seems to indicate that our current debt level is not significantly higher than that of most other nations! See link to graph above; SEE:
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2005/01/national_debt_b.html

So the charge that our national debt level would be unsustainable for a household, is demonstrably false, as is the view that our national debt is significantly higher or even “out-of-whack” with that of other nations.

Some will then retreat from the debt-level argument to the charge that “households can’t sustain themselves on deficit spending the way the U.S. government has."

Of course that’s very true, and it's completely superfluous argument because it ignores the fact that ALL national governments can eliminate debt in ways that individuals and households cannot – they can print more money, or float more government-backed bonds.

Deficit spending IS bad, but the paltry 5% of GDP that comprises the annual debt servicing cost on our national debt is NOT the reason for America’s deficit spending! No, a government that continues to spend more than it can afford on social programs, education and the military, not to mention all those non-discretionary spending items (Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid, etc) is responsible for that.

But has anything changed recently in regards to our spending more than we bring in?

Is deficit spending and the national debt at all new?

No, they’re not new at all.

In fact, the debt has been rising every year for more than forty years. Thankfully, so has GDP, thus keeping the national debt at a smaller percentage of the GDP than it would’ve been absent that growth.

In fact, recently one critic of the current economy charged that, “Whether you want to credit Clinton, the republican congress of the 90’s or both they were able to reign in the debt over a decade.”

That is simply UNTRUE!

In fact, the U.S. National Debt was never trimmed during the Gingrich/Clinton years (I say Gingrich first, because Congress controls the budget).

They merely reduced the amount of the deficit spending, so apparently the fellow who claimed this confused the deficit with the national debt in THAT statement.

In truth, the U.S. National Debt grew from 1993 (and before) and that’s easily proven by looking at those numbers; (how about back to 1990?)


09/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm


So, the DEBT has never been reined in, only the deficit (deficit spending gap) was reined in after Gingrich and company took over Congress.

The National Debt has increased EVERY YEAR.

So has the U.S. GDP.

So the percentage of the GDP of the U.S. debt is still not unmanageable, nor at all “out of whack” for a fiscally responsible country.

<

In fact our national debt is itself a very complex concept. It's actually comprised of TWO kinds of debt!

<

According to Donald Lambro, “The problem with the $7.4 trillion national debt number is that it is not a true description of what the government actually owes to its creditors. The real figure is a lot smaller than that because, as a JEC report points out, "not all debt is equal." "

That’s because “there are two kinds of debts.

“There is publicly held debt, which is sold to the public in the form of Treasury bills, notes and bonds, which totals $4.3 trillion, or about 60 percent of our total debt. This is the true debt held by banks, retirees who want a safe, secure investment for their money, along with other financial institutions and even foreign governments.

"Then there is something called government-held debt, which totals $3.1 trillion, or about 40 percent of the gross national debt. This is the amount of money loaned from one program to another within the government. It is essentially debt that the government "owes itself."

"For example, Social Security's surplus revenues are routinely spent by the government to pay other bills in exchange for a Treasury IOU that the retirement fund can redeem when its does not have enough funds to pay all of its benefits (which will happen in about 15 years or so).

"This type of debt is largely an accounting mechanism, and counting it as debt is analogous to counting an IOU to oneself as personal debt," the JEC says."

So is this a great economy or what?

I think, since the charges above, about the current national debt overwhelming the rest of the economic indicators, have proven false, that it is indeed a great economy.

In fact, a great and underestimated one, at that.

In New York: "Ehhhh! Yo!!! It's a friggin' record!"

Well it's official, the latest it's ever snowed in New York City is January 4th.

As of today we've matched that record and it will almost certainly be broken, as the next four days are forecast to be unseasonably warm - over 60 degrees on Friday the 5th and near 70 on Saturday the 6th!

Of course the West is currently getting slammed hard by a frigid snowy winter and the Farmer's Almanac claims that the northeast will have above average temeratures through December and January, followed by below average temperatures and wintery conditions through February and most of March.

I don't know about you, but I'm stoked!

There's nothing like a long, hot summer, say March (OK, I'll take April) thru November, to get you going.

NJ Congressman Supports Somali Jihad

It turns out that 9 term Congressman, Donald Payne (D-NJ) serving the 10th Congressional District (pictured left) opposes the Ethiopia’s assisting the Baidoa-based Transitional Federal Government in Somalia and helping route the Islamic forces there.

Apparently Rep Payne would prefer an Islamic state in Somalia, what al Qaeda’s called , “The southern garrison of al Qaeda.”

What else could he have meant when he said this;

“The invasion of Somalia by Ethiopian forces, despite claims of invitation by the weak Baidoa-based Transitional Federal Government, only leads to more suffering and instability in the Horn of Africa region. United Nations Security Council resolution 1725 clearly stated that "all Member States, in particular those in the region, should refrain from any action in contravention of the arms embargo and related measures."

“Using military force instead of negotiations is a deliberate and ill-advised measure that will further destabilize and increase the suffering of the Somali people. I strongly condemn this aggression and call for the immediate withdrawal of Ethiopian and all foreign forces from Somalia.“

The African Union and the Arab League have called for Ethiopian and all foreign troops to immediately leave Somalia. Unfortunately, the inaction by the United Nations Security Council has once again failed the helpless people of Somalia.”


Apparently Rep Payne fails to realize that America is NOT at war with “Terrorism” or al Qaeda, or even “radical Islam,” it’s very much at war with the global forces of Sharia-based Islam and those forces, wherever they are, are very much at war with us.

Moreover, besides the FACT that the UN had, through passing Resolution 1725, which forbade the Somali transitional government from buying arms to defend itself, as the world's Islamic nations illicitly smuggled weapons, troops, and funds to their throat slitting cohorts in order to impose the oppressive Sharia Law upon those Rep. Payne calls "the helpless people of Somalia".

And it’s not as though overwhelmingly Christian Ethiopia and Somalia’s Muslims have had much peace and stability recently as the Islamists have long called for a holy war (jihad) against Ethiopian troops in Baidoa.

See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6211573.stm?ls

What Americans like Rep Payne need to understand is what the Sharia-adhering Muslims already know, that while the West “Lives for life, we (the Muslims) live to die.”

A well worn but priceless photo and email...

This one's been around for a few days, but it's still a classic, BOTH the picture and the soldier's email!

The serviceman who took the photo writes:


"This is a true story...Check out this photo from our mess hall at the US Embassy yesterday morning.

"Sen. Kerry found himself all alone while he was over here. He cancelled his press conference because no one came, he worked out alone in the gym w/o any soldiers even going up to say hi or ask for an autograph (I was one of those who was in the gym at the same time), and he found himself eating breakfast with only a couple of folks who are obviously not troops.

"What is amazing is Bill O’Reilly came to visit with us and the troops at the CSH the same day and the line for autographs extended through the palace and people waited for two hours to shake his hand. You decide who is more respected and loved by us servicemen and women!

"If you needed a reminder, John Kerry told a group of students in October that they better get an education or they would “end up in Iraq,” insinuating that our soldiers, airmen, seamen and Marines are uneducated."

<

<

You've got to love the American Military personnel, they sure don't suffer fools gladly!

<

<

Courtsey of; http://www.gopunditgo.com/?p=747