POST SCRIPTS

Jack asks: "And whats up with American's in Harlem, why would we they play host to a communist gangster? "

From one of Taskers favs:

Dancing with the Devil
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 21, 2006

"IF NOTHING ELSE CAME OUT OF YESTERDAY’S SPEECH AT THE UN, we now know what is on Venezuelan proto-fascist Hugo Chavez’s reading table."

“Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States,� he said, hoisting the tome aloft at the podium. “I will just leave it as a recommendation.�

"His Chomsky citation merely proves what we have been saying at FrontPage Magazine for years: there is an Unholy Alliance of American leftists and anti-Americans worldwide – and the influence runs both ways."

This is an outgrowth of the sixties radicals. The desire to "bury" America has taken form and shape on college campi and has found a home in the far left of the democrat party (many now in charge). I'm afraid Danny Glover is a dupe with no idea who his real friends are.

Chavez's buddy buddying with Ahmadinijad is amusing since he prays like a Christian (right there in the UN chamber) thus showing himself to be an infidel...strange bedfellows and all that.

Dressed in that orange red shirt with matching t-shirt he resembled the smokey one his own self. James Toranto said of his "sulfer" remark..."he who smelt it..." I concur.

I was very impressed by the reactions of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Rangel. Good on em.

I doubt it came from purely selfless reasons. Pelosi and Rangel probably measured the political mileage they would get before they said it.

I dunno. Threatening to bomb countries back into the stone age sounds right devilish to me. Tee Hee.

BushCo must be just seething. And it's true. Once upon a time, such things simply were not said in public. It ain't diplomatic. That all these uppity little countries see no point in being diplomatic does not bode well for that fat USA.

Has anybody read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", John Perkins. I'm only a few pages into it, and already like to die of shame.

Libby you seem predisposed to believe the worst about your country whenever something comes up like this "alleged" remark. You said, "Threatening to bomb countries back into the stone age sounds right devilish to me." Why would you just assume that is true?

What's the payoff for America when people like you agree with Chavez outrageous insults?

"What's the payoff for America when people like you agree with Chavez outrageous insults?"

Hey, we tried to "coup" the guy. He has every right to be pissed. I truly can't make up my mind whether he's cracked or not. In Mr. Perkin's book, in those first few pages, he names a couple of like-minded national leaders who have not-so-mysteriously died in firey car crashes. I believe that all this extravagant, headline grabbing behavior may well be Hugo's crafty means of ensuring that he does not meet a similar end.

And here's a novel thought: why should there be a payoff for America?

"Pelosi and Rangel probably measured the political mileage they would get before they said it."

Yes, and they also needed to distance themselves from the fact that his speech, as well as that of the nut job, could have been written by members of their own party.

"uppity little countries"

These are not the remarks of a leader of a "little country". They are the remarks of an egotistical tyrant pretending to be worthy of running a country. A leader "serves" his nation and this little man is no leader. His bufoonery betrayed his true nature. The man is a snake...just like the one in the garden...the one who charmed the naive girl.

Cal Thomas said it very well:

“Adding to this dangerous clash of civilizations is the need by despots to have an enemy in order to escape accountability for failing to improve their own societies. This is true not only of despots in other lands (today and in the past), but demagogues in our own.� —Cal Thomas

President Bush has shown incredible respect for leaders of all nations regardless of size and regardless of their treatment of him. He has welcomed the contribution of all nations and treated even meager efforts with the same appreciation as any other.

I wouldn't call him a nutjob, but that was Pat Robertson. Who was Robertson representing at that time when he said that? Just Robertson. So what, he has a right to his opinion doesn't he? Actually his suggestion was not so far off, no doubt many of Chavez countrymen have considered whacking him. Wouldn't be surprised if they don't. He is a dangerous leader.

Libby: There doesn't have to be "a payoff", but I thought supporting ones country through your free speech might be a novel idea? Course to each their own, it is a free country...so far.

Jack: "...but I thought supporting ones country through your free speech might be a novel idea?"

I dare say any number of Germans took the same approach to Adolph, but we're not going to do that again. This nation's government (Republican and otherwise) has repeatedly pursued policies that are and were malicious, malevolent and WRONG. And it is my duty as citizen to try and mitigate this sort of thing. I wish I had more help.

The reason you don't have more help is because you are wrong Libby.

You mean well, I have no doubt. You feel patriotic, you've convinced me of that. So I believe you do want the best of this country, but you go about wrong. What you do (and the tens of thousands of leftist liberals that think like you) is hurt our nation by undercutting our every effort to oppose the really evil people in this world and support really worthwhile efforts to lead people out darkness and into the modern world.

I said, "I thought supporting ones country through your free speech might be a novel idea?"

You replied, "I dare say any number of Germans took the same approach to Adolph, but we're not going to do that again. This nation's government (Republican and otherwise) has repeatedly pursued policies that are and were malicious, malevolent and WRONG." You may disagree with our policies and that's your right, but you lose your credibility when you compare America to Nazi Germany. That is so fundamentally wrong on so many levels,I hardly know where to begin. That was such an over exaggeration, its hard to believe an obviously intelligent person such as yourself could say such a thing and mean it.

Unlike Hitler's Germany, America is not now, nor has it ever been out for conquest for either wealth or land and we are not our to exterminate Jews or anyone else. We do not believe we are racially empowered to rule all other races. Our leaders were all freely elected, they did not rise through murder and extortion. We don't place our trust in one man nor raise our children to blindly follow one man. We have not made it our goal to dominate the world through military might and conquest.

In every situation where there was conflict, we were either their for humanitarian reasons, we were provoked militarily or we reacted to a war in progress to intervene to to help oppressed people.

It's never, never, never been our policy to seized nations to exploit them nor force innocent people to work under our whip and yoke.

I don't expect you to buy it all, but surely you must believe some of it? We're not that bad Libby!

If you can't see this and you really believe there is a moral equivalence between America under Bush and Germany under Hitler, then you don't know your facts, you don't know your history and you have definately been living too long on the dark side.

Any resemblence between the American and Nazi Germany are so insignificant it could be applied to almost any country. You made a purely emotional, unsupportable comparison and that was not fair to America.

Jack: "Unlike Hitler's Germany, America is not now, nor has it ever been out for conquest for either wealth or land"

How about wealth and oil? I don't know how you can be so blind.

Jack: "We do not believe we are racially empowered to rule all other races."

How about economically empowered? You just can't get past that "capitalism is the best of all possible worlds." Lots of people don't think so. And this government puts an astounding amount of energy into foisting its world view onto other peoples. You do remember the New American Century's Iraq Project. You do, don't you?

Jack: " We don't place our trust in one man nor raise our children to blindly follow one man."

Well then, why do you repeatedly characterize my perfectly reasonable assetions of the astounding incompetence of the Shrub as traitorous, unpatriotic and disloyal.

Jack: "We have not made it our goal to dominate the world through military might and conquest."

I beg yer pardon? Just what exactly the word "preemptive" mean to you???

Don't think this makes me happy. And I know it doesn't make you happy either, but ignoring the situation won't help.

Libby, I don't take any pleasure in this either. In fact, it's down right disturbing.
However, if I thought anything you just said was 100% correct, I would move out of this country. I really would. I couldn't stand to live in a country that was so low and evil.

But, I am perfectly happy to live here knowing our country isn't perfect and we've made a number of dumb moves, because I understand the others countries are no better and the majority are a whole lot worse. Name a better country with a perfect past?

I have seen this nation through your eyes as I was growing up. Now I wish you could see this nation through my eyes.

I think you would have a much difference view now if you could have seen it from my side, the truth contrasted against what the public thought or was led to believe, that part was always entertaining to me.

Law enforcement, from regular police work to detectives, to undercover narcotics, treated me to a lot of secrets. I think that was one of the things I like most about that kind of work. When I travelled overseas and was with other law enforcement types I saw and heard about things the public would never know. Police, here or anywhere in the world always know so much more than you would imagine, they get all the good stuff and we talk to each other like a brotherhood without borders.

Law enforcement is in many ways a government within the government, seperated and protected by a code and a loyalty not shared with outsiders. Thats what I wish I could impart to you, but of course that would be impossible, you would had to have lived it to believe it...so I guess we will just continue to debate.

Sorry but I can't resist being a buttinsky again:

"Just what exactly the word "preemptive" mean to you???"

A word used by liberals to erroneously discredit the current president...with lots of harumphing, I might add.

The dictionary defines it as "taking the initiative"...ooooh that sounds really bad...it also goes on to say, "being or relating to a first strike made to gain an advantage when a strike by the enemy is believed imminent"

You disagree with the intel of many countries, the Congress of the US, other countries that are our allies, and the decision of the President of The United States...the one man who has the responsibility to make these decisionsbecause we said so when we elected him. You just don't like it. When you get elected president, you can make those decisions, until then, I believe it is your duty as a citizen to support your president. Grievances, I believe, should be addressed to someone who can actually do something about your upset and not to the world at large which only demonstrates disunity and weakness and gives our enemies an advantage. But never fear, Osama agrees with you

“In this final phase of the ongoing struggle, the world of the infidel was divided between two superpowers-the United States and the Soviet Union. Now we have defeated and destroyed the more difficult and the more dangerous of the two (the soviets). Dealing with the pampered and effeminate Americans will be easy.� Osama bin Laden

I

Tina: "The dictionary defines it as "taking the initiative"...ooooh that sounds really bad..."

Well, come on, Tina. There's finishing yer spouses sentences for him ... and then there's yer unprovoked military invasions. It's a matter of degree, isn't it?

Tina: "I believe it is your duty as a citizen to support your president.

Again, I have to say that Adolph would have been pleased with you. I'm not.

Tina: "... do something about your upset and not to the world at large which only demonstrates disunity and weakness and gives our enemies an advantage. But never fear, Osama agrees with you."

If this democracy is not strong enough to tolerate dissent, it is not strong enough to survive. You best toughen up. If you won't, it's you, and not I, who is playing into Osama's hands. So there.

Libby: "If this democracy is not strong enough to tolerate dissent, it is not strong enough to survive. You best toughen up. If you won't, it's you, and not I, who is playing into Osama's hands. So there."

The country is strong enough to tolerate honest dissent, I'm not so sure it will always be strong enough to "tolerate" dissent designed to undermine our republic in order to turn it into a socialist, marxist, pacifist (and that ones a hoot given the marxist bent) hippie dippy commune.

If you think I'm not tough enough you are delusional. The thing that has made me really tough...being tolerant of the far left movement pressing us ever closer to the abyss over the last 40-50 years. So there.

Tina, you are truly one in a million.

Have I told you recently how much I appreciate all your logical, educated, brilliant, pithy, witty, factual, enlightening, humorous, and sensible contributions to our column? Well, I do and allow me go on record to say it again... and again... and again ... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again...

Jack, I don't think there's enough ah suck's in the world for that amount of praise. Will you settle for simple thank you?