Sunday, June 25, 2006

For Whom The Bell Tolls

George W. Bush, 43rd president of the USA
If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier... [Bush chuckles, audience laughs] ...just so long as I'm the dictator [more laughter].

March 3, 2005: H.R. 1070/ S. 520, Introduced in Senate: Constitution Restoration Act of 2005


To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.

Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'

Aug 2, 2005: Bypassing Senate (link previously on

President Bush installed embattled nominee John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations on Monday, bypassing the Senate after a testy five-month standoff with Democrats who argued that the tough-talking conservative was unfit for the job.

Mar. 24, 2006, An Update on President Bush's NSA Program

Bush's position is that he does not need Congressional approval for his measures.

March 24, 2006, Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement

When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress.

April 30, 2006, Disobeying more than 750 laws

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution...

Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution.

June 4, 2006: Ignoring more than 750 laws

Bush has appended statements to new laws when he signs them, noting which provisions he believes interfere with his powers.

June 7, 2006: Declares Exemption from Secrecy Oversight

In its 2005 report to the president released last month, the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), a branch of the National Archives, provides a quantitative overview of hundreds of thousands of pages of classified and declassified documents. But the vice president’s input consists of a single footnote explaining that his office failed to meet its reporting requirements for the third year in a row.

Dec 16, 2005: Senate rejects reauthorization of Patriot Act

“Today, fair-minded senators stood firm in their commitment to the Constitution and rejected the White House’s call to pass a faulty law,” said Caroline Fredrickson, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington legislative office. “This was a victory for the privacy and liberty of all Americans.”

Mar 9, 2006: Became Public Law No: 109-177



Sec. 3056A. Powers, authorities, and duties of United States Secret Service Uniformed Division

(a) There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division'.

(b)(1) Under the direction of the Director of the Secret Service, members of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division are authorized to--

(A) carry firearms;

(B) make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony; and

(C) perform such other functions and duties as are authorized by law.

     n : a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute
dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or
opposition etc.) [syn: absolutism, authoritarianism,
Caesarism, despotism, monocracy, one-man rule, shogunate,
Stalinism, totalitarianism, tyranny]

George W. Bush, 43rd president of the USA
Just so long as I'm the dictator.


July 1, 2006: Courts, Congress Resist Growing White House Power

While in the past the power was used to keep specific documents from disclosure, recently the privilege has been invoked to choke off entire lawsuits against the government.

(thanks to nemo)

to be continued...


Blogger JasonJ said...

Just be glad you don't have to live here....

6:51 PM, June 25, 2006  
Blogger Again said...

America is the spearhead of the western world - when she stumbles, we will stumble, too - inevitably

you can watch it here also - yes, we are some years behind you, but we follow obediently, because we believe in the same Heritage-Foundation-religion of "the rich are noble, the rich are good, give 'em all your power and money so that they may protect you and feed you"

and alas, this religion has only one way to go...

12:43 AM, June 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow- I can just see the whole of USA going into one huge Gotham city mode. The best part of Bush's career is that - I mean when you specially see his lovely dialogues - it all reads so funny - like a comic book or something. It would be very entertaining in fiction. "I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt."sounds like a crummy Krusty the clown one liner.
Its like reality ended for Bush when he got elected.

2:06 AM, June 26, 2006  
Blogger Robert said...

I'm off topic here but I thought you might get a kick out of this:

6:29 PM, June 26, 2006  
Blogger Robert said...

Bastard wouldn't let me link it.

I'll post at the blog.

6:31 PM, June 26, 2006  
Blogger Again said...

I'll post at the blog.

found it, thanks - interesting way to look at Kant, Nietzsche or Wagner ;-)

4:23 AM, June 27, 2006  
Blogger Mannning said...

You have entered into the latest round of a long-standing conflict between the Legislative and Administrative parts of the US Government.

Your presentation is deficient, however, in that you have not shown the text of the legislation and their manifold ramifications on the Administrative branch, versus the explicit rationales for Bush to caveat the laws to preserve the integrity of the Administrative branch.

Thus, I see your post as a deliberately slanted story that attempts to give a misleading impression of the Bush Administration. I suggest you read the full Bush Administration rationales before you post again, again. And then read the Constitution carefully as well.

7:04 PM, June 29, 2006  
Blogger Again said...


you are still alive? (that's not an offend, that's just a saying here, when you meet one after a long time)

And then read the Constitution carefully as well.

the Constitution, which needed so much amendmends? Which allow a president to do addendums how (and in the end whether) he accepts the law - such seriously endangering the separation of powers, the basic foundation of any real democracy?

This constitution, of which Benjamin Franklin said, it "can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other"?

btw: did you ever hear the term "banality of the evil"? Banality, which is per se nothing unique?

Benjamin Franklin was right

11:20 PM, June 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Manning is haunting you Again. I feel for you.

6:04 AM, June 30, 2006  
Blogger Mannning said...

again- I see that you did not read my post carefully enough. Congress has for many years tried to ursurp the powers of the Presidency, and to drown the Administration in details of their ideas without providing the necessary means to accomplish their bills-especially the funds to expand the government to meet their laws.

A law without the means to execute it is a dead law, and it is correct to say so up front, which is what Bush has done in many cases.

Even when he agrees with the law, he cannot in all honesty avoid spelling out why he cannot enforce it. The failure lies with Congress, in many cases. You should read his signing statements.

10:05 AM, June 30, 2006  
Blogger Mannning said...

1:15 PM, June 30, 2006  
Blogger Again said...

Manning is haunting you Again. I feel for you.

thanks, but it's ok - i know this language from my birthday

he sounds like my father

exactly - like a perfect copy

again- I see that you did not read my post carefully enough

then thank you very much for coming! Despite obviously wasting your time you never give up to convert me to "good american thinking"

so you MUST believe that i am at least "able" to do so - thanks!

The failure lies with Congress, in many cases.


"We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."

During the preceding years, a score of "democratic" governments had come and gone, often in utter confusion. Instead of alleviating the people's misery, they had increased it, due to their own instability...

Unemployment benefits, moreover, were limited to a period of six months. After that came only the meager misery allowance dispensed by the welfare offices...

Those still lucky enough to have some kind of job were not much better off. Workers and employees had taken a cut of 25 percent in their wages and salaries...

For 14 years the well-blinkered conservatives and [] democrats of the political center had been feeding at the trough just as greedily as their adversaries of the left....

[the commander-in chief] knew that he would be starting from zero. From less than zero. But he was also confident of his strength of will to create [the nation] anew -- politically, socially, financially, and economically. Now legally and officially in power, he was sure that he could quickly convert that cipher into a [a nation] more powerful than ever before.

What support did he have?...

The two sides -- those for and those against [the commander-in chief] -- were very nearly equal in numbers. But whereas those on the left were divided among themselves, [the commander-in chief]'s disciples were strongly united. And in one thing above all, [his adherents] had an incomparable advantage: in their convictions and in their total faith in a leader. Their highly organized and well-disciplined party had conted with the worst kind of obstacles, and had overcome them...

Thousands of visionaries with nebulous dreams of domination, not to mention hotheads dreaming only of brawls and revolution in perpetuity, had found their way into [his adherents] ranks. The ambitious ones intended to rise to the top at any cost -- and as quickly as possible. Many of them were ill-prepared; some simply lacked morals. Many bitter disappointments were in store for [the commander-in chief] because of them...

It was due to such pressures that [the commander-in chief] was sometimes driven to rash action, contrary to his real desire or intent...

Still, it was his conviction that he was being driven not just by his [adherents] movement, but by an inner, almost supernatural force. Whether one called it Providence or Destiny, it was this force, he felt, that had carried him to victory. His own force of character was such that it would yield to nothing. For [the commander-in chief], it was a foregone conclusion that he would forge a new [empire], a new world...

Four years in power to plan, create and make decisions. Politically, it was a revolution: [the commander-in chief]'s first revolution. And completely democratic, as had been every stage of his rise. His initial triumph had come through the support of the electorate. Similarly, sweeping authority to govern was granted him through a vote of more than two-thirds of the [legislation]'s deputies, elected by universal suffrage...

This was in accord with a basic principle of [the commander-in chief]'s: no power without the freely given approval of the people....

Authority does not mean tyranny. A tyrant is someone who puts himself in power without the will of the people or against the will of the people. A democrat is placed in power by the people. But democracy is not limited to a single formula. It may be partisan or parliamentary. Or it may be authoritarian. The important thing is that the people have wished it, chosen it, established it in its given form....

The five paragraphs of this "Law for [] the People and the Nation" were brief and to the point:

1. Laws may be promulgated by the [] government apart from the procedures provided for by the Constitution ...
2. Laws promulgated by the [] government may deviate from the Constitution provided they do not change the position of the [Congress] or of the [Senate]. The powers of the [] President are not changed.
3. Laws promulgated by the [] government will be prepared by the [president] and published [according to law]. Unless otherwise specified, they become effective on the day following publication ...
4. Treaties concluded by the [government] with foreign states that concern matters of national legislation do not require ratification by the legislative bodies. The [] government is empowered to issue the regulations necessary for their execution.
5. This law becomes effective on the day of publication, and remains valid until [date of expiration]. It also becomes invalid if the present government is replaced by another.

(end of quote: [], emphasis mine)

you see, i understand you well

1:55 AM, July 01, 2006  
Blogger Mannning said...

again: No, I do not wish to convert anyone, but merely to voice alternatives to rabid Nazi tomes, liberal tomes, and tomes of simply misguided souls who seem to have fallen into a negative spiral of hate.

Such hate feeds on itself and every conspiracy theory invented by partisans, and adds its poison to the civilized debate we all want to have.

Our three-part government has indeed strayed from the original conception documented in the Constitution. Some insist that they have evolved or should evolve to meet the needs of the people in the 21st century, not the 18th. Others insist that we should roll back many of the deviations from the original, if not all, to conform to the original intent.

Judicial: The SCOTUS has strayed from its conception by legislating from the bench, rather than being simply the interpreter of the law. There must be a correction here, else we are governed by 5 men in robes.

Legislative: The Congress has deviated enormously from its original conception, because of corruption, cronyism, and obstructionism, and such tactics as earmarks, and gross overspending, plus their habit of trying to legislate for themselves powers that have been the prerogative of the Executive since day one.

Executive: Presidents since Eisenhower have recognized this creeping trend of the Judiciary and the Congress, and have attempted to redress these problems in many ways, often by simply rebuffing the Congress, using the veto, or by ignoring the Judiciary, since the really negative effects of changes in the law are felt by the people virtually instantly, while redress through the legal or legislative systems can take many years.

A number of other tactics have been used as well, including: Executive Orders, Policy Changes, and Signing Statements, and one must include pardons too.

The Executive Branch of our government is truly huge, complex and difficult to manage no matter what the talent at the top. One solid attempt to reign in the central government has been to mandate reductions in their budgets, which, of course means reducing the overhead and the services supplied by the agencies concerned.

By beginning with a tax cut approach in the Congress, which benefits all of the people, the cuts are supposed to be realized by cutting the staff and services supplied.

Many of these so-called services are no more than socialization creep and handouts that are not, or should not be, part of proper government in the first place.

Too many people look to the government to solve their personal problems, rather than to themselves. Social welfare has created a dependent class that does not work, but can, yet hold their hands out for welfare.

We have virtually full employment in the US, and no one need go without a job, however unskilled they may be. Reagan, and Bush II have pursued this path with great success. How many European countries can say that about their economies?

Bush has been pursuing the Unitary Executive approach in his tenure with considerable success also. He has rejected numerous provisions of new legislation that cause him, and his legal advisors, to believe the acts to be contrary to the Constitution, harmful to the security of the nation, and practically impossible to enforce or report upon in the manner prescribed by Congress (creeping direct congressional oversight of Executive Agencies, for example, which is a definite no-no as it bypasses the President's role as Chief Executive!).

The advent of the War on Terror has forced us to consider actions that we would not normally undertake. Every President has resorted to dictatorial methods during periods of crisis. That is the most cogent reason to select a leader who can see us through the bad times. In each case so far, these dictatorial methods have been abandoned when the crisis is over.

The methods Bush has used are far less severe than the methods used by Lincoln, for example, who suspended habias corpus during the Civil War.

This Unitary Executive approach has not been tested in the courts yet, but it will be, perhaps before the next Presidential election. I will be glad to see a definitive decision from the SCOTUS on the UE idea and practice.

Until then, all of the weeping and wailing and knashing of teeth in the world will not help matters, especially odious comparisons with what I believe is National Socialism of the 1930s and 40s and the motivations of the people in Germany then, versus now in the US. We do not have the dark nights of the soul nor the deprivations here that drive us to accept totalitarianism.

Rather, we have a vibrant and growing society and economy filled with people who worship God, worship independence and freedom, who have jobs and enjoy prosperity, and who are armed and ready to defend these values.

That, after all, is the rationale behind the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. (As an illuminating fact, over 80 million Americans are gun owners, and they own over 300 million guns.)

Forgive the tirade, but this is almost July 4th, which is the day to
celebrate ourRepublic.

12:45 PM, July 01, 2006  
Blogger Again said...

Forgive the tirade,

no problem - again, thanks - because coming back proves interest - you know, bad publicity is better than no publicity ;-)

but this is almost July 4th, which is the day to
celebrate ourRepublic.

exactly - "our Republic", as you say

and "our Republic" has a typical problem of every empire - no interest to learn from "lower species"...

and YES, you can't believe how MUCH i want to celebrate on July 4th!!!

12:54 AM, July 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again: Further substantiation for your already impressive list of documentation regarding the dictatorial decline of Amerika. And the excerpt here identifies still *another* category of blatant abuse of authority by the Bush Reich -- in these cases, abolishing all hope of legal redress through the courts for victims of the Bush Reich, achieved via the arbitrary (and unprecedentedly broad) exercise of Executive diktat alone. This particular component of the Bush Reich's machinery serves to "complete the circle" of impunity the regime seeks for its various criminal offenses by declaring any and all evidence thereof a "state secret", vital to "national security": Courts, Congress Resist Growing White House Power ==== ... Based on a 1953 Supreme Court ruling, the state secrets privilege allows the executive branch to declare certain materials or topics completely exempt from disclosure or review by any body. ==== Rarely used by past presidents, it has been invoked 24 times by the Bush administration, more than any other administration over a six-year period. ==== During the close to six years of the Bush administration, the privilege has been used almost half the number of times it was invoked between 1953 and 2001, when the combined use of eight presidents -- Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, the first Bush and Clinton -- amounted to 55 claims of state secrets. ==== While in the past the power was used to keep specific documents from disclosure, recently the privilege has been invoked to choke off entire lawsuits against the government. ... ==== [I must say, your own evidence and summation here are entirely on the mark, as opposed to the purely *anecdotal* conjectures of your would-be detractor. Hello, Mannnnning! How "nice" to see you again, if only for the comedic effect of watching you vainly strive to advocate for the devil once more, wielding a "pistol" containing only blanks. Again must have really struck a nerve to have brought you out from under your rock into the REAL world of blogdom, where facts are actually considered a *valued* commodity. ==== See you in the "funny papers", MM!]

2:58 AM, July 03, 2006  
Blogger Again said...

your own evidence and summation here are entirely on the mark

you know, i'm something like a "born" authority on that <cynical>

7:20 AM, July 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'you know, i'm something like a "born" authority on that' ==== Again: One reason (among many) I find your inputs tremendously valuable -- you have that unique perspective that allows you to clearly see past the rhetorical "smoke and mirrors" we're so besieged with in the US, cutting straight to the heart of the matter. Incidentally, that edited text you posted above (by way of response) is sheer brilliance.

1:32 AM, July 04, 2006  
Blogger Again said...

you have that unique perspective that allows you to clearly see past the rhetorical "smoke and mirrors"

thanks, had no other option to accept history and my mirror together - as to understand. That's why i looked for a true moral instance who never ever can be lied to - and that's physics ;-)

many children like me do that - at the moment books are published telling the stories of the fathers through the eyes of the children. Many of them had suffered for years under the silence of the family, many of them had to fight to be able to speak about all the little steps common people did to avoid truth - and to avoid harm themselves...

the real problem about the big evil is, that it starts so small and banal and that it often ends (!) banal - The Banality of Evil, as Hannah Arendt called it, talking about Eichmann - so that no hero can help you. Superman is useless, the Lone Ranger can't help you, the biggest bomb is just a joke

- maybe that's the reason, why Hollywood is more interested in Mr. Bushs Bravado than in the truth -

but it is the cancer of a society. Starting small and unnoticed, then growing slowly without pain, therefore seeming "not worth to be treated"...

and so mostly lethal...

that edited text you posted above

the quote: ""We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."....???

i first stumbled across the link using Google and had to read the whole stuff to understand why the author seemed to be so affirmative. Wasn't it you, who warned me about Leon Degrelle?

two links, where you can "enjoy" the whole text:
Flawless Logic

6:07 AM, July 04, 2006  
Blogger Mannning said...

Well, ""nemo"", I took NICE pills a few months ago, and swore off invective and sarcasm, in favor of a sweeter, factual approach. You should try it sometime.

7:39 PM, July 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, ""nemo"", [That's my moniker -- don't wear it out.] I took NICE pills a few months ago, and swore off invective and sarcasm, in favor of a sweeter, factual approach. ==== Oh, I could TELL, from the amazingly suave way you segued into that purportedly "factual" misrepresentation (in the next topic) of the "tenets" of Islam: "In fact, we are threatened by a sect that has a multi-century memory of the real and not so real wrongs they believe they have suffered from the West and Judeo-Christians. Their very religion teaches them to lie, cheat, steal, and kill the infidel." ==== Well, at least that contains the PHRASE, "In fact" (for what it's worth)..

10:28 PM, July 04, 2006  
Blogger Mannning said...

If you have not read the Koran, the the many hadiths that complement it, and the apropriate fatwas of the Muslim Brotherhood, you have no understanding of Islam in the 21st century. Even reading Spencer's book--The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam--would benefit your understanding. For that matter, read OBL's various statements. He follows Muslim precepts to the letter. Infidels are as dirt under their feet.

Inconvenient facts, but true nevertheless.

10:28 AM, July 05, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mannning: The fact that you can suggest a book which *might* support your political "point of view" does not in any way substantiate your preposterous allegation regarding the "teachings of Islam". Seems to me you're backpeddaling furiously here from an utterly indefensible statement. And frankly, I seriously doubt that you've acquainted yourself with the Quran and Sunna sufficiently to derive any meaningful conclusion independently about the "essence" of Islam. ==== Neither the "Muslim Brotherhood" nor Usama bin Laden -- who is not a Caliph (there is none currently), and therefore cannot legitimately direct the actions of the Umma -- are in any sense "official organs" of Islam. And the very title, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" fairly speaks for itself, in my mind. I possess (and can direct you to) a few fine references on Islam -- commendably scholarly ones -- which completely put the lie to your vacuous assertion, not that I suspect you would have much interest in such radically apolitical, *unbiased* tomes. ==== Sorry, no cookie for you! ==== Incidentally, would it be accurate to intuit that the peculiar, *triple-n* spelling of your own moniker, "mannning", is intended as a subtle signal of kinship with the KKK? (The three-fingered gesture depicted in the film "Mississippi Burning" comes immediately to mind.) If not, I'd be curious to know its significance -- that rather unusual spelling seems relatively inexplicable otherwise.

5:46 AM, July 06, 2006  
Blogger Mannning said...

Ah! Manlning replys! Not even a crumb for you, nemo. You must see my dogeared Qur'an and my files on hadiths, which sources you did indeed ignore. I would bet that you have never read one of them. By your own admission, you have not even read Spencer's book, which puts you in full and complete ignorance again of what current 21st century Islam is all about.

If you insist on defending Islam as pure and benign, based upon apologists for Islam who are funded by grants from the UN and US NGOs, I pity you. It is a Warrior's religion, and it has lethal intentions towards us infidels, sooner or later, as we can observe daily around the world.

I see that you still practice the usual denigration and ad hominem attacks that characterize certain classes of our polity. I see as well that you assume moral and intellectual superiority even as you admit your ignorance! How farcical.

11:41 AM, July 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"How farcical." -- An excellent descriptor for your own specious "arguments". ==== But alas, for all the bluster over imagined "ad hominem attacks" you've taken the effort to pen, you've completely *ignored* my question regarding the KKK-like spelling of your moniker [maNNNing]. Is it a "deep, dark secret"? Are you *ashamed* to divulge its significance publicly? (It was an entirely civil question. So your lack of response is remarkably curious.)

2:07 AM, July 07, 2006  
Blogger Mannning said...

Speaking of Islam and Jihad (the "lesser jihad"), this reference summarizes the Qur'an on the subject:

We "unbelievers" are in for a hard time! Notice that virtually none of these verses have been abrogated since given.

8:48 AM, July 07, 2006  
Blogger Mannning said...

nemo: mannning is my moniker, don't you wear it out!

12:48 PM, July 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"mannning is my moniker" ==== Of that we're all excruciatingly aware. But as regards the underlying *symbolism* of its highly unusual spelling, we remain totally in the dark. ==== It's clear by now that my entirely reasonable question is to be answered only by the telltale sound of "crickets chirping". I'll assume, therefore -- barring even an *attempt* to clarify the issue by the normally loquacious maNNNing -- that his conspicuous silence by default signifies assent on my original, hypothetical conjecture that the spelling *is* in fact intended as a subtle signal of "kinship" to fellow KKK types and other "White Supremacists". (That *would* go far in explaining mannning's notoriously racist perspectives on war, "terrorism", Islam, and a good many other things.) ==== As you should have realized, Mannning, there's no *need* at this point to "wear out" your moniker. The ball was put squarely in your court, and you've dodged it -- repeatedly! Check, and mate.

9:53 AM, July 09, 2006  
Blogger Mannning said...

How utterly useless your pounding on my user name is, and how wasteful of space here. You have drawn your own stupid conclusion, so live with it.

I notice you went silent on the c rux of the issue about Islam. I take it you now have looked up my reference, and have seen the error of your ways, are avoiding admitting that Islam is a warrior's religion, and jihad is its norm. I do indeed pity you for your woeful, even wilfull ignorance of Islamic Fundamentalism.

11:54 AM, July 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"How utterly useless your pounding on my user name is, and how wasteful of space here." ==== DO tell! Well, I personally believe that interrogation of the "organizational" affiliations so clearly suggested by your nominal web "persona" is central to determining your ideological "epistemology", critical to any meaningful evaluation of your otherwise preposterous assertions typically bolstered only by radically biased commentaries. (It's evident that rigorous "scholarship", of the non-indoctrinational type, is NOT your modus operandi. Ergo one must seek out *other* explanations for those sweepingly racist slurs you label "facts".) ==== As for any surmised "waste of space" generated by my efforts to ascertain the roots of your innately questionable biases, I would firmly point out that this is Again's blog, not your own! Thus, any such determination is strictly *his* province. And contrary to your irrelevant, dissembling assertion, I strongly suspect that Again might view your own verbose, heavily opinionated ramblings as unduly resource-consumptive. (But again, that's his call.) ==== You have drawn your own stupid conclusion, so live with it. ==== What resounding irony! Though you would now facetiously seek to dub my relatively inescapable conclusion a "stupid" one, you yourself have spawned it via your inexplicable failure to even address a simple question. Most conscientious individuals would be fairly aghast at being putatively labeled a White Supremacist! Yet you've consistently remained utterly silent. Could it be that the "apostasy" of a disingenuous denial on your part would not sit well with your Klan confederates, hence the conspicuous omission of either a "Yea" *or* "Nay" to what has now grown into a direct accusation? ==== I notice you went silent on the c rux of the issue about Islam. I take it you now have looked up my reference, and have seen the error of your ways, are avoiding admitting that Islam is a warrior's religion, and jihad is its norm. ==== You may "intuit" whatever you want, as is your habit. But I see no "error" whatsoever in my "ways". Your original statement concerning the "essence" of Islam is as patently false (and blatantly racist) as the day you issued it. Nothing you've presented here alters that fact one iota. (And frankly, "crux" is in the eye of the beholder.) ==== I do indeed pity you for your woeful, even wilfull ignorance of Islamic Fundamentalism. ==== I, on the other hand, pity you for your abysmal lack of intellectual integrity and your reprehensible pattern of "justifying" your views via loathsome generalizations directed in willful ignorance at other peoples. As I (and Again) have said, it's entirely clear by now exactly where you're coming from.

7:39 AM, July 10, 2006  
Blogger Mannning said...

What a waste! Dream on, oh wordsman.
Inches of useless blather to no avail!

10:46 AM, July 10, 2006  
Blogger Mannning said...

It strikes me as rediculous to put one's head in the sand and declare that Muslims are peace-loving and gentle people, when the news is full of their truly barbaric acts against mankind around the world against infidels and even their own.

That some Muslims are passive is probably true, but even the most passive can be activated by a few days of "treatment" by their imams and other jihadists, especially when their families are threatened with extinction by the jihadists if they don't go along and fight or carry a suicide bomb into a marketplace.

Did you miss 9/11 nemo? Or any of the other six or eight bombings before then? Or any of the IED roadside bombings that have taken so many lives of our troops? You either missed them in the NYT or are acting as an apologist for murderers and torturers. Did you miss the jihad attacks against Israel over the past 50 years? Or are you excusing them too? Either way, you are condoning indescriminate murder and torture of the worst kind.
You are indeed to be pitied for your callousness and head-in-sand posture. Are you yourself the racist that is against the Jews and Israel?

12:20 PM, July 10, 2006  
Blogger Mannning said...

Let me state it again, just so you don't lose the thread. The Qur'an urges the faithful to lie, cheat, steal, and kill the unbelievers (infidels). Jihad is the essence of Islam, the Warrior Religion. (See previous reference for details.)

Read the morning papers for daily reporting on Muslim atrocities.

12:02 PM, July 11, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Read the morning papers for daily reporting on Muslim atrocities." ==== Good grief! I never realized that Israel had at some point converted, virtually en masse, to Islam! ;-) I suppose you learn something new every day -- well, at least some of us do: "Never Again" Gone Mad In Israel, by Sandy Tolan ==== ... The Arab-Israeli war of 1948, known in Israel as the War of Independence, is called al-Nakba, or the Catastrophe, by Palestinians. During the 1948 conflict, more than 700,000 Palestinians fled the violence or were driven from their homes. In the middle of July, when temperatures exceeded 100 degrees, more than 30,000 Arabs marched into exile, some for more than 20 miles. Many never made it; those who did were certain they would be coming back in a matter of days or weeks. Fifty-eight years later, they remain in exile. ==== Some refugees wear the keys to their homes around their neck; others tell stories of golden fields, or of a lemon tree whose fruit grows larger in the memory with each passing year. ==== Fifty-eight summers after the Nabka, as U.S.-made weapons pound Gaza from Israel, a deja vu settles on the old men and women of the refugee camps, and in the vast diaspora beyond, reminding them of yet another bitter anniversary. ==== The latest attacks by Israel in Gaza, ostensibly on behalf of a single soldier, recall the comments by extremist Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, in his eulogy for U.S. Jewish settler Baruch Goldstein, who in 1994 massacred 27 Palestinians praying in the Hebron mosque. "One million Arabs," Perrin declared, "are not worth a Jewish fingernail." ==== Israelis, too, are a traumatized people, and their nation's current actions are driven in part by a hard determination, born of the Holocaust, to "never again go like sheep to the slaughter." But if "never again" drives the politics of reprisal, few seem to notice that the reprisals themselves are obscenely out of scale to the provocation: For every crude Qassam rocket falling harmlessly, far from its target, dozens, sometimes hundreds of shells rain down on the Palestinians. For one missing soldier, a million and a half Gazans are made to suffer. In Israel, today, it is "never again" gone mad. ...

1:11 PM, July 12, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RE: "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" ==== Amidst a sea of fawning, obliviously credulous "reviews" I encountered from like-minded, sycophantic, racist ideologues, the following commentary stands out prominently as a genuinely balanced, commendable, and eminently *knowledgeable* critique of our Klansman's "preferred source" on Islam, which I (sadly) came across last night during a bookstore visit. ==== To categorize that particular "Politically Incorrect Guide [PIG]" -- one of several in a blatantly disinformational *series* of astoundingly biased, factually deficient, right-wing efforts at revisionist demagoguery published by the notorious NeoConNazi propagandists and smear-mongers at REGNERY ("Unfit for Command", etc.) -- as "outrageously bigoted hogwash, based solely on the unconfirmed *assertions* and remarkably dubious 'expertise' claimed by the author" would be an understatement of profound magnitude! Any TWIT who would actually cite that noxious bit of pulp rubbish as a would-be "reference" has clearly drunk the Kool-Aid long ago, and -- short of massive "deprogramming" -- is obviously ineducable: Modern-Day Crusader, by Adem Carroll [The Public Eye] ==== As director of the provocative Jihad Watch website, as well as author of Islam Unveiled and Onward Muslim Soldiers, Robert Spencer seems to see himself as a commander in a struggle. His enemy is not a specific group of Muslims with particular aims and aspirations but instead a monolithic and unchanging Islam. On scores of radio and TV shows, he fulminates against the religion as a self-appointed expert, despite a lack of serious credentials or even, apparently, interest in the richness of his subject matter. In his intolerance and literalism, Spencer is remarkably like those extremists he condemns. ... [... and thus, I would add, irrefutably similar to maNNNing himself.] ==== By all means, read on. It's an excellent (and *genuine*) review, unlike the vacuous, utterly context-free "praise" heaped on by partisan dittoheads like Michelle Malkin.

4:06 PM, July 12, 2006  
Blogger Mannning said...

If the evolution of Islam is truly found to be benign for infidels, then criticism is useless, and such criticism will be relegated to the dustheap in due time. If, however, Islam is lethal for infidels, deep criticism if it will be found to be both life and nation-saving.

If I am to bet my life and that of my children on the blatherings of some apologists for Islam, or upon the cogent reasonings of a Robert Spencer and others as to the grave threat Islam represents to infidels--there is no contest.

The daily news exposes the horrors of jihad to each and every one of us, which confirms by jihadist actions what Spencer has written. One has to be a fool to see and ignore the signs, and an even greater fool to stick one's head in the sand and hope it all blows over.

12:24 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I REPEAT: Any TWIT who would actually *recommend* Spencer's obnoxious, utterly unsubstantiated, broad brush ravings as a would-be reliable "reference" is either delusional or inherently deceitful (or both). And -- short of massive "deprogramming" -- any advocate of such blatantly racist demagoguery from the likes of REGNERY is clearly ineducable! Nothing blathered here since unsettles that observation in the least.

2:21 PM, July 21, 2006  
Blogger Mannning said...

Why of course you would come to that irrational thought, nemo, otherwise you would have to admit that you are dead wrong. Let me see...AQ and OBL, Hezbollah, Hamas, Sadr, and how many other jihadists are violently active and super-aggressive at this very moment? Their actions speak for themselves. Shooting rockets at populations in Israel that hit at random. Rockets armed with ball bearings to wreck more personal hurts of the receivers nearby, What frys me is that no one takes responsibility for it, but is delighted to do the deed

10:05 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Despite the author's sneeringly dismissive tone and irrational, non sequitur attempts at revisionism, this essay nevertheless provides an excellent array of *authoritative* information (particularly in its first half) -- from reputable scholars, clerics, and religious councils -- on the *true* meaning of the word jihad, which does NOT innately refer to war, terrorism, or violence of any sort: The Meaning of Jihad, by John Perazzo [] Perazzo obviously *intends* to dispute those eminently credible accounts, but fails utterly and, in the process, merely identifies his own political and possibly racist biases by attempting to extrapolate without justification. Regardless of any totally subjective, radical *interpretation* of "jihad" that may be construed, this writing clearly -- albeit, unintentionally -- puts the LIE to the bogus, sweepingly generalized insinuations of Regnery's [PIGs'] self-appointed "Islam" guru, Spencer, and his supportive flock of uncritical dittoheads. (Naturally, I suspect that MaNNNng and like-"minded" individuals would, like Perazzo, reject that compendium of truly knowledgeable statements on Islam, preferring the slanted screed of right-wing "pundits" to any rigorously factual inputs from academicians, learned clerics, or other legitimate experts. But then, that *is* the hallmark of the right wing -- disdain for bona fide "intellectuals", just as expressed by the Nazis.)

11:17 PM, July 24, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home