Calling Yourself Liberal and Religious won’t MAKE You a Good Person

PartyPlayFairDemo

Today we have two re-writes of older articles that seem very relevant today:

First, we will take the “Liberals” as well as the “Conservatives” to task for partisan hypocrisy…

Nowadays the word Liberal is often used as a pejorative; I often use it that way myself for good reasons.

Yet I am a moderate, and probably spend about 40% of the time cursing the idiocy of the Left, and 60% of it complaining and worrying about the Right (It is too bad there are not more real conservative minds in the Conservative camp these days.). Of the two the Conservatives tend to scare me a bit more but the Leftists in total power would be/ have been worse. But the actions of the radicals on either side do not condemn entire schools of thought to a mature mind.  This should be remembered by pundits on both sides in this age of attack politics.

 Lately a radically Conservative group has taken over almost all the political voice of conservative American Christianity.  They have used their pulpit to propound, and pound in, their own view of history, and how Christianity has influenced the development of the United States as a nation.

 They are not actually lying about the influence of the churches. The problem is that they have forgotten from just where in the Church all that influence came.  Yes, it was those damn liberals every time!

 In American history, every time the religious culture has had a profound positive influence (as judged by successive generations) on changes in society those influences have their roots in the Liberal-to-Radical churches. They most certainly did not come from the Conservative ones!

 The Conservative Churches in every case have held the line with the status quo through history whether it was regarding the Revolution, slavery, child labor, workers rights, racial equality or now, gay rights.  Yet the Conservative Churches of today want to shine their halos with the contributions made for the most part by the Liberal Churches of the past.

This activity is not unique to Christianity by any means.  A Radical Conservative Jew will spend much energy telling you about Judaism’s amazing contributions to Western society, but will refuse to see that his brand of thinking never produced any of it.  Find a Conservative Imam, and you will find a man eager to convince you that Islam has been an enormously positive contributor to civilization over the centuries.  But if you remind him that blind faithfulness to Islam’s Conservative philosophy had nothing to do with the various periods of (heretically liberal) Islamic glory that he is polishing up for you to admire; he may even take offense.

  In every case where religious and political power intermingle the things that modern world civilization would call progress has only come when the dominant Church(s) is(are) liberal to the point of being heretical (to the parent dogmas and doctrines), tolerant and more focused on understanding, accepting and spreading the “love behind the Law” rather than promoting a zero-tolerance attitude regarding adherence to the “Letter of the Law.”

But only stagnation and decay ensue when the Churches are conservative and cling to a memory, or fictitious ideal, of “the way it should be.”

 It should be noted that Conservative religious thought can have a greatly positive influence on society but, that usually the effects remain chiefly negative.

 Witness: the defense of slavery, and the stances of “Godly” preachers and priests against child labor laws, and minority civil rights laws.

Witness: the attempts at forced, coerced and violent conversions directed at any people of another religion that are under the influence of a politicized religion (theocracies, inquisitions, shari’a states).

 We all admit that Conservatism is designed to be highly successful at keeping the wheels of a society turning. Who but a fool will deny that there is a true virtue most times in maintaining most of the status quo; Leftists take note of the qualifications and keep your straw men to yourselves – I am not Christian, and never have been a Republican, or supporter of either Bush.

 But, it also must be admitted that Conservative governments and organizations have a poor track record when attempting to grease those wheels, to make accommodation for the fact that seems “odd“, “weird“, “different” to the average mind; whether the ideas are good ones or not!

When the going gets rough or to be a creative inspiration for the people who bear the main burdens of pushing the cart of civilization further, faster and safer than our ancestors ever believed it could go Conservatives can be of more a drag chain when they should be acting like the regenerative brakes that go with a hybrid engine.

 Conservative ideology certainly does not allow real flaws in the basic social system to be changed without a protracted, and often ugly, fight with the liberal mindset who are busy finding things that are not really broken to make into really nasty situations with well-meaning new laws and more, and more, and more tension from enforcement, and less and less elbow room for the well-intentioned citizen just trying to get along and improve their lives.

 Without a Liberal element in society, one that has enough influence to smack the current bosses on the head now and then but, not enough to dominate society  a person lives in what is at best a well upholstered slave camp destined to fade into the dust of history.

And…

Without a Conservative element at the core to give perspective and balance a people will… well, just look at the aftermath of every single revolution in the past – the American revolution was actually a colony revolt – it was an independently evolving, functioning society that broke away from the parent nation/culture rather than an indigenous movement to topple all the central power structures and replace them ad hoc with unproven or dis-proven but, “much better” institutions; not long after they succeed the real bloodshed is just beginning!

 Who was it again that decreed with proven ‘Holy Authority‘ that all human problems can, and may, only be solved by a totally Left-wing or totally Right-wing ideology? When did admitting that your Party’s platform cannot solve all problems if followed by “good” people?

The voting public needs to take off their trendy, strait-jackets/sheep-outfits, grow up, and look at reality – of the real kind, rather than the oh-so-importantly-unimportant political sort – and then find the ideal solutions, not the solutions that serve your political tribe while walking over everyone else’s Lives’, Liberties, and frantic Pursuits of Happiness.

Nazism was a leftist ideology

by Henrik Ræder Clausen

With some annoyance, I recently noticed my local newspaper, Aarhus Stiftstidende, full of articles about Nazism, an ideology I thought we had seen the last of on the 5th of May 1945, when Denmark was liberated after 5 years of German occupation. But it seems we’re not that lucky.

A Nazi group exists in Denmark again, and leftwing extremists like Antifa contribute by putting up swastikas in the streets of Aarhus. While the craft was nicely done, it was swastikas nonetheless, a symbol I do not want in my city under any circumstances.

Then, there seems to be some confusion as to where Nazism belongs in the political spectrum. That is understandable, for probably no political group in Denmark (save the youth branch of Venstre, who recently held a meeting with them) would tolerate their company.

For this reason, it’s important to make clear that Nazism (the full name of the political party was “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei”, which translates to “National Socialist German Workers Party”), also according to their own understanding, is an extreme leftist ideology. They consider themselves to belong to the tradition of the Jacobins in France, and taking into account the Reign of Terror instigated by them, this is not an unreasonable characterization.
– – – – – – – – –
If one looks at the Nazi political program, and it’s implementation during the 1930’s (before the war), it was distinctly leftist, and radically so. Quoting Bruce Walker in American Thinker:

Vera Micheles Dean in her 1939 book, Europe in Retreat, written before the Second World War began, said that the Nazis had introduced into Germany a form of graduated Bolshevism, focusing first upon Jewish bankers, industrialists and businessmen, but then upon other businesses, noting that the Nazi goal, from which it had not deviated, was to establish an egalitarian society in which everyone is equal and subordinate to the state.

The main Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, made it clear from the outset that nothing was more despicable to the Nazis than the Bourgeoisie, the Capitalists and Christianity. Any confusion to the contrary may be due to the fact that the German Conservatives, in a vain attempt to ‘influence’ Hitler, decided to eventually work with him once he rose to power. This granted him the legitimacy he so desperately wanted, the power he needed to fulfill his plans, while the utterly frustrated Germans lived to see him wreck total havoc in Germany and Europe at large.

For obvious propagandistic reasons, Stalin and his allies fiercely insisted on using the ‘right-wing’ label on the Nazis. It would certainly not look good to expose the fact that Communism of the Soviet Union seen from an economic point of view (anti-Semitism is a different matter), was merely a more radical variant of the system implemented by Nazi Germany.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, an exhibition in Moscow compared Hitler and Stalin to great effect demonstrated just how similar Communism and Nazism are in their totalitarian insanity. Many an old Russian, who through decades persistently had admired Stalin, left the exhibition in tears, after it had become clear just how similar Communism was to the Nazism it had defeated.

As for Nazism as such, it is a confused and foolish ideology that doesn’t deserve life on earth. It is better to discuss issues of actual relevance.

Why U.S. Homegrown terror is not a big deal-Report of Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist Dirty Bomb Plot

(HH here: Americans are so comfortable by and large that THIS is the best we can do when it comes to home grown “terrorists”. They are so stupid it is an accident if they succeed! Shot to death by his WIFE in the course of abusing her. And it turns out the stuff he had would not have been effective if he had set it off.)

By Walter Griffin
BDN Staff
BELFAST, Maine — James G. Cummings, who police say was shot to death by his wife two months ago, allegedly had a cache of radioactive materials in his home suitable for building a “dirty bomb.”
According to an FBI field intelligence report from the Washington Regional Threat and Analysis Center posted online by WikiLeaks, an organization that posts leaked documents, an investigation into the case revealed that radioactive materials were removed from Cummings’ home after his shooting death on Dec. 9.

Also found was literature on how to build “dirty bombs” and information about cesium-137, strontium-90 and cobalt-60, radioactive materials. The FBI report also stated there was evidence linking James Cummings to white supremacist groups. This would seem to confirm observations by local tradesmen who worked at the Cummings home that he was an ardent admirer of Adolf Hitler and had a collection of Nazi memorabilia around the house, including a prominently displayed flag with swastika. Cummings claimed to have pieces of Hitler’s personal silverware and place settings, painter Mike Robbins said a few days after the shooting.

An application for membership in the National Socialist Movement filled out by Cummings also was found in the residence, according to the report. Cummings’ wife, Amber B. Cummings, 31, told investigators that her husband spoke of “dirty bombs,” according to the report, and mixed chemicals in her kitchen sink. She allegedly told police that Cummings subjected her to years of mental, physical and sexual abuse. She also said that Cummings was “very upset” when Barack Obama was elected president.

State police have identified Amber Cummings as the person who shot James Cummings. The couple’s 9-year-old daughter was present the morning of the shooting in what police have described as a domestic violence homicide.

Amber Cummings, who is staying in the Belfast area, has not been charged in the case, although the Waldo County grand jury currently meeting in Belfast could take up the matter during its session this week. While state police have acknowledged that the 29-year-old Cummings was killed by a gunshot, the results of the autopsy have been impounded, as have the search warrants executed at Cummings’ High Street home following the shooting. Authorities spent days searching the home, according to neighbors.

Cummings grew up in California and lived in Texas before moving to Maine in August 2007. Although Robbins said Cummings told him he made his money in Texas real estate, it appears that the actual source of his wealth was a trust fund established by his father, a prominent landowner in the Northern California city of Fort Bragg. An Internet search of the James B. Cummings Trust indicated that it has an annual income of $10 million.

BDN writer Dawn Gagnon in Bangor contributed to this report.

Read it all by clicking on the title

Doth we protest too much?: a Muslim voice

(HH here: I was perusing the AtlMuslim site today. Most of the articles are smoothly spun anti-West Pro-Islamist softsoap. Here and there are interesting glimpses into the mind of the supremacist Muslim. Occasionally there is reasonable argument and analysis. This article is one example.

I think the author has about as much chance of changing the course of the Islamist movements as a “moderate” Nazi would have had in changing the party in 1939 but I applaud the effort.

Frankly I think that if large numbers of Muslims actually put things to reason as much as this author wants the “movement’ would LOSE people to blossoming compasion and tolerance.

But Anyway, even in this piece you see the spin of supremacist. The Jews are “oppressing an indigenous people” Not only does that stretch to the limit the term indigenous but it forgets that a significant percentage of the JEWISH population there also must be then considered “indigenous”. And let us not forget the hundreds of thousands of displaced JEWS from Muslim lands who were expelled in ’48. (as opposed to most of the Muslims who left of their own free will to be out of the way of the Muslim Vengence army. Don’t believe it? Look at quotes from ARAB leaders as late at 1964!!!)

No matter how much you stretch the supremacist mind it remains supremacist in thought until it finally shatters in it’s own hypocrisy and the person is no longer a tool of an ideology. So I have hope for the author even while I don’t expect many radical Muslims to listen to him.

In fact I would not be surprised to find that by saying that Islam had no lock on moral behaviour Superior to that of any other religion the author would be considered an apostate.)

By Ayman Fadel, January 15, 2009

In many Gaza demonstrations, the use of inflammatory rhetoric – such as the words “Nazi” and “Holocaust” – does not advance our objectives at all. Instead, it causes observers to doubt the marchers’ rationality.

On January 10, 2009, I attended a protest in Atlanta, Georgia titled “Children March Against Genocide in Palestine.” Overall, the protest was a positive event, …

However, there was a phenomenon in place at this event – something I had witnessed at similar protests in the past – namely some disturbing chants and a few horrifying signs used to express outrage at the ongoing suffering of the people of Gaza.

One chant from a person with a bullhorn referred to Israel as a “terrorist state,” while others in the crowd started chanting, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!” In ascending order of disapproval features on some of the signs included the use of the words “genocide,” “Holocaust,” “Nazi,” and the swastika symbol. One particularly offensive sign had “Israhell: The Real Racist Nazis” on one side and the Israeli flag on the other, with the Star of David replaced by a light blue swastika.

I approached two people carrying this last sign and asked them if they made it themselves. Each told me no. Instead, each had grabbed the sign from a stack of available signs for marchers to take. I then asked each if he knew what the sign meant. Both said, “No.”

There are symbols that produce the most reptilian, visceral response in people. For Jews worldwide, for victims of Nazi Germany, and for those who fought Nazi Germany (like the United States), the swastika is at the top of this list. Contemporary U.S. and European hate groups vandalize minority religions’ buildings, including mosques, with this symbol. In my mind, the only effect the use of this symbol can possibly have is to provoke the worst reaction in people who see it.

One young woman had a sign equating the Star of David with a swastika, followed by a question mark. I asked her about it, and she told me that she hoped to provoke thought. I did not press the issue with her, but I would ask her if the caricatures of the Messenger Muhammad ﷺ published in the Danish right-wing newspaper Jyllands-Posten “provoked thought.”

The desecration and abuse of these symbols is incompatible with the ethos of a humble believer. The Star of David, despite its appropriation by the state of Israel, remains a symbol of Judaism, which Muslims regard to be a revealed religion in its origin and a source of guidance. Regardless of whether the symbol has any real relationship to God’s Messenger David (Dawud in Arabic) ﷺ, anything tied with a messenger’s name should have some sanctity.

Regarding the chants, the Israeli state does do some terroristic things. But it also has an educational system, a health care system, public transportation, and more, just as Hamas, the Palestine National Authority, Egypt and the United States do (or wish to). In fact, some libertarians would say that every state is a terrorist state. Aside from the fact that the claim is either wrong or a truism, it is an unnecessary claim that does not advance our objectives at all. Instead, it causes people to doubt the marchers’ rationality.

I believe there is a group of demonstrators whose sole purpose is “shifaa’ al-suduur,” an Arabic phrase which I would roughly translate in this context as “blowing off steam.” They feel bad, like all of us, and marching and shouting insulting slogans and carrying provocative signs makes them feel better. Those in this group should indulge the rest of us in our delusion that we can actually improve U.S. policy towards the Palestinians. Indulge us by not undermining us in that work. If you must blow off steam, have a separate direct action. Or travel abroad and fight. Or, better, fast the day and pray at night that Allah ﷻ relieves the Palestinians and forgives us for betraying them. Organizers of these events must make it clear why they want people to come and take measures to prevent or limit behaviors that undermine this purpose.

I quickly learned that the Israeli government is not the only government in the world suppressing indigenous peoples, so I don’t say stupid things like “the Israelis are the worst people in the world” and worse. When I learn that Muslims in Sudan killed hundreds of thousands in Darfur and forced millions to flee their villages for refugee camps, I know that adherents of no single religion have a monopoly on morality (and immorality). When I learn about the Nazi-orchestrated slavery and industrial murder of Jews and others in Europe and the killing of 800,000 in Rwanda in 100 days, I don’t casually use words like “Nazi”, “genocide” and “Holocaust.”

Muslim organizers of these protests against the Israeli war in Gaza should expand their encounters with others through participation in a wide variety of organizations, from women’s rights, social welfare, environment protection and foreign policy advocacy, particularly where Muslims are underrepresented. By framing our issues in a manner consistent with more widely accepted norms, we can avoid ineffective and inaccurate “protesting too much.” By connecting our just causes to those of others, we can improve our effectiveness in advocating for them in the years to come.

Click on the title to read it all.

There Are No “Good” or “Moderate” Supremacists

By Jeffrey Immon February 27, 2009

There are no “good” or “moderate” supremacists. Supremacists may employ more or less destructive tactics, but their adherence to a supremacist ideology itself is never “good” or “moderate.” History has shown that supremacists consistently reject the idea that humanity has an inalienable right to equality and liberty. By definition and as shown by history, every identity-based supremacist group rejects such human rights — including such supremacists as white supremacists, Aryan Nazi supremacists, and Islamic supremacists. Therefore, American government leaders who are responsible for equality and liberty should categorically reject such supremacist groups, nations, and adherents, right?

Yet, in the case of Islamic supremacism, our governmental leaders continue to fail in this responsibility. Moreover, it is not only just American government leaders in denial about such supremacism, but also American mainstream media, foreign policy groups, and other aspects of society have joined an army of appeasement on Islamic supremacism which threatens the very foundation of equality and liberty on which our nation exists.

In the past several weeks, we have seen American government officials calling for “reconciliation” with Islamic supremacists in Afghanistan, and listening to the counsel of those who state that America must negotiate with “reconcilable” aspects of the Islamic supremacist Taliban. We have seen American government officials alternately ignore and defend Pakistan’s surrender to the Islamic supremacist Taliban in the northwest portion of Pakistan, where Pakistan has agreed to the Taliban’s demand to implement Islamic supremacist Sharia law. We have heard the deafening silence by such American leaders as Pakistan Islamic supremacists denounce democracy and advocate global Islamic supremacist rule, with such Pakistani “peace” negotiators echoing the very sentiments of Al-Qaeda itself — as Osama Bin Laden seeks “the greater state of Islam from the ocean to the ocean, Allah permitting.”

But the larger crisis point that continues to build is the growing gap between American government leaders and mainstream media leaders who are willing to appease supremacism and surrender on equality and liberty — versus a growing number in the American public that are willing to defy supremacism and be responsible for equality and liberty.

With every new embarrassment, with every new outrage by such appeaser government leaders and mainstream media, those responsible for equality and liberty are becoming more determined to prove that the appeaser crowd will not represent America.

1. The Evil of Supremacism is Never “Good” or “Moderate”

Could you imagine being led in World War II by those who wanted us to believe that there were “Good Nazis” versus “Bad Nazis”? Or to try to distinguish between “Extremist Nazis” versus “Moderate Nazis”? Or seeking the evolution of Aryan Supremacist Nazism into becoming a “mainstream” political ideology for “reconciliation” of “moderate Nazis”?

Similarly, where would we be in America’s civil rights today, if our national confrontation against white supremacists was led by those whose idea of defending equality and liberty was to try to distinguish between the “Good KKK” versus the “Bad KKK”? Or to try to suggest that our national strategy should be based on recognizing the difference between “extremist white supremacists” versus “moderate white supremacists”? Or seeking the continued tolerance of white supremacism as a “mainstream” political ideology for the vague goals of national “reconciliation”?

Imagine further if appeasers rationalized that such “reconciliation” with supremacists could be achieved by addressing “historical grievances” by such groups. Such as, perhaps entertaining the Nazi “grievances” regarding Czechoslovakia and Europe, or their “grievances” with Jews? Or entertaining white supremacist “grievances” calling for “separate but equal” segregation, concerns about federal government “meddling” in local white supremacist-based laws, or their “grievances” with blacks? What if our answer to Nazis and white supremacists had simply been to provide them with more “economic development opportunities” in the absurd belief that this would make them abandon their supremacist ideologies?

Such ideas are obviously absurd. The very term “moderate supremacist” is an oxymoron. A “mainstream” political ideology of Aryan supremacist Nazism or white supremacism would still be inimical to the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. History showed the determination of the allied nations to crush Aryan supremacist Nazism throughout Germany after the war. History shows the determination of Americans to crush white supremacism in this nation in the 1960s, a war of ideas that continues against the fringe remnants even today.

Can you imagine the euphemism masters defining Nazi supremacists as “German nationalists” or defining white supremacists as “racial purity defenders”? In dealing with Islamic supremacism, it is worse than that. Such appeasers refuse to even acknowledge that the ideology of Islamic supremacism exists at all.

They start disavowing that Islamic supremacism exists by seeking to re-label Islamic supremacism as something more palatable to public, so that their argument to appease and ignore supremacism doesn’t sound quite so absurd. Instead of a war of ideas that would defend the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty, the appeasers pursue a war of euphemisms, to confuse the public and obfuscate on the threat of Islamic supremacism. Instead of challenging the supremacists, such appeasers have chosen to attack those who would defend human rights instead, with the inane argument that defending inalienable human rights is not “culturally sensitive” to supremacists.

To be more “culturally sensitive,” such appeasers prefer to use such terms as “extremists,” “fundamentalists,” etc. They attempt to argue that Islamic supremacist activities are actually “anti-Islamic” activities, …

If the appeasers are challenged on this, they seek to prove that they are the only “experts” on such issues, and that anyone without a Ph.D. in Islamic studies working for a Saudi-funded program can’t possible grasp the endless “nuances” involved in fighting “extremism – fundamentalism – whatever euphemism they choose today.”

But what exactly do you negotiate with supremacists about? Certainly not ideology, because supremacists are non-negotiable on their anti-freedom ideologies. So you are only left with negotiating about tactics, which is a particularly dangerous route when you are in denial and unwilling to define the threat and its ideology and unwilling to develop a strategy that addresses the overall ideological threat and enemy.

A “war of euphemisms” forbids discussion on the “why” or the ideology behind such actions, focusing only on the tactics of the day, and the endless parade of details on “who, what, where, when” — always ignoring “why.” Such a desperate position of weakness devolves into a mere “whack-a-mole” approach of throwing whatever tactics sound good that day at the latest “crisis.”

Can you imagine if America’s federal government had decided to choose to negotiate with political “white supremacists” on tactics to stop white supremacist terrorism? Would it have been acceptable if America’s federal government negotiated with white supremacists to maintain segregated schools, public activities, and businesses, if “political” white supremacist leaders agreed to ask the KKK to stop blowing up black churches and stopped killing civil rights workers? Would such “peace negotiations” with supremacists have been morally acceptable to a nation committed to equality and liberty? And is there anyone so unschooled in American history to believe that such negotiations to institutionalize supremacism would have not led to even more supremacists and eventually more terrorism?

Is that commitment and sacrifice for sale now by those who would negotiate with Islamic supremacists?

Do they, like the infamous Neville Chamberlain, believe that they can trade away land, human rights, hope for oppressed people, by letting supremacists grow in power and influence with the pleading hope that it will mean less terrorist threats for America?

Their house of cards built on appeasing supremacism and “newthink” words such as “good” or “moderate” supremacism is going to fall. While the stewing outrage of the American public has not yet hit the boiling point, a movement to restore our national responsibility for equality and liberty is on the horizon. What the appeasers have not yet realized is that there is a growing number of Americans who have had enough, and are working tirelessly in their efforts to regain the leadership of America’s government and restore America’s image to the world as a people responsible for equality and liberty.

The endless series of outrageous activities and comments by those who appease Islamic supremacism are frustrating to those who are responsible for equality and liberty. But like Al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks on America, the appeasers are also overreaching.

Ultimately, this is why supremacists and their appeasers will always fail, and this is why those in support of the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty will always succeed. … Free people recognize that supremacist ideologies — by opposing equality and liberty — also oppose humanity itself. These truths are indeed self-evident, and all supremacist ideologies are dependent on the lie that denies these self-evident truths.

The ever-controlling supremacist ideologies are also dependent on one other factor that will always destroy them… they must always have MORE. As an ideology that seeks to control every aspect of human life and thought, supremacists must always have MORE. So in the surrender of Pakistan in implementing strict Sharia law in its northwest, Islamic supremacist Sufi Mohammad was not content – he had to denounce democracy, he was compelled to call for Islamic supremacist rule over all of the Earth. This example of the endless demands of Islamic supremacists can be seen also in the history of other supremacists. The Aryan Nazi supremacists were not just content in controlling all of Germany, then part of Europe, but were compelled to seek nothing less than to dominate the world.

Their sick lie of supremacism perverts their humanity — making them nothing more than soulless creatures that live only by the endless destruction, control, and dehumanization of others. They are truly the dark side of the human experience. But in their endless demand for MORE, supremacists always sow the seeds of their own destruction, and the disgrace of those who appeased them.

The world is not enough for supremacists – they must own your heart, your mind, your very soul.

We know how this will ultimately end. History has shown the answer over and over again. Supremacists always overreach and destroy themselves. The words and actions of cowardly supremacist appeasers live on in infamy in history. Those who defy supremacism are remembered as champions of equality and liberty.

It is not enough to wait for supremacism to ultimately fall.

Those responsible for equality and liberty must demand an end it to it. This is a responsibility that all free men and women must bravely undertake and carry on the battle for freedom that our forefathers started before us. It is our turn to carry the torch of truth about humanity’s right to equality and liberty against those who seek to cloak the world in a fog of appeasement and against those who seek to darken the earth with the evil of supremacism.

Will you join those who are responsible for equality and liberty?

Fear No Evil.

(HH here: Wow and I say again wow! This piece could easily be the manifesto for the Heretics Crusade blog!! Read it all! Lots more! Click on post title!

U.S. pulling out of ‘Durban II’ conference (Yipee!)

(HH here: Again Obama does the right thing!!! I voted for McCain myself but have been, over all, very please SO FAR with the OVERALL actions of the new administration. I have been quite dismayed to see those that I hoped where in a “mostly moderate” camp turn rabid in the hostility of their analysis since Obama took office. Every action Obama takes to show that he is willing to talk before resorting to force is seen as though it is the culmination of Bush policy instead of the beginning of Obama policy. Do you expect him to declare a secular holy war against any and all Muslims? If not then we need to work out what steps to take. Yes people like Hamas are ready to negotiate because they are weak now. But that means that the West can press harder for settlement and Obama can use any NEW violations AFTER OBAMA has held out his hand as just cause to put the boot in if needed later. Give him that elbow room! This decision proves he is not as Loony Left as people like Rush WANT him to be for their own ego’s fulfilment!!!!!)

By Ron Kampeas · February 27, 2009

WASHINGTON (JTA) — The Obama administration has decided to boycott the so-called Durban II conference out of concerns for anti-Semitism.

Multiple sources on a conference call with the White House on Friday told JTA that the Obama administration had opted not to attend any further preparatory meetings ahead of the planned U.N. conference against racism in Geneva in April.

The conference reprises the 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa that devolved into an anti-Jewish free-for-all. Canada and Israel have opted not to attend the conference, and some U.S. Jewish groups had been pressing the United States to do the same.

Preparations for a draft document so far have seen Iran leading a coterie of nations blocking inclusion of anything that might guarantee Jewish protections – including mention of the Holocaust – while inserting draconian language guarding Islam against “insult.”