Monday, October 05, 2009

Amazing: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just another self-hating Jew

One of the more appalling examples of the Jewish skill at getting themselves into prominent positions. Judge Goldstone has got nothing on this guy

He has shocked and angered the world with his calls for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth, and dismissed the Holocaust as a ''detail'' of history. But new evidence uncovered by London's Daily Telegraph suggests there may be a secret behind Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's attacks on the Jewish world.

A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card during elections last year shows his family has Jewish roots. A close-up of the document shows that he was previously known as Sabourjian, a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver. The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed their name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth.

The Sabourjians traditionally hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad's birthplace. The name derives from the Jewish for ''weaver of the Sabour'', which is the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The moniker is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews which is compiled by the country's Ministry of the Interior.

Experts last night suggested that Mr Ahmadinejad's track record for hate-filled attacks on Jews could be an overcompensation to hide his past. Ali Nourizadeh, of the London-based Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies, said: ''This aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's background explains a lot about him. By making anti-Israeli statements, he is trying to shed any suspicions about his Jewish connections. He feels vulnerable in a radical Shia society.''

A London-based expert on Iranian Jewry said the ''jian'' ending to the name specifically showed the family had been practising Jews.

More here


You Commit Three Felonies a Day

Laws have become too vague and the concept of intent has disappeared

When we think about the pace of change in technology, it's usually to marvel at how computing power has become cheaper and faster or how many new digital ways we have to communicate. Unfortunately, this pace of change is increasingly clashing with some of the slower-moving parts of our culture.

Technology moves so quickly we can barely keep up, and our legal system moves so slowly it can't keep up with itself. By design, the law is built up over time by court decisions, statutes and regulations. Sometimes even criminal laws are left vague, to be defined case by case. Technology exacerbates the problem of laws so open and vague that they are hard to abide by, to the point that we have all become potential criminals.

Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate calls his new book "Three Felonies a Day," referring to the number of crimes he estimates the average American now unwittingly commits because of vague laws. New technology adds its own complexity, making innocent activity potentially criminal.

Mr. Silverglate describes several cases in which prosecutors didn't understand or didn't want to understand technology. This problem is compounded by a trend that has accelerated since the 1980s for prosecutors to abandon the principle that there can't be a crime without criminal intent.

In 2001, a man named Bradford Councilman was charged in Massachusetts with violating the wiretap laws. He worked at a company that offered an online book-listing service and also acted as an Internet service provider to book dealers. As an ISP, the company routinely intercepted and copied emails as part of the process of shuttling them through the Web to recipients.

The federal wiretap laws, Mr. Silverglate writes, were "written before the dawn of the Internet, often amended, not always clear, and frequently lagging behind the whipcrack speed of technological change." Prosecutors chose to interpret the ISP role of momentarily copying messages as they made their way through the system as akin to impermissibly listening in on communications. The case went through several rounds of litigation, with no judge making the obvious point that this is how ISPs operate. After six years, a jury found Mr. Councilman not guilty.

Other misunderstandings of the Web criminalize the exercise of First Amendment rights. A Saudi student in Idaho was charged in 2003 with offering "material support" to terrorists. He had operated Web sites for a Muslim charity that focused on normal religious training, but was prosecuted on the theory that if a user followed enough links off his site, he would find violent, anti-American comments on other sites. The Internet is a series of links, so if there's liability for anything in an online chain, it would be hard to avoid prosecution.

Mr. Silverglate, a liberal who wrote a previous book taking the conservative position against political correctness on campuses, is a persistent, principled critic of overbroad statutes. This is a common problem in securities laws, which Congress leaves intentionally vague, encouraging regulators and prosecutors to try people even when the law is unclear. He reminds us of the long prosecution of Silicon Valley investment banker Frank Quattrone, which after five years resulted in a reversal of his criminal conviction on vague charges of obstruction of justice.

These miscarriages are avoidable. Under the English common law we inherited, a crime requires intent. This protection is disappearing in the U.S. As Mr. Silverglate writes, "Since the New Deal era, Congress has delegated to various administrative agencies the task of writing the regulations," even as "Congress has demonstrated a growing dysfunction in crafting legislation that can in fact be understood." Prosecutors identify defendants to go after instead of finding a law that was broken and figuring out who did it. Expect more such prosecutions as Washington adds regulations.

Sometimes legislators know when they make false distinctions based on technology. An "anti-cyberbullying" proposal is making its way through Congress, prompted by the tragic case of a 13-year-old girl driven to suicide by the mother of a neighbor posing as a teenage boy and posting abusive messages on MySpace. The law would prohibit using the Internet to "coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person." Imagine a law that tried to apply this control of speech to letters, editorials or lobbying.

Mr. Silverglate, who will testify against the bill later this week, tells me he figures that "being emotionally distressed is just part of living in a free society." New technologies like the Web, he concludes, "scare legislators because they don't understand them and want to control them, even as they become a normal part of life."

In a complex world of new technologies, there is more need than ever for clear rules of the road. Americans should expect that a crime requires bad intent and also that Congress and prosecutors will try to create clarity, not uncertainty. Our legal system has a lot of catching up to do to work smoothly with the rest of our lives.



Obama's Two Americas

Obama's coalition was an alliance of the upscale and downscale

Why is Barack Obama having trouble getting a health care plan through a Congress dominated by his own party? Partly because the coalition that elected him is an unwieldy blend of the rich and the poor. The two groups view the need for radical surgery on the nation's health delivery system quite differently.

Thomas Edsall, a correspondent for the New Republic, has written a provocative piece on just how different Mr. Obama's majority was last year when compared with previous Democratic victories. In 1976, Jimmy Carter won the White House while carrying voters making less than $30,000 (in today's dollars) by 18 points. Fueled by support from young and minority voters, Mr. Obama carried that demographic by a whopping 31 points. But he also carried voters earning over $200,000 by six points, a first for a Democrat. Where Mr. Obama failed to gain much traction was with middle-income voters, which he split with John McCain. In previous elections, Democrats had won by carrying a majority of moderate-income voters.

Mr. Edsall calls the Obama coalition "a successful alliance of the upscale and the downscale -- wealthy and needy marching hand in hand, sharing animosity to George W. Bush and the war in Iraq" But he also calls the Obama coalition a fragile one when it comes to economic issues. The Gallup Poll reports that voters earning under $30,000 a year wanted health care reform by a 13-point margin. But those earning over $75,000 a year opposed reform by 16 points.

The splits in the Democratic majorities in Congress reflect this tension. Health-care reform often pits members whose districts and states contain many uninsured people against fellow Democrats from wealthy districts who fear reform will squeeze research hospitals and generous health insurance plans.

Mr. Edsall sees the Democratic Party's income split as having implications for other issues such as the "cap and trade" climate tax bill. He questions "whether a long-term coalition so disproportionately reliant on the far reaches of the income spectrum is sustainable. And if it isn't? That leaves only one thing for Democrats to do: redouble their efforts to once again become the party of the middle class."



Some Differences Between Left and Right

People often wonder what is the difference between a conservative and a liberal. The simple fact of the matter is that the major difference is that conservatives wonder first what it is they are responsible for while liberals wonder first what everyone else should be doing for them. Here are some brief rules of thumb:

If a conservative sees a U.S.flag, his heart swells with pride.

If a liberal sees a U.S. flag, he feels shame.

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, they don’t buy them.

If a liberal doesn’t like guns, then no one else should have one either.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he won’t eat meat.

If a liberal is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat it.

If a liberal see an enemy he wonders what he can do to appease him.

If a conservative is homosexual, he’ll quietly enjoy his life.

If a liberal is homosexual, he’ll demand everyone get involved in his bedroom activities.

If a successful conservative is black or Hispanic, he’ll see himself as having succeeded on his own merits.

Successful liberal minorities still claim “racism” and want government to give them even more.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to work to better his situation.

A liberal wants someone else to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.

If a liberal doesn’t like a radio show, he demands that the station be shut down or censored.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he just doesn’t go to church.

Non-believing liberals demand that everyone cease believing and demands churches be censored.

If a conservative needs health care, he shops for it, or chooses a job that provides it.

Liberals demand that everyone else provide him with healthcare for free.

If a conservative sees a law, he thinks long and hard before suggesting a change.

If a liberal sees a law he assumes it is just a suggestion and does what he wants anyway.

Conservatives feel there is a right and wrong.

Liberals feel that nothing is really wrong… unless it is believed by a conservative.

Conservatives believe in freedom, responsibility, tradition, and self-reliance.

Liberals believe in license, government restrictions, upending tradition, and collectives.



An example of the outstanding but sometimes unrecognized quality to be found among America's military men

You're a 19 year old kid. You're critically wounded and dying in the jungle in the Ia Drang Valley , on 11-14-1965, LZ X-ray , Vietnam . Your infantry unit is outnumbered 8 - 1 and the enemy fire is so intense, from 100 or 200 yards away, that your own Infantry Commander has ordered the MediVac helicopters to stop coming in. You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns and you know you're not getting out. Your family is 1/2 way around the world, 12,000 miles away and you'll never see them again. As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day.

Then - over the machine gun noise - you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter..!! You look up to see an un-armed Huey!! But.... it doesn't seem real because no Medi-Vac markings are on it. Ed Freeman is coming for you..!! He's not Medi-Vac so it's not his job, but he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fire anyway. Even after the Medi-Vacs were ordered not to come. He's coming anyway.

And he drops it in and sits there in the machine gun fire, as they load 2 or 3 of you on board.. Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire to the Doctors and Nurses. And, he kept coming back..!! 13 more times..!! He took about 30 of you and your buddies out who would never have gotten out.

Medal of Honor Recipient, Ed Freeman, died on August 29, 2008 at the age of 80, in Boise, ID

It took until July 2001, some 36 years after the events above, before he was awarded his nation's highest military honor -- for actions taken on November 14, 1965. The medal was presented by President George W. Bush in a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, together with a glowing citation.


There is a new lot of postings by Chris Brand just up -- on his usual vastly "incorrect" themes of race, genes, IQ etc.


List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here


The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)


No comments: