In a recent interview Former President Jimmy Carter declared Bush the worst president in history, methinks thou dost protest too much. Carter, whose record of foreign and domestic policy failures is the stuff of legend, has attempted to repair his tarnished imagine by portraying himself as an elder statesman, much like another disgraced president. Apparently, Carter has so embraced this view of himself that he has gone out of his way to criticize the perceived failures of Bush, while still refusing to acknowledge his own shortcomings.

Bush the worst president in history? Are we to believe that Bush’s befuddlement and sometimes incoherent policies are on par with the colossal failures of such preeminent failures as James Buchanan or Warren Harding or perhaps Ulysses Grant or even Carter himself, I think not.

While most can say that Bush won’t go done as one of the nation’s greatest president or even among the top twenty, it is truly difficult to assess how he will be judged by history. When Truman left office he was one of the most unpopular presidents in history. Today Democrats and Republicans alike often mention his name when speaking on all sorts of matters. Regardless of Bush’s many obvious shortcomings, Carter as one of history’s greatest disappointments is in no position to speak on such matters.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/19/carter.blair.ap/

According to foreign ministers from some of the world’s major Islamic countries, its not Al Qaeda, Hamas, Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood that poses the greatest threat to the world, its…Islamophobia. After all fear of radical Islam is what kills, its no hijackers or suicide bombers or madmen in shoot school children in the back or armed militants who chop off the heads of nuns.

According to this conference of apologists for radical Islam, Islamophobia is a deliberate attempt to denigrate and defame Islam. Perhaps these foreign ministers should spend less time criticizing those who fear being murdered (or bombed or maimed) and start addressing the fundamental causes of Islamophobia (i.e., Radical Islam).

Since its inception a principle tenet of Islam has been the principle of conquest by the sword, this began almost as soon as Muhammad declared himself gods prophet.

In recent years we have heard two familiar reasons for the scourge of Islamic terror: the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the war in Iraq. Such arguments have no basis for those familiar with history. If the origins of radical Islam were the results of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict then how does one explain the host of Islamic terror attacks conducted in every corner of the globe. Islamists have been on the march. From the Sudan to Nigeria, to Thailand, to China, to Russia, to Spain, to France, to Argentina, to Canada, to the Philippines, to India and so forth, all in the name of Allah.

We also frequently hear that it is the policies of the Bush administration and our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan that is the cause of global terror. This argument is even more ludacris. Only a decade ago (long before the Iraq war), we were told that it was our military presence in Saudi Arabia that caused Islamic terrorism, before that we were told it was our involvement in the Somalia famine relief mission (no good deed goes unpunished in the Islamic world), before that we were told it was our support for Israel. At the same time the US has worked to free Muslims from oppression in the Balkans and donated billions for relief in Indonesia, while the Islamists can only claim death as the fruits of their labors. The reality is, these Islamists have been attacking us for decades and any action by the US is used as nothing more than a justification for more attacks.

The fact is radical Islamists have been active for centuries, today they have been busy attacking numerous targets, not only the US. These Islamists have murdered school children in Russia and Indonesia. Behheaded teachers and monks in Thailand. They have slaughtered innocents in the Philippines. They have stabbed film makers and authors in the Netherlands. They rioted attacked store owners in France. They killed tourists in Egypt. They have also been busy continuing the slaughter in Africa, attacking Christians and other non-Muslims in the Sudan, Kenya and Nigeria. Meanwhile, on the Indian sub-continent they have been ruthlessly murdered tourists and travelers.

The simple fact of the matter is Iraq cannot explain or justify the many murderous attacks committed by Islamists, not by Islamophobia, indeed if Iraq was the cause of just terror attacks on the US then how does one explain September 11th, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, multiple attacks on Americans Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, the slaughter in Somalia when we attempted to feed the starving in 1993, the first WTC attack in 1993, countless hijackings and bombings during the 1980s and numerous other terror attacks.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273312,00.html

Islamic Terror attacks in the past 40 years:
http://www.thephalanx.com/2006/04/islamic-terrorisma-reality-check.html

Paris Hilton, the inexplicably popular hotel heiress has had her jail term cut from 45 to 23 days…why?

According LA County authorities she’s been given credit for good behavior…that’s right good behavior, while most inmates receive such credit after having actually spent time in jail, Ms. Hilton received it because she “appeared for her latest court date.”

Can you imagine? Something tells me the average California convict, which she is, does not receive such favorable treatment, but then again such is the star struck culture on America’s left coast.
www.accessatlanta.com/entertainment/content/shared-gen/ap/TV/People_Paris_Hilton.html

Previous Post:
www.thephalanx.com/2007/05/hilton-looks-for-pardonurges-followers.html

Al Gore has written a book, in his latest creation, the former Vice President laments the decline of reason in America’s discourse. In a excerpt published by Time, Gore references a comment by West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, preceding the Iraq War.

Can any book in which the tired fossil of a racist, known as Robert Byrd, is cited have any credibility? While Gore contends that American society, its system of laws and the media have failed us, in many ways Gore is correct, there is no discourse in America, only demagoguery, but then again should we be surprised?

The average American simply isn’t interested or capable of engaging in a civil discourse on almost any substantive issue, with the possible exception of American Idol, the Super Bowl or whether Paris Hilton will serve jail time. Central to Gore critique is the lead up to the Iraq War, herein lies inherent hypocrisy that lies deep in the hearts of most politicians. While the merits of the Iraq War may very well be subject to debate, Gore and company is in no position to spearhead that debate.

The same war Gore and fellow leftist now lampoon was the same war, these politicos advocated while in power. Every major Democratic politician from Clinton on down called for harsh action against Saddam Hussein. These leftists argued Iraq was amassing WMDs and was a threat to peace in general and the US specifically. These leftists continued to make such claims in the early days of the Bush presidency, so what happened, did the left have a massive change of heart or experience some type of awakening…certainly not. They are politicians, and politicians like most feral animals prey on weakness. Sensing that the war was going bad, and knowing full well that the public would not remember and the press would not remind anyone of their hypocrisy, the left began to lambaste Bush’s policy of regime change, a policy introduced by then President Clinton.

In reality if the roles were reversed, the GOP would be doing the exact same thing, such is the nature of politics. The left (and for that matter Al Gore) couldn’t care less about Iraq, or the lack of discourse, indeed the lack of discourse plays to their advantage, as a learned society that embraces civil discourse, would not be susceptible to the demagoguery so cleverly championed by the modern left.
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1622015,00.html

"My friend Joshua started his petition, please help and sihn it [sic]. I LOVE YOU ALL!!!!!"

So reads a statement from the world’s most oppressed political dissident, Paris Hilton as she endorses a petiton to be sent to the Governor to prevent the heiress from spending 45 days in jail. Anyone who sihns signs this petition is a fool and child that signs it has failures for parents.

According to the petition, Hilton “provides hope for young people all over the US and the world. She provides beauty and excitement to (most of) our otherwise mundane lives.” Well aren’t we fortunate to share the planet with such a wonderful “beauty.” We should pay this woman for the sheer pleasure of breathing the same air. For the sake of decency let us up that such nonsense goes no further….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6637855.stm

No this isn’t an unrecorded verse of John Lennon’s Imagine, it’s a supposition based on the entire matter of the role of the state in the lives of individuals. Most libertarians, would argue, and rightly so, that the state should have the least amount of involvement possible in the daily lives of its citizens. So long as the actions of one individual do not interfere with the rights and privileges of another, such actions should not fall within the purview of the state.

Nowhere has this unnecessary intrusion been more illustrated than in the ongoing debate over gay marriage, or whether or not states should recognize unions between same-sex couples. Since that debate began to rage we have seen the Congress attempt to usurp the authority of the states to ban homosexual marriage and numerous debates on the state level. In realty, the debate has no place at any level of government. Quite simply…marriage should not be defined one way or the other by the state. Marriage is a personal matter involving a commitment between two individuals. Historically, marriage was viewed as a spiritual matter, long before married couples received favored treatment by the state, marriage was simply a sacrament of the church, not unlike baptism. And just like baptisms, the matter was outside the realm of government bureaucracy. Naturally, Christians, Muslims, Jews and other faiths have and continue hold both similar and contrasting views on matters of marriage.

Over the course of several centuries, two things happened, marriage became secularized and the state became involved in defining marriage. Before long, one could not marry without the blessing of the state, indeed, over the course of many generations, the state sought to forbid certain unions, particularly those involving people of different faiths, ethnicities or race. At this point the state began to usurp the individual rights of free people with free will.

However, unrealistic it may be, the state should divorce itself from the practice of defining marriage, just as the state should divorce itself from all such practices that interfere with an individual’s right to live their lives in the manner they see fit. As a spiritual matter, marriages should be defined by the particular faith of which one practices (or does not practice). Most importantly married couples should not be granted special favors or favored treatment by the state over their single counterparts, no more than people of a certain race or gender should be favored by the state.

If, for legal purposes two people desire to pool their assets, share liabilities or make arrangements for the management of their estate, or for child rearing, the state could recognize a separate contractual partnership, which would protect the assets of both partners and ensure their wishes are carried out in the event of their demise (Similar to France’s Pacte civil de solidarité.) That should be the extent of the state’s interference. As to the matter of gay marriage, once again this would be a matter for the individuals in question, if a church, synagogue, etc…chooses to recognize homosexual unions, that is a matter for that group or organization, not the state. For if we allow the state to define or restrict marriage in any form, are we not opening the door for the state to dictate other aspects of our lives as well? Who we befriend, where we work, how we worship, where we live, how we live, who we live with, etc…
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=20214

Perhaps when the rest of America is finished falling all over themselves and foaming at the mouth with royal infatuation, perhaps some learned objective person will ask the unasked question: what’s all the hubbub?

Didn’t this country fight a war of independence to dispense with such notions as hereditary titles and unearned adulation for individuals whose only claim to fame is having been born.

The mere existence of monarchy is an affront to the principles of our republic…yet the air waves are awash with stories of etiquette preparation at the White House and schooling guests to tonight’s state dinner on the proper manner in which to address the queen. With all do respect to the British government and its people, Elizabeth II is not our royal highness, indeed, she isn’t any higher than any other citizen of this great land, nor should she be.


Then again…perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised by this turn of events, in a country where people like Paris Hilton can rise to fame and stardom, solely due to her birth, perhaps a little royal adulation is a marked improvement, at least Queen Elizabeth can spell “adulation.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270433,00.html