soc.culture.usa
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa
soc.culture.usa@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* your input needed - 9/11 poll - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/ab8a0f32edb0eeb3
* CHILD MOLESTER CHRISTIAN PRIEST TO REMAIN IN CUSTODY - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/68a496b90e3bf6d6
* Gitmo case challenges presidential powers - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/aed324bb70ec45ec
* My heart is Iraqi - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/361f25d9f8559483
* CHRISTIANS HONOR NOTORIOUS SEX CRIMINAL PRIEST - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/3ec860d0e3c64498
* US Tells Turkey to "FUCK OFF" - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/658f57f750984567
* Pimping Da Oscarz - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/f989acbec3d530be
* Goh: Why no upgrading for Huougang or Potong Pasir? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/29ee801ecd4f26cf
* Turkey: No opening border with Armenia before normalization of relations - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c7f86894d085775e
* THE TURKISH-ARMENIAN CONFLICT : A BRIEF HISTORY AND AN EVALUATION - 2
messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/8e4d4151d3d62730
* Illegal Hispanic Immigration & rally in LA - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/965a78900803abba
* LAYING BARE THE MYTH OF EVOLUTION -----> "HEY, The Emperor Has NO Clothes!" <
----- - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/caa7db9ffa45af08
* BLOOD AND GORE OF "SWARMER" - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/a0949fc51b705622
* MURDERER FREE, INNOCENTS ROT IN JAIL! - 3 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/d7d9c526ac3af31d
* RABBI IMPRISONED VIEWING SEXUALLY EXPLICIT IMAGES - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/7be167cab0a0417e
* immortality4 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/16624f2a7c8d6037
* What makes a religion valid? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/692fbde3edebb694

==============================================================================
TOPIC: your input needed - 9/11 poll
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/ab8a0f32edb0eeb3
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 26 2006 4:31 pm
From: nobody@nowheres.com (the_blogologist)

Q: Does the military keep secrets?
Results: There was a cover-uip.

Q: Are you against war?
Results: Americans are against the Iraqi war.

Duh.

The press influences, manipulates, pays for and cherry picks the polls
it chooses to report. Of course they think we should govern according to
the polls.

Most americans are against gay marriage and abortion.

Tim <TCarpenter@mezzo.org> wrote:

> QUICKVOTE
>
> Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the
> real events of the 9/11 attacks?
>
> Yes
> No
>
>
>
> Vote results as of 3/26/06@7:48 AM
>
>
> Yes 84% 37911 votes
> No 16% 7183 votes
>
> Total: 45094 votes

==============================================================================
TOPIC: CHILD MOLESTER CHRISTIAN PRIEST TO REMAIN IN CUSTODY
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/68a496b90e3bf6d6
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 27 2006 12:32 am
From: usenet@mantra.comK33a and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)

Despite plea deal, Kansas would continue ex-priest's confinement

The Associated Press
Kansas City Star
Friday, March 24, 2006

Newton, Kan. - When he admitted five years ago that he
had molested altar boys in the 1980s, a former Catholic
priest did so under an agreement that the state would not
seek to keep him confined after he did his time in
prison.

But now that 76-year-old Robert Larson is nearing
release, Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline is moving
ahead with an effort to keep him in state custody as a
sexual predator after all.

Kline filed a petition Thursday in Harvey County District
Court, asking that Larson be designated a sexual
predator, which would enable the state to send him to
Larned State Hospital for continued treatment and keep
him there indefinitely.

Matt Treaster, who was the Harvey County prosecutor at
the time, signed the plea agreement stating that Kansas
would not seek Larson's continued confinement under the
Violent Predator Act. But Kline maintains the power to
make such agreements rests only with his office.

Larson had been scheduled for release from the Lansing
state prison on March 29. But Kline arranged with the
former priest's lawyer, Dan Monnat, to have him remain in
state custody until the sexual predator petition is
decided.

To keep Larson in indefinite custody, the state must
prove not only that the plea agreement was invalid but
also that Larson is not stable enough to return to
society and needs further treatment.

Kline said he has evidence indicating Larson is likely to
offend again.

Kline said similar cases have taken about 60 days, and
Monnat said he expects the matter to be resolved quickly.
"After all, 76-year-old Robert Larson has not committed
an offense in at least 18 years, has been through
extensive treatment at a renowned treatment facility and
has been a model prisoner for five years," Monnat said.

The offenses for which Larson was convicted took place
while he was pastor at St. Mary's Catholic Church in
Newton and involved three altar boys and a 19-year-old
man. His bishop removed him from the parish in 1988 after
several allegations of sexual abuse, and he was sent for
treatment at an institution in Maryland.

Larson, eventually stripped of the title and
responsibilities of a priest, was retired and living in
Willoughby, Ohio, when the charges were brought against
him. He pleaded guilty to one felony count of indecent
liberties with a child and three misdemeanor counts of
sexual battery.

Information from: The Wichita Eagle:
http://www.kansas.com

More at:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/14179221.htm

Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/a5ljc
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Gitmo case challenges presidential powers
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/aed324bb70ec45ec
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 26 2006 4:36 pm
From: "SPQRLEGIOXX@AOL.COM"

Yet another winning ultra lib issue: Let's fight for the rights of
terrorists who would explode an atomic bomb if given the chance.
Brilliant!

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 26 2006 7:54 pm
From: Deaf Power

On 26 Mar 2006 16:36:37 -0800, "SPQRLEGIOXX@AOL.COM"
<SPQRLEGIOXX@AOL.COM> wrote:

>Yet another winning ultra lib issue: Let's fight for the rights of
>terrorists who would explode an atomic bomb if given the chance.
>Brilliant!

Atomic bomb and terrorists have been around since Truman dropped it.
Why are you so worried now? Is it because of Bush's terrorism that
begat terrorism? Brilliant!

--
Bush = Nixon

https://political.moveon.org/donate/notillegal-QT.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: My heart is Iraqi
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/361f25d9f8559483
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 26 2006 4:39 pm
From: inkyblacks@yahoo.com

Frank Arthur wrote:

"Islam came to America on 9/11"
-------
Yea, and we brought it here violently through 50 years of blind
obedience to the Israeli lobby. IB see below:-------------

The Israel Lobby

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in
1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its
relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for
Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' throughout the
region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only
US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation
has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing
to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order
to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the
bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests
or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account
for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US
provides.

Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely
from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel
Lobby'. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign
policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the
national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing
Americans that US interests and those of the other country - in this
case, Israel - are essentially identical.

Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a
level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been
the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance
since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two,
to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel
receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly
one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for
every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now
a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to
that of South Korea or Spain.

Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel
receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year
and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for
military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel
is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise
its own defence industry. It is the only recipient that does not have
to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually
impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US
opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the
US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons
systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk
helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to
intelligence it denies to its Nato allies and has turned a blind eye to
Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support.
Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical
of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other
Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put
Israel's nuclear arsenal on the IAEA's agenda. The US comes to the
rescue in wartime and takes Israel's side when negotiating peace. The
Nixon administration protected it from the threat of Soviet
intervention and resupplied it during the October War. Washington was
deeply involved in the negotiations that ended that war, as well as in
the lengthy 'step-by-step' process that followed, just as it played
a key role in the negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo
Accords. In each case there was occasional friction between US and
Israeli officials, but the US consistently supported the Israeli
position. One American participant at Camp David in 2000 later said:
'Far too often, we functioned . . . as Israel's lawyer.' Finally,
the Bush administration's ambition to transform the Middle East is at
least partly aimed at improving Israel's strategic situation.

This extraordinary generosity might be understandable if Israel were a
vital strategic asset or if there were a compelling moral case for US
backing. But neither explanation is convincing. One might argue that
Israel was an asset during the Cold War. By serving as America's
proxy after 1967, it helped contain Soviet expansion in the region and
inflicted humiliating defeats on Soviet clients like Egypt and Syria.
It occasionally helped protect other US allies (like King Hussein of
Jordan) and its military prowess forced Moscow to spend more on backing
its own client states. It also provided useful intelligence about
Soviet capabilities.

Backing Israel was not cheap, however, and it complicated America's
relations with the Arab world. For example, the decision to give $2.2
billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an
Opec oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western
economies. For all that, Israel's armed forces were not in a position
to protect US interests in the region. The US could not, for example,
rely on Israel when the Iranian Revolution in 1979 raised concerns
about the security of oil supplies, and had to create its own Rapid
Deployment Force instead.

The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a
strategic burden. The US could not use Israeli bases without rupturing
the anti-Iraq coalition, and had to divert resources (e.g. Patriot
missile batteries) to prevent Tel Aviv doing anything that might harm
the alliance against Saddam Hussein. History repeated itself in 2003:
although Israel was eager for the US to attack Iraq, Bush could not ask
it to help without triggering Arab opposition. So Israel stayed on the
sidelines once again.

Beginning in the 1990s, and even more after 9/11, US support has been
justified by the claim that both states are threatened by terrorist
groups originating in the Arab and Muslim world, and by 'rogue
states' that back these groups and seek weapons of mass destruction.
This is taken to mean not only that Washington should give Israel a
free hand in dealing with the Palestinians and not press it to make
concessions until all Palestinian terrorists are imprisoned or dead,
but that the US should go after countries like Iran and Syria. Israel
is thus seen as a crucial ally in the war on terror, because its
enemies are America's enemies. In fact, Israel is a liability in the
war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.

'Terrorism' is not a single adversary, but a tactic employed by a
wide array of political groups. The terrorist organisations that
threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it
intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian
terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or 'the
West'; it is largely a response to Israel's prolonged campaign to
colonise the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared
terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a
terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with
Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only
source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it
makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question
that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by
Israel's presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians.
Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to
rally popular support and to attract recruits.

As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire
threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to
Israel. Even if these states acquire nuclear weapons - which is
obviously undesirable - neither America nor Israel could be
blackmailed, because the blackmailer could not carry out the threat
without suffering overwhelming retaliation. The danger of a nuclear
handover to terrorists is equally remote, because a rogue state could
not be sure the transfer would go undetected or that it would not be
blamed and punished afterwards. The relationship with Israel actually
makes it harder for the US to deal with these states. Israel's
nuclear arsenal is one reason some of its neighbours want nuclear
weapons, and threatening them with regime change merely increases that
desire.

A final reason to question Israel's strategic value is that it does
not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US
requests and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building
settlements and to refrain from 'targeted assassinations' of
Palestinian leaders). Israel has provided sensitive military technology
to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department
inspector-general called 'a systematic and growing pattern of
unauthorised transfers'. According to the General Accounting Office,
Israel also 'conducts the most aggressive espionage operations
against the US of any ally'. In addition to the case of Jonathan
Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the
early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in
return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted
in 2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry
Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat.
Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its
willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its
strategic value.

Israel's strategic value isn't the only issue. Its backers also
argue that it deserves unqualified support because it is weak and
surrounded by enemies; it is a democracy; the Jewish people have
suffered from past crimes and therefore deserve special treatment; and
Israel's conduct has been morally superior to that of its
adversaries. On close inspection, none of these arguments is
persuasive. There is a strong moral case for supporting Israel's
existence, but that is not in jeopardy. Viewed objectively, its past
and present conduct offers no moral basis for privileging it over the
Palestinians.

Israel is often portrayed as David confronted by Goliath, but the
converse is closer to the truth. Contrary to popular belief, the
Zionists had larger, better equipped and better led forces during the
1947-49 War of Independence, and the Israel Defence Forces won quick
and easy victories against Egypt in 1956 and against Egypt, Jordan and
Syria in 1967 - all of this before large-scale US aid began flowing.
Today, Israel is the strongest military power in the Middle East. Its
conventional forces are far superior to those of its neighbours and it
is the only state in the region with nuclear weapons. Egypt and Jordan
have signed peace treaties with it, and Saudi Arabia has offered to do
so. Syria has lost its Soviet patron, Iraq has been devastated by three
disastrous wars and Iran is hundreds of miles away. The Palestinians
barely have an effective police force, let alone an army that could
pose a threat to Israel. According to a 2005 assessment by Tel Aviv
University's Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies, 'the strategic
balance decidedly favours Israel, which has continued to widen the
qualitative gap between its own military capability and deterrence
powers and those of its neighbours.' If backing the underdog were a
compelling motive, the United States would be supporting Israel's
opponents.

That Israel is a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships
cannot account for the current level of aid: there are many democracies
around the world, but none receives the same lavish support. The US has
overthrown democratic governments in the past and supported dictators
when this was thought to advance its interests - it has good
relations with a number of dictatorships today.

Some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American
values. Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights
irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly
founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of
blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million
Arabs are treated as second-class citizens, or that a recent Israeli
government commission found that Israel behaves in a 'neglectful and
discriminatory' manner towards them. Its democratic status is also
undermined by its refusal to grant the Palestinians a viable state of
their own or full political rights.

A third justification is the history of Jewish suffering in the
Christian West, especially during the Holocaust. Because Jews were
persecuted for centuries and could feel safe only in a Jewish homeland,
many people now believe that Israel deserves special treatment from the
United States. The country's creation was undoubtedly an appropriate
response to the long record of crimes against Jews, but it also brought
about fresh crimes against a largely innocent third party: the
Palestinians.

This was well understood by Israel's early leaders. David Ben-Gurion
told Nahum Goldmann, the president of the World Jewish Congress:

If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is
natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two
thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been
anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault?
They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country.
Why should they accept that?

Since then, Israeli leaders have repeatedly sought to deny the
Palestinians' national ambitions. When she was prime minister, Golda
Meir famously remarked that 'there is no such thing as a
Palestinian.' Pressure from extremist violence and Palestinian
population growth has forced subsequent Israeli leaders to disengage
from the Gaza Strip and consider other territorial compromises, but not
even Yitzhak Rabin was willing to offer the Palestinians a viable
state. Ehud Barak's purportedly generous offer at Camp David would
have given them only a disarmed set of Bantustans under de facto
Israeli control. The tragic history of the Jewish people does not
obligate the US to help Israel today no matter what it does.

Israel's backers also portray it as a country that has sought peace
at every turn and shown great restraint even when provoked. The Arabs,
by contrast, are said to have acted with great wickedness. Yet on the
ground, Israel's record is not distinguishable from that of its
opponents. Ben-Gurion acknowledged that the early Zionists were far
from benevolent towards the Palestinian Arabs, who resisted their
encroachments - which is hardly surprising, given that the Zionists
were trying to create their own state on Arab land. In the same way,
the creation of Israel in 1947-48 involved acts of ethnic cleansing,
including executions, massacres and rapes by Jews, and Israel's
subsequent conduct has often been brutal, belying any claim to moral
superiority. Between 1949 and 1956, for example, Israeli security
forces killed between 2700 and 5000 Arab infiltrators, the overwhelming
majority of them unarmed. The IDF murdered hundreds of Egyptian
prisoners of war in both the 1956 and 1967 wars, while in 1967, it
expelled between 100,000 and 260,000 Palestinians from the newly
conquered West Bank, and drove 80,000 Syrians from the Golan Heights.

During the first intifada, the IDF distributed truncheons to its troops
and encouraged them to break the bones of Palestinian protesters. The
Swedish branch of Save the Children estimated that '23,600 to 29,900
children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the
first two years of the intifada.' Nearly a third of them were aged
ten or under. The response to the second intifada has been even more
violent, leading Ha'aretz to declare that 'the IDF . . . is turning
into a killing machine whose efficiency is awe-inspiring, yet
shocking.' The IDF fired one million bullets in the first days of the
uprising. Since then, for every Israeli lost, Israel has killed 3.4
Palestinians, the majority of whom have been innocent bystanders; the
ratio of Palestinian to Israeli children killed is even higher (5.7:1).
It is also worth bearing in mind that the Zionists relied on terrorist
bombs to drive the British from Palestine, and that Yitzhak Shamir,
once a terrorist and later prime minister, declared that 'neither
Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means
of combat.'

The Palestinian resort to terrorism is wrong but it isn't surprising.
The Palestinians believe they have no other way to force Israeli
concessions. As Ehud Barak once admitted, had he been born a
Palestinian, he 'would have joined a terrorist organisation'.

So if neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America's
support for Israel, how are we to explain it?

The explanation is the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby. We use
'the Lobby' as shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and
organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a
pro-Israel direction. This is not meant to suggest that 'the Lobby'
is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals
within it do not disagree on certain issues. Not all Jewish Americans
are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many
of them. In a 2004 survey, for example, roughly 36 per cent of American
Jews said they were either 'not very' or 'not at all'
emotionally attached to Israel.

Jewish Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies. Many of the
key organisations in the Lobby, such as the American-Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major
Jewish Organisations, are run by hardliners who generally support the
Likud Party's expansionist policies, including its hostility to the
Oslo peace process. The bulk of US Jewry, meanwhile, is more inclined
to make concessions to the Palestinians, and a few groups - such as
Jewish Voice for Peace - strongly advocate such steps. Despite these
differences, moderates and hardliners both favour giving steadfast
support to Israel.

Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult Israeli
officials, to make sure that their actions advance Israeli goals. As
one activist from a major Jewish organisation wrote, 'it is routine
for us to say: "This is our policy on a certain issue, but we must
check what the Israelis think." We as a community do it all the
time.' There is a strong prejudice against criticising Israeli
policy, and putting pressure on Israel is considered out of order.
Edgar Bronfman Sr, the president of the World Jewish Congress, was
accused of 'perfidy' when he wrote a letter to President Bush in
mid-2003 urging him to persuade Israel to curb construction of its
controversial 'security fence'. His critics said that 'it would
be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress
to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies being
promoted by the government of Israel.'

Similarly, when the president of the Israel Policy Forum, Seymour
Reich, advised Condoleezza Rice in November 2005 to ask Israel to
reopen a critical border crossing in the Gaza Strip, his action was
denounced as 'irresponsible': 'There is,' his critics said,
'absolutely no room in the Jewish mainstream for actively canvassing
against the security-related policies . . . of Israel.' Recoiling
from these attacks, Reich announced that 'the word "pressure" is
not in my vocabulary when it comes to Israel.'

Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organisations to
influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful
and best known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and
their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was
ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People, but
ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National
Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC
in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington 'muscle
rankings'.

The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary
Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick
Armey and Tom DeLay, former majority leaders in the House of
Representatives, all of whom believe Israel's rebirth is the
fulfilment of biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to
do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God's will.
Neo-conservative gentiles such as John Bolton; Robert Bartley, the
former Wall Street Journal editor; William Bennett, the former
secretary of education; Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former UN ambassador;
and the influential columnist George Will are also steadfast
supporters.

The US form of government offers activists many ways of influencing the
policy process. Interest groups can lobby elected representatives and
members of the executive branch, make campaign contributions, vote in
elections, try to mould public opinion etc. They enjoy a
disproportionate amount of influence when they are committed to an
issue to which the bulk of the population is indifferent. Policymakers
will tend to accommodate those who care about the issue, even if their
numbers are small, confident that the rest of the population will not
penalise them for doing so.

In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm
lobby, steel or textile workers' unions, or other ethnic lobbies.
There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian
allies attempting to sway US policy: the Lobby's activities are not a
conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the
Elders of Zion. For the most part, the individuals and groups that
comprise it are only doing what other special interest groups do, but
doing it very much better. By contrast, pro-Arab interest groups, in so
far as they exist at all, are weak, which makes the Israel Lobby's
task even easier.

The Lobby pursues two broad strategies. First, it wields its
significant influence in Washington, pressuring both Congress and the
executive branch. Whatever an individual lawmaker or policymaker's
own views may be, the Lobby tries to make supporting Israel the
'smart' choice. Second, it strives to ensure that public discourse
portrays Israel in a positive light, by repeating myths about its
founding and by promoting its point of view in policy debates. The goal
is to prevent critical comments from getting a fair hearing in the
political arena. Controlling the debate is essential to guaranteeing US
support, because a candid discussion of US-Israeli relations might lead
Americans to favour a different policy.

A key pillar of the Lobby's effectiveness is its influence in
Congress, where Israel is virtually immune from criticism. This in
itself is remarkable, because Congress rarely shies away from
contentious issues. Where Israel is concerned, however, potential
critics fall silent. One reason is that some key members are Christian
Zionists like Dick Armey, who said in September 2002: 'My No. 1
priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel.' One might think
that the No. 1 priority for any congressman would be to protect
America. There are also Jewish senators and congressmen who work to
ensure that US foreign policy supports Israel's interests.

Another source of the Lobby's power is its use of pro-Israel
congressional staffers. As Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, once
admitted, 'there are a lot of guys at the working level up here'
- on Capitol Hill - 'who happen to be Jewish, who are willing . .
. to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness . . . These
are all guys who are in a position to make the decision in these areas
for those senators . . . You can get an awful lot done just at the
staff level.'

AIPAC itself, however, forms the core of the Lobby's influence in
Congress. Its success is due to its ability to reward legislators and
congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those
who challenge it. Money is critical to US elections (as the scandal
over the lobbyist Jack Abramoff's shady dealings reminds us), and
AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the
many pro-Israel political action committees. Anyone who is seen as
hostile to Israel can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign
contributions to his or her political opponents. AIPAC also organises
letter-writing campaigns and encourages newspaper editors to endorse
pro-Israel candidates.

There is no doubt about the efficacy of these tactics. Here is one
example: in the 1984 elections, AIPAC helped defeat Senator Charles
Percy from Illinois, who, according to a prominent Lobby figure, had
'displayed insensitivity and even hostility to our concerns'.
Thomas Dine, the head of AIPAC at the time, explained what happened:
'All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust
Percy. And the American politicians - those who hold public positions
now, and those who aspire - got the message.'

AIPAC's influence on Capitol Hill goes even further. According to
Douglas Bloomfield, a former AIPAC staff member, 'it is common for
members of Congress and their staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they
need information, before calling the Library of Congress, the
Congressional Research Service, committee staff or administration
experts.' More important, he notes that AIPAC is 'often called on
to draft speeches, work on legislation, advise on tactics, perform
research, collect co-sponsors and marshal votes'.

The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign
government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US
policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has
important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the
three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting
Israel. As one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on
leaving office, 'you can't have an Israeli policy other than what
AIPAC gives you around here.' Or as Ariel Sharon once told an
American audience, 'when people ask me how they can help Israel, I
tell them: "Help AIPAC."'

Thanks in part to the influence Jewish voters have on presidential
elections, the Lobby also has significant leverage over the executive
branch. Although they make up fewer than 3 per cent of the population,
they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The
Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates
'depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 per cent of the
money'. And because Jewish voters have high turn-out rates and are
concentrated in key states like California, Florida, Illinois, New York
and Pennsylvania, presidential candidates go to great lengths not to
antagonise them.

Key organisations in the Lobby make it their business to ensure that
critics of Israel do not get important foreign policy jobs. Jimmy
Carter wanted to make George Ball his first secretary of state, but
knew that Ball was seen as critical of Israel and that the Lobby would
oppose the appointment. In this way any aspiring policymaker is
encouraged to become an overt supporter of Israel, which is why public
critics of Israeli policy have become an endangered species in the
foreign policy establishment.

When Howard Dean called for the United States to take a more
'even-handed role' in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Senator Joseph
Lieberman accused him of selling Israel down the river and said his
statement was 'irresponsible'. Virtually all the top Democrats in
the House signed a letter criticising Dean's remarks, and the Chicago
Jewish Star reported that 'anonymous attackers . . . are clogging the
email inboxes of Jewish leaders around the country, warning - without
much evidence - that Dean would somehow be bad for Israel.'

This worry was absurd; Dean is in fact quite hawkish on Israel: his
campaign co-chair was a former AIPAC president, and Dean said his own
views on the Middle East more closely reflected those of AIPAC than
those of the more moderate Americans for Peace Now. He had merely
suggested that to 'bring the sides together', Washington should act
as an honest broker. This is hardly a radical idea, but the Lobby
doesn't tolerate even-handedness.

During the Clinton administration, Middle Eastern policy was largely
shaped by officials with close ties to Israel or to prominent
pro-Israel organisations; among them, Martin Indyk, the former deputy
director of research at AIPAC and co-founder of the pro-Israel
Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP); Dennis Ross, who
joined WINEP after leaving government in 2001; and Aaron Miller, who
has lived in Israel and often visits the country. These men were among
Clinton's closest advisers at the Camp David summit in July 2000.
Although all three supported the Oslo peace process and favoured the
creation of a Palestinian state, they did so only within the limits of
what would be acceptable to Israel. The American delegation took its
cues from Ehud Barak, co-ordinated its negotiating positions with
Israel in advance, and did not offer independent proposals. Not
surprisingly, Palestinian negotiators complained that they were
'negotiating with two Israeli teams - one displaying an Israeli
flag, and one an American flag'.

The situation is even more pronounced in the Bush administration, whose
ranks have included such fervent advocates of the Israeli cause as
Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis ('Scooter')
Libby, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and David Wurmser. As we shall
see, these officials have consistently pushed for policies favoured by
Israel and backed by organisations in the Lobby.

The Lobby doesn't want an open debate, of course, because that might
lead Americans to question the level of support they provide.
Accordingly, pro-Israel organisations work hard to influence the
institutions that do most to shape popular opinion.

The Lobby's perspective prevails in the mainstream media: the debate
among Middle East pundits, the journalist Eric Alterman writes, is
'dominated by people who cannot imagine criticising Israel'. He
lists 61 'columnists and commentators who can be counted on to
support Israel reflexively and without qualification'. Conversely, he
found just five pundits who consistently criticise Israeli actions or
endorse Arab positions. Newspapers occasionally publish guest op-eds
challenging Israeli policy, but the balance of opinion clearly favours
the other side. It is hard to imagine any mainstream media outlet in
the United States publishing a piece like this one.

'Shamir, Sharon, Bibi - whatever those guys want is pretty much
fine by me,' Robert Bartley once remarked. Not surprisingly, his
newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, along with other prominent papers
like the Chicago Sun-Times and the Washington Times, regularly runs
editorials that strongly support Israel. Magazines like Commentary, the
New Republic and the Weekly Standard defend Israel at every turn.

Editorial bias is also found in papers like the New York Times, which
occasionally criticises Israeli policies and sometimes concedes that
the Palestinians have legitimate grievances, but is not even-handed. In
his memoirs the paper's former executive editor Max Frankel
acknowledges the impact his own attitude had on his editorial
decisions: 'I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to
assert . . . Fortified by my knowledge of Israel and my friendships
there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East commentaries. As more
Arab than Jewish readers recognised, I wrote them from a pro-Israel
perspective.'

News reports are more even-handed, in part because reporters strive to
be objective, but also because it is difficult to cover events in the
Occupied Territories without acknowledging Israel's actions on the
ground. To discourage unfavourable reporting, the Lobby organises
letter-writing campaigns, demonstrations and boycotts of news outlets
whose content it considers anti-Israel. One CNN executive has said that
he sometimes gets 6000 email messages in a single day complaining about
a story. In May 2003, the pro-Israel Committee for Accurate Middle East
Reporting in America (CAMERA) organised demonstrations outside National
Public Radio stations in 33 cities; it also tried to persuade
contributors to withhold support from NPR until its Middle East
coverage becomes more sympathetic to Israel. Boston's NPR station,
WBUR, reportedly lost more than $1 million in contributions as a result
of these efforts. Further pressure on NPR has come from Israel's
friends in Congress, who have asked for an internal audit of its Middle
East coverage as well as more oversight.

The Israeli side also dominates the think tanks which play an important
role in shaping public debate as well as actual policy. The Lobby
created its own think tank in 1985, when Martin Indyk helped to found
WINEP. Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel, claiming instead
to provide a 'balanced and realistic' perspective on Middle East
issues, it is funded and run by individuals deeply committed to
advancing Israel's agenda.

The Lobby's influence extends well beyond WINEP, however. Over the
past 25 years, pro-Israel forces have established a commanding presence
at the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the
Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the
Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign
Policy Analysis and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
(JINSA). These think tanks employ few, if any, critics of US support
for Israel.

Take the Brookings Institution. For many years, its senior expert on
the Middle East was William Quandt, a former NSC official with a
well-deserved reputation for even-handedness. Today, Brookings's
coverage is conducted through the Saban Center for Middle East Studies,
which is financed by Haim Saban, an Israeli-American businessman and
ardent Zionist. The centre's director is the ubiquitous Martin Indyk.
What was once a non-partisan policy institute is now part of the
pro-Israel chorus.

Where the Lobby has had the most difficulty is in stifling debate on
university campuses. In the 1990s, when the Oslo peace process was
underway, there was only mild criticism of Israel, but it grew stronger
with Oslo's collapse and Sharon's access to power, becoming quite
vociferous when the IDF reoccupied the West Bank in spring 2002 and
employed massive force to subdue the second intifada.

The Lobby moved immediately to 'take back the campuses'. New groups
sprang up, like the Caravan for Democracy, which brought Israeli
speakers to US colleges. Established groups like the Jewish Council for
Public Affairs and Hillel joined in, and a new group, the Israel on
Campus Coalition, was formed to co-ordinate the many bodies that now
sought to put Israel's case. Finally, AIPAC more than tripled its
spending on programmes to monitor university activities and to train
young advocates, in order to 'vastly expand the number of students
involved on campus . . . in the national pro-Israel effort'.

The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach. In September
2002, Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes, two passionately pro-Israel
neo-conservatives, established a website (Campus Watch) that posted
dossiers on suspect academics and encouraged students to report remarks
or behaviour that might be considered hostile to Israel. This
transparent attempt to blacklist and intimidate scholars provoked a
harsh reaction and Pipes and Kramer later removed the dossiers, but the
website still invites students to report 'anti-Israel' activity.

Groups within the Lobby put pressure on particular academics and
universities. Columbia has been a frequent target, no doubt because of
the presence of the late Edward Said on its faculty. 'One can be sure
that any public statement in support of the Palestinian people by the
pre-eminent literary critic Edward Said will elicit hundreds of emails,
letters and journalistic accounts that call on us to denounce Said and
to either sanction or fire him,' Jonathan Cole, its former provost,
reported. When Columbia recruited the historian Rashid Khalidi from
Chicago, the same thing happened. It was a problem Princeton also faced
a few years later when it considered wooing Khalidi away from Columbia.

A classic illustration of the effort to police academia occurred
towards the end of 2004, when the David Project produced a film
alleging that faculty members of Columbia's Middle East Studies
programme were anti-semitic and were intimidating Jewish students who
stood up for Israel. Columbia was hauled over the coals, but a faculty
committee which was assigned to investigate the charges found no
evidence of anti-semitism and the only incident possibly worth noting
was that one professor had 'responded heatedly' to a student's
question. The committee also discovered that the academics in question
had themselves been the target of an overt campaign of intimidation.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all this is the efforts Jewish
groups have made to push Congress into establishing mechanisms to
monitor what professors say. If they manage to get this passed,
universities judged to have an anti-Israel bias would be denied federal
funding. Their efforts have not yet succeeded, but they are an
indication of the importance placed on controlling debate.

A number of Jewish philanthropists have recently established Israel
Studies programmes (in addition to the roughly 130 Jewish Studies
programmes already in existence) so as to increase the number of
Israel-friendly scholars on campus. In May 2003, NYU announced the
establishment of the Taub Center for Israel Studies; similar programmes
have been set up at Berkeley, Brandeis and Emory. Academic
administrators emphasise their pedagogical value, but the truth is that
they are intended in large part to promote Israel's image. Fred
Laffer, the head of the Taub Foundation, makes it clear that his
foundation funded the NYU centre to help counter the 'Arabic [sic]
point of view' that he thinks is prevalent in NYU's Middle East
programmes.

No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of
one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone
who criticises Israel's actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have
significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy - an influence
AIPAC celebrates - stands a good chance of being labelled an
anti-semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel
Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though
the Israeli media refer to America's 'Jewish Lobby'. In other
words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone
who calls attention to it. It's a very effective tactic:
anti-semitism is something no one wants to be accused of.

Europeans have been more willing than Americans to criticise Israeli
policy, which some people attribute to a resurgence of anti-semitism in
Europe. We are 'getting to a point', the US ambassador to the EU
said in early 2004, 'where it is as bad as it was in the 1930s'.
Measuring anti-semitism is a complicated matter, but the weight of
evidence points in the opposite direction. In the spring of 2004, when
accusations of European anti-semitism filled the air in America,
separate surveys of European public opinion conducted by the US-based
Anti-Defamation League and the Pew Research Center for the People and
the Press found that it was in fact declining. In the 1930s, by
contrast, anti-semitism was not only widespread among Europeans of all
classes but considered quite acceptable.

The Lobby and its friends often portray France as the most anti-semitic
country in Europe. But in 2003, the head of the French Jewish community
said that 'France is not more anti-semitic than America.' According
to a recent article in Ha'aretz, the French police have reported that
anti-semitic incidents declined by almost 50 per cent in 2005; and this
even though France has the largest Muslim population of any European
country. Finally, when a French Jew was murdered in Paris last month by
a Muslim gang, tens of thousands of demonstrators poured into the
streets to condemn anti-semitism. Jacques Chirac and Dominique de
Villepin both attended the victim's memorial service to show their
solidarity.

No one would deny that there is anti-semitism among European Muslims,
some of it provoked by Israel's conduct towards the Palestinians and
some of it straightforwardly racist. But this is a separate matter with
little bearing on whether or not Europe today is like Europe in the
1930s. Nor would anyone deny that there are still some virulent
autochthonous anti-semites in Europe (as there are in the United
States) but their numbers are small and their views are rejected by the
vast majority of Europeans.

Israel's advocates, when pressed to go beyond mere assertion, claim
that there is a 'new anti-semitism', which they equate with
criticism of Israel. In other words, criticise Israeli policy and you
are by definition an anti-semite. When the synod of the Church of
England recently voted to divest from Caterpillar Inc on the grounds
that it manufactures the bulldozers used by the Israelis to demolish
Palestinian homes, the Chief Rabbi complained that this would 'have
the most adverse repercussions on . . . Jewish-Christian relations in
Britain', while Rabbi Tony Bayfield, the head of the Reform movement,
said: 'There is a clear problem of anti-Zionist - verging on
anti-semitic - attitudes emerging in the grass-roots, and even in the
middle ranks of the Church.' But the Church was guilty merely of
protesting against Israeli government policy.

Critics are also accused of holding Israel to an unfair standard or
questioning its right to exist. But these are bogus charges too.
Western critics of Israel hardly ever question its right to exist: they
question its behaviour towards the Palestinians, as do Israelis
themselves. Nor is Israel being judged unfairly. Israeli treatment of
the Palestinians elicits criticism because it is contrary to widely
accepted notions of human rights, to international law and to the
principle of national self-determination. And it is hardly the only
state that has faced sharp criticism on these grounds.

In the autumn of 2001, and especially in the spring of 2002, the Bush
administration tried to reduce anti-American sentiment in the Arab
world and undermine support for terrorist groups like al-Qaida by
halting Israel's expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories
and advocating the creation of a Palestinian state. Bush had very
significant means of persuasion at his disposal. He could have
threatened to reduce economic and diplomatic support for Israel, and
the American people would almost certainly have supported him. A May
2003 poll reported that more than 60 per cent of Americans were willing
to withhold aid if Israel resisted US pressure to settle the conflict,
and that number rose to 70 per cent among the 'politically active'.
Indeed, 73 per cent said that the United States should not favour
either side.

Yet the administration failed to change Israeli policy, and Washington
ended up backing it. Over time, the administration also adopted
Israel's own justifications of its position, so that US rhetoric
began to mimic Israeli rhetoric. By February 2003, a Washington Post
headline summarised the situation: 'Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical
on Mideast Policy.' The main reason for this switch was the Lobby.

The story begins in late September 2001, when Bush began urging Sharon
to show restraint in the Occupied Territories. He also pressed him to
allow Israel's foreign minister, Shimon Peres, to meet with Yasser
Arafat, even though he (Bush) was highly critical of Arafat's
leadership. Bush even said publicly that he supported the creation of a
Palestinian state. Alarmed, Sharon accused him of trying 'to appease
the Arabs at our expense', warning that Israel 'will not be
Czechoslovakia'.

Bush was reportedly furious at being compared to Chamberlain, and the
White House press secretary called Sharon's remarks
'unacceptable'. Sharon offered a pro forma apology, but quickly
joined forces with the Lobby to persuade the administration and the
American people that the United States and Israel faced a common threat
from terrorism. Israeli officials and Lobby representatives insisted
that there was no real difference between Arafat and Osama bin Laden:
the United States and Israel, they said, should isolate the
Palestinians' elected leader and have nothing to do with him.

The Lobby also went to work in Congress. On 16 November, 89 senators
sent Bush a letter praising him for refusing to meet with Arafat, but
also demanding that the US not restrain Israel from retaliating against
the Palestinians; the administration, they wrote, must state publicly
that it stood behind Israel. According to the New York Times, the
letter 'stemmed' from a meeting two weeks before between 'leaders
of the American Jewish community and key senators', adding that AIPAC
was 'particularly active in providing advice on the letter'.

By late November, relations between Tel Aviv and Washington had
improved considerably. This was thanks in part to the Lobby's
efforts, but also to America's initial victory in Afghanistan, which
reduced the perceived need for Arab support in dealing with al-Qaida.
Sharon visited the White House in early December and had a friendly
meeting with Bush.

In April 2002 trouble erupted again, after the IDF launched Operation
Defensive Shield and resumed control of virtually all the major
Palestinian areas on the West Bank. Bush knew that Israel's actions
would damage America's image in the Islamic world and undermine the
war on terrorism, so he demanded that Sharon 'halt the incursions and
begin withdrawal'. He underscored this message two days later, saying
he wanted Israel to 'withdraw without delay'. On 7 April,
Condoleezza Rice, then Bush's national security adviser, told
reporters: '"Without delay" means without delay. It means now.'
That same day Colin Powell set out for the Middle East to persuade all
sides to stop fighting and start negotiating.

Israel and the Lobby swung into action. Pro-Israel officials in the
vice-president's office and the Pentagon, as well as neo-conservative
pundits like Robert Kagan and William Kristol, put the heat on Powell.
They even accused him of having 'virtually obliterated the
distinction between terrorists and those fighting terrorists'. Bush
himself was being pressed by Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals.
Tom DeLay and Dick Armey were especially outspoken about the need to
support Israel, and DeLay and the Senate minority leader, Trent Lott,
visited the White House and warned Bush to back off.

The first sign that Bush was caving in came on 11 April - a week
after he told Sharon to withdraw his forces - when the White House
press secretary said that the president believed Sharon was 'a man of
peace'. Bush repeated this statement publicly on Powell's return
from his abortive mission, and told reporters that Sharon had responded
satisfactorily to his call for a full and immediate withdrawal. Sharon
had done no such thing, but Bush was no longer willing to make an issue
of it.

Meanwhile, Congress was also moving to back Sharon. On 2 May, it
overrode the administration's objections and passed two resolutions
reaffirming support for Israel. (The Senate vote was 94 to 2; the House
of Representatives version passed 352 to 21.) Both resolutions held
that the United States 'stands in solidarity with Israel' and that
the two countries were, to quote the House resolution, 'now engaged
in a common struggle against terrorism'. The House version also
condemned 'the ongoing support and co-ordination of terror by Yasser
Arafat', who was portrayed as a central part of the terrorism
problem. Both resolutions were drawn up with the help of the Lobby. A
few days later, a bipartisan congressional delegation on a fact-finding
mission to Israel stated that Sharon should resist US pressure to
negotiate with Arafat. On 9 May, a House appropriations subcommittee
met to consider giving Israel an extra $200 million to fight terrorism.
Powell opposed the package, but the Lobby backed it and Powell lost.

In short, Sharon and the Lobby took on the president of the United
States and triumphed. Hemi Shalev, a journalist on the Israeli
newspaper Ma'ariv, reported that Sharon's aides 'could not hide
their satisfaction in view of Powell's failure. Sharon saw the whites
of President Bush's eyes, they bragged, and the president blinked
first.' But it was Israel's champions in the United States, not
Sharon or Israel, that played the key role in defeating Bush.

The situation has changed little since then. The Bush administration
refused ever again to have dealings with Arafat. After his death, it
embraced the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, but has done little
to help him. Sharon continued to develop his plan to impose a
unilateral settlement on the Palestinians, based on 'disengagement'
from Gaza coupled with continued expansion on the West Bank. By
refusing to negotiate with Abbas and making it impossible for him to
deliver tangible benefits to the Palestinian people, Sharon's
strategy contributed directly to Hamas's electoral victory. With
Hamas in power, however, Israel has another excuse not to negotiate.
The US administration has supported Sharon's actions (and those of
his successor, Ehud Olmert). Bush has even endorsed unilateral Israeli
annexations in the Occupied Territories, reversing the stated policy of
every president since Lyndon Johnson.

US officials have offered mild criticisms of a few Israeli actions, but
have done little to help create a viable Palestinian state. Sharon has
Bush 'wrapped around his little finger', the former national
security adviser Brent Scowcroft said in October 2004. If Bush tries to
distance the US from Israel, or even criticises Israeli actions in the
Occupied Territories, he is certain to face the wrath of the Lobby and
its supporters in Congress. Democratic presidential candidates
understand that these are facts of life, which is the reason John Kerry
went to great lengths to display unalloyed support for Israel in 2004,
and why Hillary Clinton is doing the same thing today.

Maintaining US support for Israel's policies against the Palestinians
is essential as far as the Lobby is concerned, but its ambitions do not
stop there. It also wants America to help Israel remain the dominant
regional power. The Israeli government and pro-Israel groups in the
United States have worked together to shape the administration's
policy towards Iraq, Syria and Iran, as well as its grand scheme for
reordering the Middle East.

Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the
decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some
Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any
direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated
in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to
Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president's Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11
Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the 'real
threat' from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The
'unstated threat' was the 'threat against Israel', Zelikow told
an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. 'The
American government,' he added, 'doesn't want to lean too hard on
it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.'

On 16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign
for war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the
Washington Post reported that 'Israel is urging US officials not to
delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein.' By this
point, according to Sharon, strategic co-ordination between Israel and
the US had reached 'unprecedented dimensions', and Israeli
intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming
reports about Iraq's WMD programmes. As one retired Israeli general
later put it, 'Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture
presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq's
non-conventional capabilities.'

Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when Bush decided to seek
Security Council authorisation for war, and even more worried when
Saddam agreed to let UN inspectors back in. 'The campaign against
Saddam Hussein is a must,' Shimon Peres told reporters in September
2002. 'Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but
dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors.'

At the same time, Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that
'the greatest risk now lies in inaction.' His predecessor as prime
minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall
Street Journal, entitled: 'The Case for Toppling Saddam'. 'Today
nothing less than dismantling his regime will do,' he declared. 'I
believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting
a pre-emptive strike against Saddam's regime.' Or as Ha'aretz
reported in February 2003, 'the military and political leadership
yearns for war in Iraq.'

As Netanyahu suggested, however, the desire for war was not confined to
Israel's leaders. Apart from Kuwait, which Saddam invaded in 1990,
Israel was the only country in the world where both politicians and
public favoured war. As the journalist Gideon Levy observed at the
time, 'Israel is the only country in the West whose leaders support
the war unreservedly and where no alternative opinion is voiced.' In
fact, Israelis were so gung-ho that their allies in America told them
to damp down their rhetoric, or it would look as if the war would be
fought on Israel's behalf.

Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band
of neo-conservatives, many with ties to Likud. But leaders of the
Lobby's major organisations lent their voices to the campaign. 'As
President Bush attempted to sell the . . . war in Iraq,' the Forward
reported, 'America's most important Jewish organisations rallied as
one to his defence. In statement after statement community leaders
stressed the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of
mass destruction.' The editorial goes on to say that 'concern for
Israel's safety rightfully factored into the deliberations of the
main Jewish groups.'

Although neo-conservatives and other Lobby leaders were eager to invade
Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not. Just after the war
started, Samuel Freedman reported that 'a compilation of nationwide
opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less
supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52 per cent to
62 per cent.' Clearly, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on
'Jewish influence'. Rather, it was due in large part to the
Lobby's influence, especially that of the neo-conservatives within
it.

The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before
Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing
two open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam's removal from power.
The signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like
JINSA or WINEP, and who included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas
Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle
and Paul Wolfowitz, had little trouble persuading the Clinton
administration to adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam. But they
were unable to sell a war to achieve that objective. They were no more
able to generate enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of
the Bush administration. They needed help to achieve their aim. That
help arrived with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that day led Bush
and Cheney to reverse course and become strong proponents of a
preventive war.

At a key meeting with Bush at Camp David on 15 September, Wolfowitz
advocated attacking Iraq before Afghanistan, even though there was no
evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks on the US and bin
Laden was known to be in Afghanistan. Bush rejected his advice and
chose to go after Afghanistan instead, but war with Iraq was now
regarded as a serious possibility and on 21 November the president
charged military planners with developing concrete plans for an
invasion.

Other neo-conservatives were meanwhile at work in the corridors of
power. We don't have the full story yet, but scholars like Bernard
Lewis of Princeton and Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins reportedly played
important roles in persuading Cheney that war was the best option,
though neo-conservatives on his staff - Eric Edelman, John Hannah and
Scooter Libby, Cheney's chief of staff and one of the most powerful
individuals in the administration - also played their part. By early
2002 Cheney had persuaded Bush; and with Bush and Cheney on board, war
was inevitable.

Outside the administration, neo-conservative pundits lost no time in
making the case that invading Iraq was essential to winning the war on
terrorism. Their efforts were designed partly to keep up the pressure
on Bush, and partly to overcome opposition to the war inside and
outside the government. On 20 September, a group of prominent
neo-conservatives and their allies published another open letter:
'Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack,' it
read, 'any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its
sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from
power in Iraq.' The letter also reminded Bush that 'Israel has been
and remains America's staunchest ally against international
terrorism.' In the 1 October issue of the Weekly Standard, Robert
Kagan and William Kristol called for regime change in Iraq as soon as
the Taliban was defeated. That same day, Charles Krauthammer argued in
the Washington Post that after the US was done with Afghanistan, Syria
should be next, followed by Iran and Iraq: 'The war on terrorism will
conclude in Baghdad,' when we finish off 'the most dangerous
terrorist regime in the world'.

This was the beginning of an unrelenting public relations campaign to
win support for an invasion of Iraq, a crucial part of which was the
manipulation of intelligence in such a way as to make it seem as if
Saddam posed an imminent threat. For example, Libby pressured CIA
analysts to find evidence supporting the case for war and helped
prepare Colin Powell's now discredited briefing to the UN Security
Council. Within the Pentagon, the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation
Group was charged with finding links between al-Qaida and Iraq that the
intelligence community had supposedly missed. Its two key members were
David Wurmser, a hard-core neo-conservative, and Michael Maloof, a
Lebanese-American with close ties to Perle. Another Pentagon group, the
so-called Office of Special Plans, was given the task of uncovering
evidence that could be used to sell the war. It was headed by Abram
Shulsky, a neo-conservative with long-standing ties to Wolfowitz, and
its ranks included recruits from pro-Israel think tanks. Both these
organisations were created after 9/11 and reported directly to Douglas
Feith.

Like virtually all the neo-conservatives, Feith is deeply committed to
Israel; he also has long-term ties to Likud. He wrote articles in the
1990s supporting the settlements and arguing that Israel should retain
the Occupied Territories. More important, along with Perle and Wurmser,
he wrote the famous 'Clean Break' report in June 1996 for
Netanyahu, who had just become prime minister. Among other things, it
recommended that Netanyahu 'focus on removing Saddam Hussein from
power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own
right'. It also called for Israel to take steps to reorder the entire
Middle East. Netanyahu did not follow their advice, but Feith, Perle
and Wurmser were soon urging the Bush administration to pursue those
same goals. The Ha'aretz columnist Akiva Eldar warned that Feith and
Perle 'are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American
governments . . . and Israeli interests'.

Wolfowitz is equally committed to Israel. The Forward once described
him as 'the most hawkishly pro-Israel voice in the administration',
and selected him in 2002 as first among 50 notables who 'have
consciously pursued Jewish activism'. At about the same time, JINSA
gave Wolfowitz its Henry M. Jackson Distinguished Service Award for
promoting a strong partnership between Israel and the United States;
and the Jerusalem Post, describing him as 'devoutly pro-Israel',
named him 'Man of the Year' in 2003.

Finally, a brief word is in order about the neo-conservatives' prewar
support of Ahmed Chalabi, the unscrupulous Iraqi exile who headed the
Iraqi National Congress. They backed Chalabi because he had established
close ties with Jewish-American groups and had pledged to foster good
relations with Israel once he gained power. This was precisely what
pro-Israel proponents of regime change wanted to hear. Matthew Berger
laid out the essence of the bargain in the Jewish Journal: 'The INC
saw improved relations as a way to tap Jewish influence in Washington
and Jerusalem and to drum up increased support for its cause. For their
part, the Jewish groups saw an opportunity to pave the way for better
relations between Israel and Iraq, if and when the INC is involved in
replacing Saddam Hussein's regime.'

Given the neo-conservatives' devotion to Israel, their obsession with
Iraq, and their influence in the Bush administration, it isn't
surprising that many Americans suspected that the war was designed to
further Israeli interests. Last March, Barry Jacobs of the American
Jewish Committee acknowledged that the belief that Israel and the
neo-conservatives had conspired to get the US into a war in Iraq was
'pervasive' in the intelligence community. Yet few people would say
so publicly, and most of those who did - including Senator Ernest
Hollings and Representative James Moran - were condemned for raising
the issue. Michael Kinsley wrote in late 2002 that 'the lack of
public discussion about the role of Israel . . . is the proverbial
elephant in the room.' The reason for the reluctance to talk about
it, he observed, was fear of being labelled an anti-semite. There is
little doubt that Israel and the Lobby were key factors in the decision
to go to war. It's a decision the US would have been far less likely
to take without their efforts. And the war itself was intended to be
only the first step. A front-page headline in the Wall Street Journal
shortly after the war began says it all: 'President's Dream:
Changing Not Just Regime but a Region: A Pro-US, Democratic Area Is a
Goal that Has Israeli and Neo-Conservative Roots.'

Pro-Israel forces have long been interested in getting the US military
more directly involved in the Middle East. But they had limited success
during the Cold War, because America acted as an 'off-shore
balancer' in the region. Most forces designated for the Middle East,
like the Rapid Deployment Force, were kept 'over the horizon' and
out of harm's way. The idea was to play local powers off against each
other - which is why the Reagan administration supported Saddam
against revolutionary Iran during the Iran-Iraq War - in order to
maintain a balance favourable to the US.

This policy changed after the first Gulf War, when the Clinton
administration adopted a strategy of 'dual containment'.
Substantial US forces would be stationed in the region in order to
contain both Iran and Iraq, instead of one being used to check the
other. The father of dual containment was none other than Martin Indyk,
who first outlined the strategy in May 1993 at WINEP and then
implemented it as director for Near East and South Asian Affairs at the
National Security Council.

By the mid-1990s there was considerable dissatisfaction with dual
containment, because it made the United States the mortal enemy of two
countries that hated each other, and forced Washington to bear the
burden of containing both. But it was a strategy the Lobby favoured and
worked actively in Congress to preserve. Pressed by AIPAC and other
pro-Israel forces, Clinton toughened up the policy in the spring of
1995 by imposing an economic embargo on Iran. But AIPAC and the others
wanted more. The result was the 1996 Iran and Libya Sanctions Act,
which imposed sanctions on any foreign companies investing more than
$40 million to develop petroleum resources in Iran or Libya. As Ze'ev
Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz, noted at the time,
'Israel is but a tiny element in the big scheme, but one should not
conclude that it cannot influence those within the Beltway.'

By the late 1990s, however, the neo-conservatives were arguing that
dual containment was not enough and that regime change in Iraq was
essential. By toppling Saddam and turning Iraq into a vibrant
democracy, they argued, the US would trigger a far-reaching process of
change throughout the Middle East. The same line of thinking was
evident in the 'Clean Break' study the neo-conservatives wrote for
Netanyahu. By 2002, when an invasion of Iraq was on the front-burner,
regional transformation was an article of faith in neo-conservative
circles.

Charles Krauthammer describes this grand scheme as the brainchild of
Natan Sharansky, but Israelis across the political spectrum believed
that toppling Saddam would alter the Middle East to Israel's
advantage. Aluf Benn reported in Ha'aretz (17 February 2003):

Senior IDF officers and those close to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon,
such as National Security Adviser Ephraim Halevy, paint a rosy picture
of the wonderful future Israel can expect after the war. They envision
a domino effect, with the fall of Saddam Hussein followed by that of
Israel's other enemies . . . Along with these leaders will disappear
terror and weapons of mass destruction.

Once Baghdad fell in mid-April 2003, Sharon and his lieutenants began
urging Washington to target Damascus. On 16 April, Sharon, interviewed
in Yedioth Ahronoth, called for the United States to put 'very
heavy' pressure on Syria, while Shaul Mofaz, his defence minister,
interviewed in Ma'ariv, said: 'We have a long list of issues that
we are thinking of demanding of the Syrians and it is appropriate that
it should be done through the Americans.' Ephraim Halevy told a WINEP
audience that it was now important for the US to get rough with Syria,
and the Washington Post reported that Israel was 'fuelling the
campaign' against Syria by feeding the US intelligence reports about
the actions of Bashar Assad, the Syrian president.

Prominent members of the Lobby made the same arguments. Wolfowitz
declared that 'there has got to be regime change in Syria,' and
Richard Perle told a journalist that 'a short message, a two-worded
message' could be delivered to other hostile regimes in the Middle
East: 'You're next.' In early April, WINEP released a bipartisan
report stating that Syria 'should not miss the message that countries
that pursue Saddam's reckless, irresponsible and defiant behaviour
could end up sharing his fate'. On 15 April, Yossi Klein Halevi wrote
a piece in the Los Angeles Times entitled 'Next, Turn the Screws on
Syria', while the following day Zev Chafets wrote an article for the
New York Daily News entitled 'Terror-Friendly Syria Needs a Change,
Too'. Not to be outdone, Lawrence Kaplan wrote in the New Republic on
21 April that Assad was a serious threat to America.

Back on Capitol Hill, Congressman Eliot Engel had reintroduced the
Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. It
threatened sanctions against Syria if it did not withdraw from Lebanon,
give up its WMD and stop supporting terrorism, and it also called for
Syria and Lebanon to take concrete steps to make peace with Israel.
This legislation was strongly endorsed by the Lobby - by AIPAC
especially - and 'framed', according to the Jewish Telegraph
Agency, 'by some of Israel's best friends in Congress'. The Bush
administration had little enthusiasm for it, but the anti-Syrian act
passed overwhelmingly (398 to 4 in the House; 89 to 4 in the Senate),
and Bush signed it into law on 12 December 2003.

The administration itself was still divided about the wisdom of
targeting Syria. Although the neo-conservatives were eager to pick a
fight with Damascus, the CIA and the State Department were opposed to
the idea. And even after Bush signed the new law, he emphasised that he
would go slowly in implementing it. His ambivalence is understandable.
First, the Syrian government had not only been providing important
intelligence about al-Qaida since 9/11: it had also warned Washington
about a planned terrorist attack in the Gulf and given CIA
interrogators access to Mohammed Zammar, the alleged recruiter of some
of the 9/11 hijackers. Targeting the Assad regime would jeopardise
these valuable connections, and thereby undermine the larger war on
terrorism.

Second, Syria had not been on bad terms with Washington before the Iraq
war (it had even voted for UN Resolution 1441), and was itself no
threat to the United States. Playing hardball with it would make the US
look like a bully with an insatiable appetite for beating up Arab
states. Third, putting Syria on the hit list would give Damascus a
powerful incentive to cause trouble in Iraq. Even if one wanted to
bring pressure to bear, it made good sense to finish the job in Iraq
first. Yet Congress insisted on putting the screws on Damascus, largely
in response to pressure from Israeli officials and groups like AIPAC.
If there were no Lobby, there would have been no Syria Accountability
Act, and US policy towards Damascus would have been more in line with
the national interest.

Israelis tend to describe every threat in the starkest terms, but Iran
is widely seen as their most dangerous enemy because it is the most
likely to acquire nuclear weapons. Virtually all Israelis regard an
Islamic country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons as a threat to
their existence. 'Iraq is a problem . . . But you should understand,
if you ask me, today Iran is more dangerous than Iraq,' the defence
minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, remarked a month before the Iraq war.

Sharon began pushing the US to confront Iran in November 2002, in an
interview in the Times. Describing Iran as the 'centre of world
terror', and bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, he declared that the
Bush administration should put the strong arm on Iran 'the day
after' it conquered Iraq. In late April 2003, Ha'aretz reported
that the Israeli ambassador in Washington was calling for regime change
in Iran. The overthrow of Saddam, he noted, was 'not enough'. In
his words, America 'has to follow through. We still have great
threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran.'

The neo-conservatives, too, lost no time in making the case for regime
change in Tehran. On 6 May, the AEI co-sponsored an all-day conference
on Iran with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the
Hudson Institute, both champions of Israel. The speakers were all
strongly pro-Israel, and many called for the US to replace the Iranian
regime with a democracy. As usual, a bevy of articles by prominent
neo-conservatives made the case for going after Iran. 'The liberation
of Iraq was the first great battle for the future of the Middle East .
. . But the next great battle - not, we hope, a military battle -
will be for Iran,' William Kristol wrote in the Weekly Standard on 12
May.

The administration has responded to the Lobby's pressure by working
overtime to shut down Iran's nuclear programme. But Washington has
had little success, and Iran seems determined to create a nuclear
arsenal. As a result, the Lobby has intensified its pressure. Op-eds
and other articles now warn of imminent dangers from a nuclear Iran,
caution against any appeasement of a 'terrorist' regime, and hint
darkly of preventive action should diplomacy fail. The Lobby is pushing
Congress to approve the Iran Freedom Support Act, which would expand
existing sanctions. Israeli officials also warn they may take
pre-emptive action should Iran continue down the nuclear road, threats
partly intended to keep Washington's attention on the issue.

One might argue that Israel and the Lobby have not had much influence
on policy towards Iran, because the US has its own reasons for keeping
Iran from going nuclear. There is some truth in this, but Iran's
nuclear ambitions do not pose a direct threat to the US. If Washington
could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a
nuclear North Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why
the Lobby must keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront
Tehran. Iran and the US would hardly be allies if the Lobby did not
exist, but US policy would be more temperate and preventive war would
not be a serious option.

It is not surprising that Israel and its American supporters want the
US to deal with any and all threats to Israel's security. If their
efforts to shape US policy succeed, Israel's enemies will be weakened
or overthrown, Israel will get a free hand with the Palestinians, and
the US will do most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding and paying. But
even if the US fails to transform the Middle East and finds itself in
conflict with an increasingly radicalised Arab and Islamic world,
Israel will end up protected by the world's only superpower. This is
not a perfect outcome from the Lobby's point of view, but it is
obviously preferable to Washington distancing itself, or using its
leverage to force Israel to make peace with the Palestinians.

Can the Lobby's power be curtailed? One would like to think so, given
the Iraq debacle, the obvious need to rebuild America's image in the
Arab and Islamic world, and the recent revelations about AIPAC
officials passing US government secrets to Israel. One might also think
that Arafat's death and the election of the more moderate Mahmoud
Abbas would cause Washington to press vigorously and even-handedly for
a peace agreement. In short, there are ample grounds for leaders to
distance themselves from the Lobby and adopt a Middle East policy more
consistent with broader US interests. In particular, using American
power to achieve a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians would
help advance the cause of democracy in the region.

But that is not going to happen - not soon anyway. AIPAC and its
allies (including Christian Zionists) have no serious opponents in the
lobbying world. They know it has become more difficult to make
Israel's case today, and they are responding by taking on staff and
expanding their activities. Besides, American politicians remain
acutely sensitive to campaign contributions and other forms of
political pressure, and major media outlets are likely to remain
sympathetic to Israel no matter what it does.

The Lobby's influence causes trouble on several fronts. It increases
the terrorist danger that all states face - including America's
European allies. It has made it impossible to end the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a situation that gives extremists a
powerful recruiting tool, increases the pool of potential terrorists
and sympathisers, and contributes to Islamic radicalism in Europe and
Asia.

Equally worrying, the Lobby's campaign for regime change in Iran and
Syria could lead the US to attack those countries, with potentially
disastrous effects. We don't need another Iraq. At a minimum, the
Lobby's hostility towards Syria and Iran makes it almost impossible
for Washington to enlist them in the struggle against al-Qaida and the
Iraqi insurgency, where their help is badly needed.

There is a moral dimension here as well. Thanks to the Lobby, the
United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in
the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated
against the Palestinians. This situation undercuts Washington's
efforts to promote democracy abroad and makes it look hypocritical when
it presses other states to respect human rights. US efforts to limit
nuclear proliferation appear equally hypocritical given its willingness
to accept Israel's nuclear arsenal, which only encourages Iran and
others to seek a similar capability.

Besides, the Lobby's campaign to quash debate about Israel is
unhealthy for democracy. Silencing sceptics by organising blacklists
and boycotts - or by suggesting that critics are anti-semites -
violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends. The
inability of Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these important
issues paralyses the entire process of democratic deliberation.
Israel's backers should be free to make their case and to challenge
those who disagree with them, but efforts to stifle debate by
intimidation must be roundly condemned.

Finally, the Lobby's influence has been bad for Israel. Its ability
to persuade Washington to support an expansionist agenda has
discouraged Israel from seizing opportunities - including a peace
treaty with Syria and a prompt and full implementation of the Oslo
Accords - that would have saved Israeli lives and shrunk the ranks of
Palestinian extremists. Denying the Palestinians their legitimate
political rights certainly has not made Israel more secure, and the
long campaign to kill or marginalise a generation of Palestinian
leaders has empowered extremist groups like Hamas, and reduced the
number of Palestinian leaders who would be willing to accept a fair
settlement and able to make it work. Israel itself would probably be
better off if the Lobby were less powerful and US policy more
even-handed.

There is a ray of hope, however. Although the Lobby remains a powerful
force, the adverse effects of its influence are increasingly difficult
to hide. Powerful states can maintain flawed policies for quite some
time, but reality cannot be ignored for ever. What is needed is a
candid discussion of the Lobby's influence and a more open debate
about US interests in this vital region. Israel's well-being is one
of those interests, but its continued occupation of the West Bank and
its broader regional agenda are not. Open debate will expose the limits
of the strategic and moral case for one-sided US support and could move
the US to a position more consistent with its own national interest,
with the interests of the other states in the region, and with
Israel's long-term interests as well.

10 March, 2006

Footnotes

An unedited version of this article is available at
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011, or at
http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=891198.

John Mearsheimer is the Wendell Harrison Professor of Political Science
at Chicago, and the author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

Stephen Walt is the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International
Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. His most recent
book is Taming American Power: The Global Response to US Primacy.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: CHRISTIANS HONOR NOTORIOUS SEX CRIMINAL PRIEST
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/3ec860d0e3c64498
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 27 2006 12:44 am
From: usenet@mantra.comXi and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)

Pilgrims carry floral tributes to paedophile priest's grave

Abbot speaks on local radio of 'clever man who did good work'

By John Cooney
Religious Affairs Correspondent
Irish Independent
Sunday, March 26, 2006

Pilgrims are regularly visiting a monastery to pray and
lay flowers at the grave of notorious paedophile priest
Fr Brendan Smyth.

The prayers are said by devout Catholics from the north
west region even though the word 'Rev' was removed from
the headstone, the Prior of Kilnacrott Abbey, Gerard
Cusack, has revealed.

"There was a request that the word 'Rev' be removed from
his headstone," Abbot Cusack said yesterday. "It was
erased. It was a corporate decision of our community here
at the request of a person."

The removal "brought relief to the person who requested
this," the Prior added, saying that the dates of Fr
Smyth's birth and his ordination remain on the tombstone.

Abbot Cusack's revelations were made in response to a
massive reaction on the local radio station, Shannonside-
Northernside, to the Irish Independent's exclusive report
that Dana Rosemary Scallon will perform tonight at a
fundraising charity in Crover House Hotel in Co Cavan in
aid of Kilnacrott Abbey.

Brendan Smyth took sanctuary in Kilnacrott Abbey when he
was on the run from the RUC for paedophile crimes
committed in the North.

Abbot Cusack came on the programme with Joe Finnegan, and
described himself as having been a friend and a colleague
of the late Fr Smyth.

But he went on to speak of another side of Brendan Smyth
not portrayed in the media.

"There was a compassionate side to this man," he said.
"He was a very clever man who did a lot of good work for
people in difficulties. Sadly he had this propensity
which was shocking." Abbot Cusack suggested that it was
not until Smyth was in a Dublin court in the 1990s that
his paedophilia disorder had been fully recognised.

"We are all Christians and to be a good Christian we must
learn to forgive," he said. "We are not praying to him,
we are praying for him."

Callers from Monaghan and Longford confirmed they visited
Smyth's grave and laid flowers there. Accepting that when
the media mention "the monster" Brendan Smyth, "we think
of evil", he said the Norbertine Orders of Canons, of
which Smyth was a member, had apologised.

More at:
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1587784&issue_id=13852

Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/a5ljc
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: US Tells Turkey to "FUCK OFF"
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/658f57f750984567
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 26 2006 4:48 pm
From: "rick murphy"

"From: Ali Asker (pasa_asker@lycos.com)
Subject: Re: Kuwerdish contribution to Oscar 2005
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian, soc.culture.kurdish,
soc.culture.turkish, soc.culture.iraq
Date: 2004-10-02 04:55:12 PST

We are the TERRORISTS...

We will divide Iran, Turkey, Syria and Iraq in to the pieces until
ever single individual is free from thought control, torture and
brain-washing! Every nation should have their own land where they can
practice their own culture. Iran has consist of about 20 some
different nations and we will tore them in to 20 different countries
and give mollahs a small land where they can practice their barbaric
religion to themselves and only harm temselves.

WE WILL BREAK IRAN IN TO THE PIECES!!! "

++++++++++++++++++

http://www.turkses.com/index.asp

The Terror Organization KADEK

1. General

Historical Background

The initial activities regarding the terror organization PKK have
started with the intellectual activities of some students defending the
Marxist-Leninist ideology within the Ankara's Democratic Patriotic
Students Association (ADYÖD) under the leadership of Abdullah ÖCALAN
since 1973.

Abdullah ÖCALAN and his friends declared the setting up of the
Kurdistan's Workers Party (PKK) during an illegal meeting held in the
Diyarbakir province, Lice district, Fis village on November 27, 1978
which was called 1 st. Congress.

The inital documents stating PKK's aim were the "The Way Of
Kurdistan's Revolution-Manifesto" and party program published in 1978.
According to the said program, the aim of the terror organization is to
found initially an independent Marxist-Leninist Kurdistan state in the
East and Southeast Anatolian regions in Turkey by using the method of
armed propaganda and to achieve subsequently its final goal of
establishing an "Independent United Kurdistan" through the unification
of the Kurdish states to be founded in neighboring countries.

To this end, the terror organization PKK having officially declared
the commencement of its armed activities following the bloody attacks
on the districts Eruh and Þemdinli on August 15, 1984 has determined
four-stage strategy in order to divide and destroy Turkey by trying to
gather some part of the people, who have been living in peace within
the country for thousands of years, on a separate territory under a
different flag claiming that they have allegedly a different identity.

According to the above-mentioned strategy, it has been intended to;

- Obtain certain cultural and social rights at the first stage,

- Set up an autonomy or another administrative system of federation
type at the second stage,

- Establish the alleged North Kurdistan in our territory at the
third stage and

- Found an independent and united Kurdistan state in the region to
include some parts of Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian territories at the
final stage.

To this end, the terror organization PKK has adopted the method of
separatism-based, three-phased armed propaganda which was called the
war of people, and based on violence directed against the regional
people. Accordingly, the terror organization PKK has aimed at.

- Completing strategic defense stage through armed propaganda,
alleged guerilla war and mobile war operations under the control of its
leading staff within the framework of its ideological ideas in the
first phase,

- Partially completing the process of establishing fronts and an
army and thus, creating the strategic balance which will provide the
balance of power between the security forces and the terror
organization in the second phase and,

- Establishing saved areas in the region after triggering public
risings wherever possible by escalating the conflicts and passing into
strategic attack state when seizing the authority in the third phase,

The terror organization which has increased its armed force over 8
thousand men and raised the violence it has used against the people
regardless of their being women, elder or children to the highest level
from 1992 has not been able to achieve the above-mentioned stages until
today due to the measures taken in accordance with the "Area
Superiority Concept" put into practice from 1994, and the operations
successfully conducted by security forces. As a result, the separatist
terror organization was forced to take the decision of unilateral
ceasefire four times in 1993, 1995, 1998 and finally on September 01,
1999 in order to preserve its terrorist power.

The terror organization desiring to exploit the alleged cease-fire
as an opportunity of recovery for tactical purposes has tried to prove
that it still maintains its existence by continuing its acts and
violence against the civilians and security forces in rural, on the one
hand, carrying out sabotage and bomb attacks in the cities, on the
other hand.

The Turkish Armed Forces has gained an important success in pulling
down the terror organization and its activities to a marginal level
through a successful military operation it has conducted under the
Turkish constitution and legislation to destroy the internal threat, by
acting in a way that ensures the simultaneous implementation of a
series of administrative, social and economic measures taken to prevent
the support being provided to the terror organization.

The last achievement of the Turkish Armed Forces in struggling
against terrorism was that head of the terror organization A. ÖCALAN,
who was deported from Syria, was taken to Turkey following his capture
in Kenya/Nairobi on February 15, 1999 and brought before the
independent court.

The terror organization, tending to resort again to violence during
the period when the head of the terror organization has been taken to
Turkey and brought before the judge, has been able to adapt itself to
the new situation in a short time within the framework of the defense
that head of the terror organization has made in the court and has
tried to reach its goal by exploiting Turkey's EU goal and certain
values such as human rights and democratic rights widely accepted by
the international community. Within the framework of his defense in the
court, the head of the terrorist organization has changed his tactic
and begun to articulate such concepts as "Democratic Republic" and
"Democratic Middle Eastern Union" in its defense to save himself from
capital punishment.

At the VII. Congress of the terror organization held in the Kandil
Mountain region in Iraq on January 02-23, 2000 during which the new
strategy of the terror organization was agreed, it was decided that;

- The armed activities should be resumed in case of execution of
head of the terrorist organization and.

- The Kurdistan's National Liberation Army (ARGK), the alleged
military flank of the terror organization should maintain its existence
under the title of "People Defense Forces (Hezi Parastini Gel-HP) and
the Kurdistan's National Liberation Front (ERNK), the alleged political
flank of the terror organization, which mainly carries out activities
in European countries under the "Kurdish Democratic People Union
(Yekita Democratic A Gele Kurd-YDK) until appropriate legal
arrangements regarding recognition of the Kurdish identity in Turkey
and constitutional guarantees are provided.

The legalization plan that the terror organization has developed
according to its new strategy agreed during its congress, provides for
the followings:

- Giving the message that it is ready to make peace with the
government of Turkish Republic in order to obtain the status of being
recognized as a party in national and international public opinion,

- Handing over some terrorists to the security forces to convince
the public opinion that it is allegedly ready to make peace,

- Making political studies within the People's Democratic Party
(HADEP), which has political connection with the terror organization,
or a similar legal organization, and cooperating with other political
parties,

- Making guiding studies within the municipalities governed by
HADEP to broaden grass roots,

- Having contacts and cooperating with intellectuals from all
circles in Turkey's democratization to ensure the alleged cultural
rights of Kurds being recognized,

- Demanding that the Turkish government should make legal changes
to prove its goodwill through the human rights organizations,

- Bringing up the education in Kurdish language,

- Ensuring the Kurdish identity coming to the fore by focusing on
cultural activities,

- Organizing campaigns in order to ensure the scope of the law of
amnesty being extended,

The terror organization has attempted by its new plan to reach its
final goal that it could not achieve through its armed struggle it has
been carrying out for 16 years, through legalization efforts. To this
end, it has increased its activities it has conducted under the title
of the "Democratic Republic" at home and under "Political Settlement (
Solution ) To The Kurdish Problem" abroad,

In the plan the terror organization developed under the name of
"Peace Project" on March 07, 2000 following the VII. Congress,

- The alleged "Kurdish Problem" and PKK terror are identified with
the Irish, Palestinian, East Timor and Basque problems and it is
requested that the related "Political Solution" initiatives should also
be taken in Turkey and,

- It is put forward that the settlement of the alleged Kurdish
problem in Turkey in accordance with the predictions of head of the
terror organization, Öcalan would also serve the settlement of the
problems in the Middle Eastern countries, and the "Democratic Middle
Eastern Union" to be set up in regional countries would lead to
economic, social and cultural developments,

- Subsequently, in its 2nd "Party Assembly" meeting held in North
Iraq in September 2000, the terror organization decided to be
reorganized to conceal its terrorist identity and began to term its
former structure with innocent titles,

- Assuming that the new strategy of the terror organization could
not be well understood and adopted by its mountain members, the terror
organization held the III. "Party Assembly" meeting between 27 February
and 03 March 2001 and focused on restructuring activities in accordance
with the decisions it took during the said meeting. In addition, the
terror organization, having assessed that the people movement
activities could not achieve the desired level, has intensified its
efforts to ensure its new strategy being accepted by its members and
supporters through a series of meetings.

In this context;

* The "Centralized Propaganda and Media Conference" was held
between 29 May and 07 June 2001 in order for the efforts in the media
field, that the terror organization considers to be insufficient, and
to reach an organized structure,

* The "1st Public Movement Conference" was held between 20 June and
02 July 2001 for the purpose of carrying out the acts and activities
the terror organization has started under the name of alleged 2nd Peace
Efforts, in a more organized manner through its supporters and
sympathizers who are directed by the front organizations,

* The "1st Public Defense Forces (HPG), Conference" was held
between 28 June and 12 July 2001 in order to develop a new structure by
making radical changes in the armed flank of the terror organization
from the armed group order and discipline to war tactics and
techniques,

* The "3rd Free Women Party (PJA) Conference" was held on July
11-22, 2001 to make the women organizations conducting activities in
legal and illegal fields more active and organized,

* The "1st Culture, Art and Folklore Conference" was held on 11-22
July 2001 in order to indoctrinate wider parts of the people with
separatist ideas and,

* The "6th National Conference" was held on August 05-22, 2001
under the leadership of the alleged Supreme Council of the terror
organization in order to coordinate the conferences to be held in line
with the activities the terror organization carries out in various
fields and to direct all organizational efforts towards public
movements,

- The above-mentioned conferences have drawn special attention as
the ones which have been held within the framework of preparations for
the 8th Congress of the terror organization PKK. According to the
decisions taken during the said conferences, various campaigns have
been organized primarily in Europe and subsequently in Turkey for the
purpose of gaining support for the requests of constitutional
recognition of the Kurdish identity and the use of Kurdish language as
the language of education. However, the terror organization has not
been able to reach the desired level of participation by the people.

- On the other hand, the terror organization has focused on
re-establishment of the terrorist groups not directly affected by the
security forces and on their armed training in raid, laying ambush and
sabotage. The disagreements arising within the terror organization,
PKK-KPU conflict and escape of nearly five hundred Syrian terrorists
from the terror organization in particular have been the noticeable
problems that the terror organization has faced within the period under
review.

- In the meantime, the defense that head of the terror organization
has developed for his trial lasting in the European Court of Human
Rights has been printed by the terrorist organization in a two-volume
book under the title of "From the Sumerian Monastic State To The
Democratic Republic", accepted as the second manifesto and begun to be
used as a guide document for all activities carried out by the terror
organization and as a basic document in the ideological training of the
terrorist organization's members and supporters.

- The 8th Congress preparations which have lasted for a long time
in accordance with the outline of the said defense of head of the
terrorist organization was held in the Kandil Mountain region in
Northern Iraq on April 04-10, 2002 with the participation of 285
terrorist's 106 of whom were women and 179 men as well as about 100
audiences,

- In the said congress during which the activities the terror
organization PKK has conducted in the past and report developed
according to the defense of head of the terror organization and
submitted to the congress have also been evaluated, it has been pointed
out that;

* The terror organization PKK has obtained some advantages like
raising of the Kurdish problem in international area as a result of the
armed struggle it has conducted since 1977,

* However, the ideology and modus operandi adopted by the terror
organization at the beginning have failed due to the collapse of the
former Soviet system and the anti-terror environment arising following
the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the US and,

* It has been the time that PKK would be replaced by a completely
new formation in order not to be included in the list of terrorist
organizations, and it must undergo restructuring beginning from its
ideology to its lowest-level units, including a change in its
organizational title,

* The "3rd Free Women Party (PJA) Conference" was held on July
11-22, 2001 to make the women organizations conducting activities in
legal and illegal fields more active and organized,

* The "1st Culture, Art and Folklore Conference" was held on 11-22
July 2001 in order to indoctrinate wider parts of the people with
separatist ideas and,

* The "6th National Conference" was held on August 05-22, 2001
under the leadership of the alleged Supreme Council of the terror
organization in order to coordinate the conferences to be held in line
with the activities the terror organization carries out in various
fields and to direct all organizational efforts towards public
movements,

- The above-mentioned conferences have drawn special attention as
the ones which have been held within the framework of preparations for
the 8th Congress of the terror organization PKK. According to the
decisions taken during the said conferences, various campaigns have
been organized primarily in Europe and subsequently in Turkey for the
purpose of gaining support for the requests of constitutional
recognition of the Kurdish identity and the use of Kurdish language as
the language of education. However, the terror organization has not
been able to reach the desired level of participation by the people.

- On the other hand, the terror organization has focused on
re-establishment of the terrorist groups not directly affected by the
security forces and on their armed training in raid, laying ambush and
sabotage. The disagreements arising within the terror organization,
PKK-KPU conflict and escape of nearly five hundred Syrian terrorists
from the terror organization in particular have been the noticeable
problems that the terror organization has faced within the period under
review.

- In the meantime, the defense that head of the terror organization
has developed for his trial lasting in the European Court of Human
Rights has been printed by the terrorist organization in a two-volume
book under the title of "From the Sumerian Monastic State To The
Democratic Republic", accepted as the second manifesto and begun to be
used as a guide document for all activities carried out by the terror
organization and as a basic document in the ideological training of the
terrorist organization's members and supporters.

- The 8th Congress preparations which have lasted for a long time
in accordance with the outline of the said defense of head of the
terrorist organization was held in the Kandil Mountain region in
Northern Iraq on April 04-10, 2002 with the participation of 285
terrorist's 106 of whom were women and 179 men as well as about 100
audiences,

- In the said congress during which the activities the terror
organization PKK has conducted in the past and report developed
according to the defense of head of the terror organization and
submitted to the congress have also been evaluated, it has been pointed
out that;

* The terror organization PKK has obtained some advantages like
raising of the Kurdish problem in international area as a result of the
armed struggle it has conducted since 1977,

* However, the ideology and modus operandi adopted by the terror
organization at the beginning have failed due to the collapse of the
former Soviet system and the anti-terror environment arising following
the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the US and,

* It has been the time that PKK would be replaced by a completely
new formation in order not to be included in the list of terrorist
organizations, and it must undergo restructuring beginning from its
ideology to its lowest-level units, including a change in its
organizational title,

- During its 8th Congress, the terror organization has stated that
PKK's role has ended under current circumstances and decided that;

* It will not use the title "PKK" in the activities it carries out
in every field from April 04, 2002 when the birthday of head of the
terrorists is,

* It will conduct its activities under the title "Kurdistan's
Freedom and Democracy Congress-KADEK" from now on in accordance with a
new program, statute and organization based on the solution of Kurdish
problem in line with the main points of the defense that head of the
terrorists has submitted to the European Court of Human Rights within
the existing borders in four countries,

* PKK considers KADEK as its sole legal representative and disposes
of its moral and physical acquisitions to KADEK. The terror
organization made a press conference in Belgium/Brussels on April 16,
2000 and publicized its decisions.

- In the meantime, the fact that the inclusion of the PKK in the
list of terrorist organizations developed by the European Union member
nations which was issued on May 4, 2002 has led the members of the
terrorist organizations into great concern regarding the possible
inclusion of KADEK in the list of terrorist organizations. For this
reason, the terror organization has immediately begun to make protests
against such nations as Denmark, Spain, the UK who have had an effect
on the related decision-making,

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pimping Da Oscarz
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/f989acbec3d530be
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 26 2006 7:49 pm
From: Voice Of Reason <>

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:36:17 -0800, Von Bailey
<ovbailey@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:29:22 -0500, Voice Of Reason <> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 23:41:10 -0500, Voice Of Reason <> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well, looks like the Oscar producers are going down to the `hood in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>miguided effort to pump up its ratings. Has ABC forgotten the Janet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jackson debacle so soon?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That's where the white guy illegally tore off her clothes on national
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>televeision and got away with it. What about it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Geez, ya *really* are naive if ya don't think that stunt was scripted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in advance. Like pro wrestling. Nothing "illegal" about it (only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>unethical and immoral), so there was nothing for the "white guy" to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"get away with".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>You have some evidence besides your bigotted assumpitons that it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>'scripted'?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Because these enterntainers are too disciplined after years of
>>>>>>>>>>>>training to do something spontaneous on national TV, especially
>>>>>>>>>>>>something risque. Does the term "rehersal" mean anything to ya?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>None of which is evidence, just more of your stupid assumptions being
>>>>>>>>>>>paraded as facts by you, the factually handicapped.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I think yer talking to the mirror now, as I have already given you the
>>>>>>>>>>most important *fact* you need to understand when dealing with
>>>>>>>>>>entertainers who make those fabulous buck$ -- they don't jeopardize
>>>>>>>>>>their acts by doing something that hadn't been planned and rehearsed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That isn't a fact, that's your opinion that you have decided referrs
>>>>>>>>>to an entire group of people. The usual habit of bigots, generalizing
>>>>>>>>>to support their stupid assumptions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You deny that entertainers reherse ahead of time what they are going
>>>>>>>>to do when the cameras are rolling?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not relevant to whether something unrehersed could occur during the
>>>>>>>act, which is what everyone involved said. So whatever point you were
>>>>>>>attempting to make simply state it and back it up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Actually they claimed it was a "wardrobe malfunction", whatever THAT
>>>>>>is supposed to mean. Which is WHY entertainers always rehearse ahead
>>>>>>of time, in an attempt to minimize the unexpected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Which makes the stupid assumption that things cannot happen that you
>>>>>don't rehearse for. That would be WRONG, but you have no problem
>>>>>making such stupid assumptions when black people are involved all the
>>>>>time so why stop now.
>>>>
>>>>No, of course the unexpected can happen. Which is precisely WHY good
>>>>entertainers rehearse their acts frequently. Like hand movements,
>>>>for example, like reaching out and grabbing one's singing partner.
>>>>
>>>So the person who's job it was to grab the singing partner screwed up
>>>his part. She didn't have control over what his hands did HE did. So
>>>if anyone did something purposely wrong in the live performance it was
>>>HIM.
>>
>>Except that at rehersal time, she could have said "no".
>>
>Which is only relevent if you have evidence that it was rehersed. You
>don't. Just more stuff you 'believe' without a shred of evidence to
>back it up, as usual.

You really persist in wallowing in ignorance. It's sad, but not
really surprising.

>>>>>>>>>>Not when on national TV, in this case, the Super Bowl half time show,
>>>>>>>>>>watched by possibly hundreds of millions world-wide.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And you have still not presented a shred of evidence that it was
>>>>>>>>>scripted. None. You assume and rant as usual.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Now if I told ya there were 24 hours to a day, you would probably want
>>>>>>>>proof, even though you know it to be true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Your irrelevant comparison has not changed the fact that you have not
>>>>>>>presented a shred of evidence that it was scripted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Can ya prove otherwise?
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't have to. YOU are the one claiming specifics of which YOU have
>>>>>no evidence to back up. You are simply providing one of your
>>>>>pitifully sorry reflexive responses again when you have NOTHING to
>>>>>back up what you say, "CAN YOU PROVE OTHERWISE" as if not being able
>>>>>to demonstrate that your assumptions are wrong prove them.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong I've provided all the evidence you need.
>>>>
>>>Liar. And what's so amazing is that all anyone has to do is read the
>>>thread and they will see that you haven't done anything except put
>>>forth that you BELIEVE she purposely had HIM pull off a part of her
>>>garment. NO EVIDENCE just what you believe.
>>
>>Wrong, I explained why all but the stupidest of performers would never
>>do anything without working it out in advance during rehersals, which
>>is what they are for. Well, OK, maybe these 2 clowns aren't the
>>sharpest knives in the drawer, so maybe there is a long shot you might
>>be right.
>>
>You *claiming* you've 'explained' something is not "evidence". So we
>are back to your baseless assumptions again.

Wrong, the evidence is in the explanation. Open your eyes, and your
mind too, and go back and read again.

>>>>>>Only the most naive of folks, like
>>>>>>you, believe that it was an "accident". Or that because the man was
>>>>>>white, he figured he could "get away" with sexually assaulting a black
>>>>>>woman, live on TV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>So your scenario of a black woman 'rehearsing' it with this same white
>>>>>man, (who if your scenario makes sense had to be part of the planning)
>>>>>makes more sense? Only if you're as stupid as you appear to be.
>>>>
>>>>It makes plenty of sense once you open your head to realization that
>>>>top tier entertainers don't make unplanned moves on national TV.
>>>
>>>Using that logic then you have to admit that Justin Timberlake, the
>>>person who actually had the piece of clothing in his hand, is the
>>>culprit. HE is the one who did something, Janet Jackson's hand was
>>>nowhere near the piece of clothing that was removed.
>>
>>Nope, ya still don't understand the cold hard logic I just laid out
>>for you.
>>
>Another baseless claim. You've put no logic forth, just your silly
>assumptions which you also apparently assume everyone must
>"beleive"becasue you say so.

Nothing to believe in here, except facts and logic. I have just
dragged your butt to the water of truth, but alas I cannot make you
drink from it.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Goh: Why no upgrading for Huougang or Potong Pasir?
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/29ee801ecd4f26cf
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 26 2006 4:50 pm
From: "Brayden"

In the 1995 elections, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said to those
who might have been leaning toward the opposition: " In 20, 30 years'
time, the whole of Singapore will be bustling away, and your estate,
through your own choice, will be left behind. They become slums. "
Today, in 2006, Goh claims he is "worried" that Hougang and Potong
Pasir might never be upgraded.
Hello, upgrading is not paid for by the PAP. It is paid out of the
people of Singapore's tax money, plus a significant portion has to come
from the HDB dwellers themeselves. Why, in heaven's name, should
Hougang or Potong Pasir or any ward for that matter be denied the right
to upgrade (assuming the HDB dwellers even want the upgrade in the
first place, as some simply can't afford the high prices charged by Mah
Bow Tan)?
If these two wards are to be treated differently, perhaps the taxes
collected from the people there should be treated differently too e.g.
they should be used for the Town Council sinking funds instead of
wasting them on the million dollars buffoons who call themselves
Ministers. As a point of fact, if the funds are allocated by wards, we
are quite sure they will use the money far more effectively, unlike the
brain dead expenses of putting Mobile TV on buses or renaming Marina
Bay to Marina Bay. Yes, perhaps there should be a secession movement
of sorts, since Goh has declared the ruling party's bias so openly.
Alternatively, perhaps the wards should start their independent
upgrading fund towards which Singaporeans from all over the island can
contribute. I, for one, am prepared to pledge $1,000 tomorrow if they
start one immediately.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 27 2006 9:19 am
From: "news.news"

Upgrade $ come from town council.
Which is actually the $ you pay thru your monthly maintenance.

"Brayden" <braydenwong@fastmail.us> wrote in message
news:1143420647.959605.145960@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> In the 1995 elections, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said to those
> who might have been leaning toward the opposition: " In 20, 30 years'
> time, the whole of Singapore will be bustling away, and your estate,
> through your own choice, will be left behind. They become slums. "
> Today, in 2006, Goh claims he is "worried" that Hougang and Potong
> Pasir might never be upgraded.
> Hello, upgrading is not paid for by the PAP. It is paid out of the
> people of Singapore's tax money, plus a significant portion has to come
> from the HDB dwellers themeselves. Why, in heaven's name, should
> Hougang or Potong Pasir or any ward for that matter be denied the right
> to upgrade (assuming the HDB dwellers even want the upgrade in the
> first place, as some simply can't afford the high prices charged by Mah
> Bow Tan)?
> If these two wards are to be treated differently, perhaps the taxes
> collected from the people there should be treated differently too e.g.
> they should be used for the Town Council sinking funds instead of
> wasting them on the million dollars buffoons who call themselves
> Ministers. As a point of fact, if the funds are allocated by wards, we
> are quite sure they will use the money far more effectively, unlike the
> brain dead expenses of putting Mobile TV on buses or renaming Marina
> Bay to Marina Bay. Yes, perhaps there should be a secession movement
> of sorts, since Goh has declared the ruling party's bias so openly.
> Alternatively, perhaps the wards should start their independent
> upgrading fund towards which Singaporeans from all over the island can
> contribute. I, for one, am prepared to pledge $1,000 tomorrow if they
> start one immediately.
>

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 27 2006 9:21 am
From: "Ironm@n"

It is like a mother telling his boy, "No sweets for you if you are naughty".

So childish ...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Turkey: No opening border with Armenia before normalization of
relations
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c7f86894d085775e
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 26 2006 4:51 pm
From: "rick murphy"

http://www.armenianreality.com/massacres_in_anatolia/an_armenian_massacre_in_van.htm

An Armenian Massacre in Van*

We were in our own village Ayanis when the Armenian events started. The
whole moslem villages in this region were Zeve, Mollakasm and
Ayans.There were 5 to 10 Armenian houses in other villages. Before this
event our relationship with the Armenians were so good, especially with
Alaköy when there were plenty of Armenians. We mutually invited
eachother to feasts. There was no enmity among us.

As these events occured we decided to migrate. As we got ready with
four vehicles a man came and stopped us. He told us to stay claiming
that we had the guns and the soldiers. Three days passed by. On the
fourth day, we were together with my mother and three men from our
village and heard a gun voice. Three men from our village told that
this gun was an Armenian gun since its voice was different from ours.

Meanwhile, a man from Mollakasim came and shouted: " What are you
waiting, the Kurds raided Alaköy, they are raidng all of the
villages". As he shouted son of the uncle of my mother Dursun came, he
was wounded from his thomb by a gun. An old woman asked him why he had
come and he told that the village was raided and the inhabitants were
cut. An armenian shit on a grave of an important, religous men and
sweared at him but as my mother said he was burned by God
simultanously. Armenians selected the men and put into a room. Their
leader was Hamados Pasa ( He paid Iranian Kurds to be a soldier of
him). he ordered his fellows to gather boys older than 7 years, put
them with the men and burn them all.

They almost spoke Turkish like us. I was seven meanwhile. My mother
quickly dressed me like a girl and took near her, and saved me so. But
they took 4-5 boys among us, put them near the men. They poured oil on
them and burned. The cries raised to sky. They gathered the women and
took them out. They teased saying " Women, rest and watch how the dogs
are fighting". Whom they called dog was a son, a husband or a father of
one of the women. They were crying "God" as they burn. we had to sit
there for about one hour. As we went near the grave a non-moslem sang a
song to the women: (he cries as he tells)

"mercy became mercy
mercy became today
yesterday's hard days
are today strong days"

Meanwhile, the wife of my mother's uncle was shot by an Armenian. His
child stilll needed breast-feed. An Armenian killed the baby with his
bayonet. They killed a lot of men in that area, they were burning the
ones they catch. In our village there was Hamza, the uncle of Haci
Ümmet. He always carried his knife. He attacked to the non-moslems as
they were trying to catch him. He would either kill or die. They
eventually catched him. They opened pockets in his back and put his
hands in without killing him. Excuse me, but they cut his penis and put
it into his mouth, cut his nose and put it in his back.

They took me to Alaköy. They put us in to a haymow. The children
started to cry due to hunger. The non-moslems cooked the hands, feet
and other organs of the men they killed and gave them to children as
meal. the children did not understand but the women did not let tehm to
eat. They explained the situation to their children and told them that
it is better to starve. In the night they filled the haymow with water,
everybody got wet. In the morning they let the women out and forced
them to dry their clothes on the stones. The women of Mollakasim were
just a few yard away from us. Their men were also cut.

They were raiding the Moslem villages and killing the men. They were
making the women prisoners and collecting them in Alaköy. Then, they
led us to the way of van. As we reached the Mermit riveri some of the
women jumped into the water to drawn instead of dying on the hands of
Armenians. The non-moslems shot and killed some of them before they
fall into the river. They break the armr and heads of the others who
want to jump into the water. Me, my motheri the wife of my uncle and my
grandmother were all together. My mother also wanted to jump but my
grandmotehr stopped her. The Armenians prevented the women to jump by
putting the horses into the water. A non-moslem came near to my
grandmother and asked her village and husband. My grandmother did not
want toanswer but as the non-moslem persuaded she told that we were
from Ayanis, her husband was Muhiddin, grandson was Yakup and the other
was Niyazi. As she finished, the non-moslem embrassed my grandmother's
skirt and told that he would not let them be hurt. Since we were
surprised she explained. They were coming from Bahçesaray to Van by
eight vehicles full. They wanted to kill the Armenians on the way but
my father did not let. He took them to Van and returned to the village.

That guy supplied us some bread and cheese. They took us to Bardakçi.
we slept in the open area of the village with armed watchman as if
women could do anything. We were about 700-800 people. In the morning
we took the way to Van and reached Kaledibi of van before sunset.In
Kaledibi, there was the three-floor barracks of the mayor of Van Cevdet
Pasa. It was made of soil. Many people stayed there before. There was a
newborn baby, they throw the baby from upstairs and the baby
disappeared. We stayed for five days there.

Before noon they took us to trefoils. We were very hungry that we ate
whatever we found there. Five days later they brought two more houses
and took us to barracks of Haci Bekir, to the old residence of mayor.

They had also brought the folk of the moslem village Pürüt. They are
giving us bread but bread full of many chemicals such as alum and
sulphur. 60-70 people die per day due to stomach pain.There was a hole
as long as one wall of the barracks and they were throwing the dead
bodiesinside it. My grandmother told to the Armenian whom my father
saved: "It does not mean anything that you are our fellow, my two sons
in the army, my husband and relatives were killed by you. That Armenian
brought food to us for a couple of days. Others were attacking the
food.

One week passed. They told that Russians came. They counted the number
of prisoners and recorded. They served meal the next day before noon:
rice with meat. They put a Russian watchman. The Russians asked us our
villages and told that they wanted to get us to our villages. All of us
wanted to be taken to Mollakasim. The Russians accepted. In the morning
thay took us to Mollaksim by 70-80 horse carriages. We did not spread
to our villages due to the fear of Armenians. Then they attended one of
us as the chief of the group. We lived likewise until Turkish army
entered Van. Some time later we gave life to our villages burnt by
Armenians.

HACI ZEKERIYA KOÇ Yakuboglu, 1908, born in Ayanis-Van

* Publications of rector of Van Yüzüncü Yil University, No:8

==============================================================================
TOPIC: THE TURKISH-ARMENIAN CONFLICT : A BRIEF HISTORY AND AN EVALUATION
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/8e4d4151d3d62730
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 26 2006 4:52 pm
From: "rick murphy"

http://www.armenianreality.com/massacres_in_anatolia/an_armenian_massacre_in_van.htm

An Armenian Massacre in Van*

We were in our own village Ayanis when the Armenian events started. The
whole moslem villages in this region were Zeve, Mollakasm and
Ayans.There were 5 to 10 Armenian houses in other villages. Before this
event our relationship with the Armenians were so good, especially with
Alaköy when there were plenty of Armenians. We mutually invited
eachother to feasts. There was no enmity among us.

As these events occured we decided to migrate. As we got ready with
four vehicles a man came and stopped us. He told us to stay claiming
that we had the guns and the soldiers. Three days passed by. On the
fourth day, we were together with my mother and three men from our
village and heard a gun voice. Three men from our village told that
this gun was an Armenian gun since its voice was different from ours.

Meanwhile, a man from Mollakasim came and shouted: " What are you
waiting, the Kurds raided Alaköy, they are raidng all of the
villages". As he shouted son of the uncle of my mother Dursun came, he
was wounded from his thomb by a gun. An old woman asked him why he had
come and he told that the village was raided and the inhabitants were
cut. An armenian shit on a grave of an important, religous men and
sweared at him but as my mother said he was burned by God
simultanously. Armenians selected the men and put into a room. Their
leader was Hamados Pasa ( He paid Iranian Kurds to be a soldier of
him). he ordered his fellows to gather boys older than 7 years, put
them with the men and burn them all.

They almost spoke Turkish like us. I was seven meanwhile. My mother
quickly dressed me like a girl and took near her, and saved me so. But
they took 4-5 boys among us, put them near the men. They poured oil on
them and burned. The cries raised to sky. They gathered the women and
took them out. They teased saying " Women, rest and watch how the dogs
are fighting". Whom they called dog was a son, a husband or a father of
one of the women. They were crying "God" as they burn. we had to sit
there for about one hour. As we went near the grave a non-moslem sang a
song to the women: (he cries as he tells)

"mercy became mercy
mercy became today
yesterday's hard days
are today strong days"

Meanwhile, the wife of my mother's uncle was shot by an Armenian. His
child stilll needed breast-feed. An Armenian killed the baby with his
bayonet. They killed a lot of men in that area, they were burning the
ones they catch. In our village there was Hamza, the uncle of Haci
Ümmet. He always carried his knife. He attacked to the non-moslems as
they were trying to catch him. He would either kill or die. They
eventually catched him. They opened pockets in his back and put his
hands in without killing him. Excuse me, but they cut his penis and put
it into his mouth, cut his nose and put it in his back.

They took me to Alaköy. They put us in to a haymow. The children
started to cry due to hunger. The non-moslems cooked the hands, feet
and other organs of the men they killed and gave them to children as
meal. the children did not understand but the women did not let tehm to
eat. They explained the situation to their children and told them that
it is better to starve. In the night they filled the haymow with water,
everybody got wet. In the morning they let the women out and forced
them to dry their clothes on the stones. The women of Mollakasim were
just a few yard away from us. Their men were also cut.

They were raiding the Moslem villages and killing the men. They were
making the women prisoners and collecting them in Alaköy. Then, they
led us to the way of van. As we reached the Mermit riveri some of the
women jumped into the water to drawn instead of dying on the hands of
Armenians. The non-moslems shot and killed some of them before they
fall into the river. They break the armr and heads of the others who
want to jump into the water. Me, my motheri the wife of my uncle and my
grandmother were all together. My mother also wanted to jump but my
grandmotehr stopped her. The Armenians prevented the women to jump by
putting the horses into the water. A non-moslem came near to my
grandmother and asked her village and husband. My grandmother did not
want toanswer but as the non-moslem persuaded she told that we were
from Ayanis, her husband was Muhiddin, grandson was Yakup and the other
was Niyazi. As she finished, the non-moslem embrassed my grandmother's
skirt and told that he would not let them be hurt. Since we were
surprised she explained. They were coming from Bahçesaray to Van by
eight vehicles full. They wanted to kill the Armenians on the way but
my father did not let. He took them to Van and returned to the village.

That guy supplied us some bread and cheese. They took us to Bardakçi.
we slept in the open area of the village with armed watchman as if
women could do anything. We were about 700-800 people. In the morning
we took the way to Van and reached Kaledibi of van before sunset.In
Kaledibi, there was the three-floor barracks of the mayor of Van Cevdet
Pasa. It was made of soil. Many people stayed there before. There was a
newborn baby, they throw the baby from upstairs and the baby
disappeared. We stayed for five days there.

Before noon they took us to trefoils. We were very hungry that we ate
whatever we found there. Five days later they brought two more houses
and took us to barracks of Haci Bekir, to the old residence of mayor.

They had also brought the folk of the moslem village Pürüt. They are
giving us bread but bread full of many chemicals such as alum and
sulphur. 60-70 people die per day due to stomach pain.There was a hole
as long as one wall of the barracks and they were throwing the dead
bodiesinside it. My grandmother told to the Armenian whom my father
saved: "It does not mean anything that you are our fellow, my two sons
in the army, my husband and relatives were killed by you. That Armenian
brought food to us for a couple of days. Others were attacking the
food.

One week passed. They told that Russians came. They counted the number
of prisoners and recorded. They served meal the next day before noon:
rice with meat. They put a Russian watchman. The Russians asked us our
villages and told that they wanted to get us to our villages. All of us
wanted to be taken to Mollakasim. The Russians accepted. In the morning
thay took us to Mollaksim by 70-80 horse carriages. We did not spread
to our villages due to the fear of Armenians. Then they attended one of
us as the chief of the group. We lived likewise until Turkish army
entered Van. Some time later we gave life to our villages burnt by
Armenians.

HACI ZEKERIYA KOÇ Yakuboglu, 1908, born in Ayanis-Van

* Publications of rector of Van Yüzüncü Yil University, No:8

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 26 2006 5:05 pm
From: uhu@topkale.net

http://www.kulturturizm.gov.tr/portal/default_en.asp?belgeno=3310

ARMENIAN ISSUE
ALLEGTAIONS-FACTS

TURCO-ARMENIAN RELATIONS

Relations During World War I

Ottoman Empire went into war against Britain, France and Russia on
November 1, 1914 and Armenian committees considered this as a great
opportunity. The Armenians formed voluntary troops and joined the
Russian forces. They attacked Eastern Anatolia together with the
Russian expeditionary forces. Furthermore, new rebellions were provoked
in various parts of Anatolia, Ottoman forces were stabbed in the back,
and civil Turks were massacred. The Armenians' targets were not only
the Turks but also the Byzantine Greeks around Trabzon and Jews around
Hakkari.

Tashnaqsutyun committee was gathered in Erzurum in June 1914 just
before the Ottoman Empire began to fight and it took the following
decisions:

"Tashnaqsutyun Congress takes into account economic, social and
administrative policies contrasting and followed by the government of
Party of Union and Progress against Christian factors, and especially
Armenians and its deceptive activities about oppression and reforms.
So, it decided to remain as an opponent to the party, to criticize
party's political program, to struggle severely against itself and its
organization."

Turkish Armenians living in Marseilles published a declaration at the
end of the meeting held on August 5, 1914, when Ottoman Empire declared
mobilization just before it went into war. Several statements from the
aforementioned declaration which was published in various newspapers
were as follows:

"Russian Armenians will fulfil their duties in order to take revenge of
the abuse against our brothers' corpses by taking place on the side of
Moscow armies. We, Armenians under the tyranny of Turks, shouldn't
point any of our arms to France, which is our second homeland, and to
its allies and friends.

Armenians, Turkey calls you to arms without telling you who the enemy
is; to enlist voluntarily in the French army and its allies, in order
to help the defeat of Wilhelm II's army whose railways passed over the
corpses of 300.000 of our brothers."

We can easily learn from any sources that Armenians cooperated with
Russians when the war broke out.

On this subject Philips Price said that:

"... when the war broke out, Armenians in that region (Eastern towns)
contacted with Russian authorities in the Caucasus secretly, and
volunteers from Turkish towns were begun to join the Russian forces by
the help of an underground organization."

Rafael de Nogales wrote:

"Garo Pasdermichan (Pastirmaciyan), deputy of Erzurum, passed across
the border to join the Russian Army with almost all the Armenian
Officials and soldiers the Third Army. After a short while, he returned
with the Russian Forces, burned down the Turkish villages, killed
violently all the innocent Muslims whom he caught. The measure taken by
the Ottoman authorities was to disarm the Armenian soldiers and
gendarmes still the army, perhaps they had not has the opportunity to
escape, and to transfer them to labor battalions to work in road
construction and in equipment transportation.

Clair Price wrote:

" In compliance with the 1908 Constitution, the Government of Enver
Pasha had the right to call Armenians to arms together with Turks who
were at the right age for military service. However, they immediately
began to resist with arms against authorities especially in Zeytun.
Along the Eastern borders, Armenians began to escape and join Russian
armies. The Government of Enver suspected the loyalty of the rest and
transferred them to working battalions."

The Ottoman Government declared mobilization on August 3. The Armenians
of Zeytun refused to stay under the Turkish flag, so they formed Zeytun
Commando Regiment under the control of their own officials and wanted
to protect their region themselves. But naturally their demand was
refused and hence they actually rebelled on August 30. At the end of
the pursuit approximately 60 rebels were caught with their arms and
peace was established for a short time, but in December people of
Zeytun began to attack administrative officers and gendarme again.

In May 1915, Rsussian forces advanced in Eastern Anatolia. English and
French forces attacked Çanakkale and in the south, the channel
operation was in progress. The domestic situation of the country was as
explained. In Zeytun, Van and Mus rebellions broke out, the rebellion
in Van led to Rusian occupation, and meanwhile the revolts of Zeytun
and Mus were going on. Every corner of the country was full of
deserters, every corner was exposed to attacks of gangs. As all adult
Turks were in the army, the country was left to Armenians. The State
was trying to deal with those rebellions while it was also fighting on
the fronts. Under those circumstances the Ottoman Empire had to take
the decision of relocation of the rebellious Armenians. (1)

There was another decision taken during the war related to Armenians in
Turkey, which actually concerned the Patriarchate. With a new
regulation published in Takvim-i Vekayi on August 10, 1916, the
relations of Armenian churches in Turkey with Ecmiyazin were stopped
completely. Sis and Akdamar Catholicoses were united, the center of
Catholicosism was moved to Jerusalem. Istanbul Patriarchate
participated in that Catholicosism. It was also decided that the
Istanbul Patriarch can only be contacted through sect administration.
Moreover, the new regulation established new rules for the election of
Patriarchs and the formation of Patriarch Assemblies. (2)

REFERENCE:
(1) Gürün, Kamuran, Ermeni Dosyasi, TTK Basimevi, Ankara, sh. 193-
209
(2) Gürün, a.g.e., sh. 229

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Illegal Hispanic Immigration & rally in LA
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/965a78900803abba
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 27 2006 12:55 am
From: "Salah Jafar"

I agree the Mexican are always better than the KIKES. What the fuck KIKE are useful for beside thievery.
SJ

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 26 2006 5:29 pm
From: "serwad"

<richasiankid@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143407766.420763.282600@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Very interesting from CNN on the LA situation
> http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/03/25/immigration.rallies.ap/index.html
>
> There is some concern that perhaps some of these Hispanics are less
> cognitively endowed, shall we say, very kindly, based on worldwide IQ
> evidence:
>
> http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2006%20PAID%20bk%20rev.pdf
>
> That btw is like the sequel of what I posted before over here.
>
> So who cares? I don't really, but I care enough to post this.
>
> What do I think about Hispanics?
>
> Well, they are certainly not a threat, in jobs or in college. I think
> therefore we should welcome *more* of them. Didn't Dame Edna, you know,
> that drag comedian, once very (ouch!) acidly remarked that "what's the
> use of me learning Spanish anyway? I'll never be able to afford a
> maid!"
>
> So why tolerate if not even promote this flood of illegals? The obvious
> advantage is that it boosts & swells our percentile. I've said it
> before and I'll say it again: your rank is inflated when you co-opt
> those who are less capable into your competitive pool.

DREAM ON! WHITE ANGLO CAXON IDIOTS ARE THE MOST UNEDUCATED, MOST MORONIC OF
ALL AMERICANS!

Ooops, I meant
> national pool - few of us are really competing at their level in
> sociobiological terms - they are really not that smart. Note I'm not
> saying that they're not nice people - but seriously, you know that most
> of them are not exactly Einsteins anyway. This is very bad to say but
> this is a newsgroup - I think there is some truth to it. So it is
> almost bad manners to complain because you're stooping to their level.
> Meaning: if you import 1/2 million of say Ashkenazi Jews or Japanese
> then yeah that can be a problem and I'd care; but if you have 1/2
> million Mexicans, it's just more cheap labor.
>
> I'm sorry if that's too paternalistic, but that's what deep down many
> older upper class and near rich people feel I can tell you. I don't
> disagree with them actually, and of course I'll never discriminate
> against a Hispanic just because he/she is a Hispanic. But the fact
> remains.
>
> And I have a preference. I'd like to tweak the outcome if I were a
> politican. I have a very reasonable suggestion: restrict entry to only
> under 30 year old women. :)
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: LAYING BARE THE MYTH OF EVOLUTION -----> "HEY, The Emperor Has NO
Clothes!" <-----
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/caa7db9ffa45af08
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 27 2006 12:55 am
From: Ed Conrad

<
> http://www.edconrad.com/oldascoal/images/manasoldemboss.gif
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FOSSILS/ManasOldasCoal.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/ManasOldasCoal/Discoveries.jpg
<
==========================================
<
> INTELLIGENT DESIGN?
<
This is the Hubble Telescope's 2004 Ultra View Photo that
was taken of a totally blackened sky as seen through a view
comparable to an EIGHT-FOOT-STRAW. The result: galaxies
upon galaxies upon galaxies, meaning that our universe is far
bigger than we can even begin to fathom.
<
http://www.spacedaily.com/images/hubble-ultradeep-desk-1024.jpg
<
> =============================================
<
> EVOLUTION -- GREATEST COVERUP
> IN THE HISTORY OF HISTORY
<
> "Any suggestion that scientists
> so dearly love truth, that they
> have not the slightest hesitation
> in jettisoning their beliefs, is
> a mean perversion of the facts."
> I. Bernard Cohen
> (professor of history and science
> at Harvard University)
<
as stated in "The Velikovsky Affair:
The Warfare Between Science and Scientism"
<
====================================
<
> THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/SimplyMagic/TightFit.jpg
<
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FOSSILS/edyournot.gif
<
Ed Conrad
> http://www.edconrad.com
< 214,180 Hits
> Man Definitely as Old as Coal
<
> ================================
<
> TENURED FOSSILS
< (They Couldn't Give This Matter Their Time of Day)
> Members, U.S. Senate
Specter, Arlen (R) - Pennsylvania - Republican
Santorum, Rick (R) - Pennsylvania - Republican
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R) - Texas - Republican
Allen, George (R) - Virginia - Republican
Nelson, Bill (D) - Florida - Democratic
Schumer, Charles E. (Chuck) (D) - New York -
Cantwell, Maria (D) - Washington -
Clinton, Hillary Rodham (D) - New York -
Stabenow, Debbie (D) - Michigan -
Boxer, Barbara (D) - California
Murray, Patty (D) - Washington -
Dayton, Mark (D) - Minnesota - Democratic
Feinstein, Dianne (D) - California - Democratic
DeWine, Mike (R) - Ohio - Republican
Durbin, Dick (D) - Illinois - Democratic
Cornyn, John (R) - Texas - Republican
Leahy, Patrick (D) - Vermont - Democratic
McCain, John (R) - Arizona - Republican
Harkin, Tom (D) - Iowa - Democratic
Voinovich, George V. (R) - Ohio - Republican
Warner, John (R) - Virginia - Republican
Levin, Carl (D) - Michigan - Democratic
Shelby, Richard C. (R) - Alabama - Republican
Allard, Wayne (R) - Colorado - Republican
Kerry, John (D) - Massachusetts - Democratic
Mikulski, Barbara (D) - Maryland - Democratic
Biden, Joseph R.(D) - Delaware - Democratic
Lugar, Richard G. (R) - Indiana - Republican
Grassley, Chuck (R) - Iowa - Republican
Sarbanes, Paul S. (D) - Maryland - Democratic
Bond, Kit (R) - Missouri - Republican
Lieberman, Joe (D) - Connecticut - Democratic.
Frist, Bill (R) - Tennessee - Republican
Kennedy, Edward M. (D) - Massachusetts - Democratic
Hatch, Orrin G. (R) - Utah - Republican
Kyl, John (R) - Arizona - Republican
Ensign, John (R) - Nevada - Republican
Smith, Gordon H. (R) - Oregon - Republican
Burns, Conrad (R) - Montana - Republican .
>
> Members, U.S. House of Representatives
Abercrombie, Neil, Hawaii, 1st
Ackerman, Gary, New York, 5th
Aderholt, Robert, Alabama, 4th
Akin, Todd, Missouri, 2nd
Alexander, Rodney, Louisiana, 5th
Allen, Tom, Maine, 1st
Andrews, Robert E., New Jersey, 1st
Baca, Joe, California, 43rd
Bachus, Spencer, Alabama, 6th
Baird, Brian, Washington, 3rd
Baker, Richard, Louisiana, 6th
Baldwin, Tammy, Wisconsin, 2nd
Barrett, J.Gresham, South Carolina, 3rd
Barrow, John, Georgia, 12th
Bartlett, Roscoe, Maryland, 6th
Barton, Joe, Texas, 6th
Bass, Charles, New Hampshire, 2nd
Bean, Melissa L., Illinois, 8th
Beauprez, Bob, Colorado, 7th
Becerra, Xavier, California, 31st
Berkley, Shelley, Nevada, 1st
Berman, Howard, California, 28th
Berry, Marion, Arkansas, 1st
Biggert, Judy, Illinois, 13th
Bilirakis, Michael, Florida, 9th
Bishop, Rob, Utah, 1st
Bishop Jr., Sanford D., Georgia, 2nd
Bishop, Timothy, New York, 1st
Blackburn, Marsha, Tennessee, 7th
Blumenauer, Earl, Oregon, 3rd
Blunt, Roy, Missouri, 7th
Boehlert, Sherwood L., New York, 24th
Boehner, John A., Ohio, 8th
Bonilla, Henry, Texas, 23rd
Bonner, Jo, Alabama, 1st
Bono, Mary, California, 45th
Boozman, John, Arkansas, 3rd
Bordallo, Madeleine, Guam
Boren, Dan, Oklahoma, 2nd
Boswell, Leonard, Iowa, 3rd
Boucher, Rick, Virginia, 9th
Boustany Jr., Charles W., Louisiana, 7th
Boyd, Allen, Florida, 2nd
Bradley, Jeb, New Hampshire, 1st
Brady, Kevin, Texas, 8th
Brady, Robert, Pennsylvania, 1st
Brown, Corrine, Florida, 3rd
Brown, Henry, South Carolina, 1st
Brown, Sherrod, Ohio, 13th
Brown-Waite, Virginia, Florida, 5th
Burgess, Michael, Texas, 26th
Burton, Dan, Indiana, 5th
Butterfield, G.K., North Carolina, 1st
Buyer, Steve, Indiana, 4th
Calvert, Ken, California, 44th
Camp, Dave, Michigan, 4th
Cannon, Chris, Utah, 3rd
Cantor, Eric, Virginia, 7th
Capito, Shelley Moore, West Virginia, 2nd
Capps, Lois, California, 23rd
Capuano, Michael E., Massachusetts, 8th
Cardin, Benjamin L., Maryland, 3rd
Cardoza, Dennis, California, 18th
Carnahan, Russ, Missouri, 3rd
Carson, Julia, Indiana, 7th
Carter, John, Texas, 31st
Case, Ed, Hawaii, 2nd
Castle, Michael N., Delaware, At Large
Chabot, Steve, Ohio, 1st
Chandler, Ben, Kentucky, 6th
Chocola, Chris, Indiana, 2nd
Christian-Christensen, Donna M., U.S. Virgin Islands
Clay Jr., William "Lacy", Missouri, 1st
Cleaver, Emanuel, Missouri, 5th
Clyburn, James E., South Carolina, 6th
Coble, Howard, North Carolina, 6th
Cole, Tom, Oklahoma, 4th
Conaway, K. Michael, Texas, 11th
Conyers Jr., John, Michigan, 14th
Cooper, Jim, Tennessee, 5th
Costa, Jim, California, 20th
Costello, Jerry, Illinois, 12th
Cox, Christopher, California, 48th
Cramer, Robert E. "Bud", Alabama, 5th
Crenshaw, Ander, Florida, 4th
Crowley, Joseph, New York, 7th
Cubin, Barbara, Wyoming, At Large
Cuellar, Henry, Texas, 28th
Culberson, John, Texas, 7th
Cummings, Elijah, Maryland, 7th
Cunningham, Randy "Duke", California, 50th
Davis, Artur, Alabama, 7th
Davis, Danny K., Illinois, 7th
Davis, Geoff, Kentucky, 4th
Davis, Jim, Florida, 11th
Davis, Jo Ann S., Virginia, 1st
Davis, Lincoln, Tennessee, 4th
Davis, Susan, California, 53rd
Davis, Tom, Virginia, 11th
Deal, Nathan, Georgia, 10th
DeFazio, Peter, Oregon, 4th
DeGette, Diana, Colorado, 1st
Delahunt, William, Massachusetts, 10th
DeLauro, Rosa L., Connecticut, 3rd
DeLay, Tom, Texas, 22nd
Dent, Charles W., Pennsylvania, 15th
Diaz-Balart, Lincoln, Florida, 21st
Diaz-Balart, Mario, Florida, 25th
Dicks, Norman D., Washington, 6th
Dingell, John, Michigan, 15th
Doggett, Lloyd, Texas, 25th
Doolittle, John, California, 4th
Doyle, Mike, Pennsylvania, 14th
Drake, Thelma D., Virginia, 2nd
Dreier, David, California, 26th
Duncan Jr., John J., Tennessee, 2nd
Edwards, Chet, Texas, 17th
Ehlers, Vernon J., Michigan, 3rd
Emanuel, Rahm, Illinois, 5th
Emerson, Jo Ann, Missouri, 8th
Engel, Eliot, New York, 17th
English, Phil, Pennsylvania, 3rd
Eshoo, Anna G., California, 14th
Etheridge, Bob, North Carolina, 2nd
Evans, Lane, Illinois, 17th
Everett, Terry, Alabama, 2nd
Faleomavaega, Eni F. H., American Samoa
Farr, Sam, California, 17th
Fattah, Chaka, Pennsylvania, 2nd
Feeney, Tom, Florida, 24th
Ferguson, Michael, New Jersey, 7th
Filner, Bob, California, 51st
Fitzpatrick, Michael G., Pennsylvania, 8th
Flake, Jeff , Arizona, 6th
Foley, Mark, Florida, 16th
Forbes, J. Randy, Virginia, 4th
Ford, Harold, Tennessee, 9th
Fortenberry, Jeff, Nebraska, 1st
Fortuno, Luis G., Puerto Rico
Fossella, Vito, New York, 13th
Foxx, Virginia, North Carolina, 5th
Frank, Barney, Massachusetts, 4th
Franks, Trent, Arizona, 2nd
Frelinghuysen, Rodney, New Jersey, 11th
Gallegly, Elton, California, 24th
Garrett, Scott, New Jersey, 5th
Gerlach, Jim, Pennsylvania, 6th
Gibbons, Jim, Nevada, 2nd
Gilchrest, Wayne, Maryland, 1st
Gillmor, Paul, Ohio, 5th
Gingrey, Phil, Georgia, 11th
Gohmert, Louie, Texas, 1st
Gonzalez, Charlie A., Texas, 20th
Goode Jr., Virgil H., Virginia, 5th
Goodlatte, Bob, Virginia, 6th
Gordon, Bart, Tennessee, 6th
Granger, Kay, Texas, 12th
Graves, Sam, Missouri, 6th
Green, Al, Texas, 9th
Green, Gene, Texas, 29th
Green, Mark, Wisconsin, 8th
Grijalva, Raul, Arizona, 7th
Gutierrez, Luis, Illinois, 4th
Gutknecht, Gil, Minnesota, 1st
Hall, Ralph M., Texas, 4th
Harman, Jane, California, 36th
Harris, Katherine, Florida, 13th
Hart, Melissa, Pennsylvania, 4th
Hastert, Denny, Illinois, 14th
Hastings, Alcee L., Florida, 23rd
Hastings, Doc, Washington, 4th
Hayes, Robin, North Carolina, 8th
Hayworth, J.D., Arizona, 5th
Hefley, Joel, Colorado, 5th
Hensarling, Jeb, Texas, 5th
Herger, Wally, California, 2nd
Herseth, Stephanie, South Dakota, At Large
Higgins, Brian, New York, 27th
Hinchey, Maurice, New York, 22nd
Hinojosa, Rubén, Texas, 15th
Hobson, David, Ohio, 7th
Hoekstra, Pete, Michigan, 2nd
Holden, Tim, Pennsylvania, 17th
Holt, Rush, New Jersey, 12th
Honda, Mike, California, 15th
Hooley, Darlene, Oregon, 5th
Hostettler, John N., Indiana, 8th
Hoyer, Steny H., Maryland, 5th
Hulshof, Kenny, Missouri, 9th
Hunter, Duncan, California, 52nd
Hyde, Henry, Illinois, 6th
Inglis, Bob, South Carolina, 4th
Inslee, Jay, Washington, 1st
Israel, Steve, New York, 2nd
Issa, Darrell, California, 49th
Istook Jr., Ernest J., Oklahoma, 5th
Jackson Jr., Jesse L., Illinois, 2nd
Jackson Lee, Sheila, Texas, 18th
Jefferson, William J., Louisiana, 2nd
Jenkins, William L., Tennessee, 1st
Jindal, Bobby, Louisiana, 1st
Johnson, Eddie Bernice, Texas, 30th
Johnson, Nancy L., Connecticut, 5th
Johnson, Sam, Texas, 3rd
Johnson, Timothy V., Illinois, 15th
Jones, Stephanie Tubbs, Ohio, 11th
Jones, Walter B., North Carolina, 3rd
Kanjorski, Paul E., Pennsylvania, 11th
Kaptur, Marcy, Ohio, 9th
Keller, Ric, Florida, 8th
Kelly, Sue, New York, 19th
Kennedy, Mark, Minnesota, 6th
Kennedy, Patrick, Rhode Island, 1st
Kildee, Dale, Michigan, 5th
Kilpatrick, Carolyn, Michigan, 13th
Kind, Ron, Wisconsin, 3rd
King, Pete, New York, 3rd
King, Steve, Iowa, 5th
Kingston, Jack, Georgia, 1st
Kirk, Mark, Illinois, 10th
Kline, John, Minnesota, 2nd
Knollenberg, Joseph , Michigan, 9th
Kolbe, Jim, Arizona, 8th
Kucinich, Dennis J., Ohio, 10th
Kuhl Jr., John R. "Randy", New York, 29th
Lahood, Ray, Illinois, 18th
Langevin, Jim, Rhode Island, 2nd
Lantos, Tom, California, 12th
Larsen, Rick, Washington, 2nd
Larson, John B., Connecticut, 1st
Latham, Tom, Iowa, 4th
LaTourette, Steven C., Ohio, 14th
Leach, Jim, Iowa, 2nd
Lee, Barbara, California, 9th
Levin, Sander, Michigan, 12th
Lewis, Jerry, California, 41st
Lewis, John, Georgia, 5th
Lewis, Ron, Kentucky, 2nd
Linder, John, Georgia, 7th
Lipinski, Daniel, Illinois, 3rd
LoBiondo, Frank, New Jersey, 2nd
Lofgren, Zoe, California, 16th
Lowey, Nita, New York, 18th
Lucas, Frank, Oklahoma, 3rd
Lungren, Daniel E., California, 3rd
Lynch, Stephen F., Massachusetts, 9th
Mack, Connie, Florida, 14th
Maloney, Carolyn, New York, 14th
Manzullo, Donald, Illinois, 16th
Marchant, Kenny, Texas, 24th
Markey, Ed, Massachusetts, 7th
Marshall, Jim, Georgia, 3rd
Matheson, Jim, Utah, 2nd
Matsui, Doris O., California, 5th
McCarthy, Carolyn, New York, 4th
McCaul, Michael T., Texas, 10th
McCollum, Betty, Minnesota, 4th
McCotter, Thaddeus, Michigan, 11th
McCrery, Jim, Louisiana, 4th
McDermott, Jim, Washington, 7th
McGovern, James, Massachusetts, 3rd
McHenry, Patrick T., North Carolina, 10th
McHugh, John M., New York, 23rd
McIntyre, Mike, North Carolina, 7th
McKeon, Buck, California, 25th
McKinney, Cynthia, Georgia, 4th
McMorris, Cathy, Washington, 5th
McNulty, Michael R., New York, 21st
Meehan, Marty, Massachusetts, 5th
Meek, Kendrick, Florida, 17th
Meeks, Gregory W., New York, 6th
Melancon, Charlie, Louisiana, 3rd
Menendez, Bob, New Jersey, 13th
Mica, John, Florida, 7th
Michaud, Michael, Maine, 2nd
Millender-McDonald, Juanita, California, 37th
Miller, Brad, North Carolina, 13th
Miller, Candice, Michigan, 10th
Miller, Gary, California, 42nd
Miller, George, California, 7th
Miller, Jeff, Florida, 1st
Mollohan, Alan B., West Virginia, 1st
Moore, Dennis, Kansas, 3rd
Moore, Gwen, Wisconsin, 4th
Moran, Jerry, Kansas, 1st
Moran, Jim, Virginia, 8th
Murphy, Tim, Pennsylvania, 18th
Murtha, John, Pennsylvania, 12th
Musgrave, Marilyn, Colorado, 4th
Myrick, Sue, North Carolina, 9th
Nadler, Jerrold, New York, 8th
Napolitano, Grace, California, 38th
Neal, Richard E., Massachusetts, 2nd
Neugebauer, Randy, Texas, 19th
Ney, Robert W., Ohio, 18th
Northup, Anne, Kentucky, 3rd
Norton, Eleanor Holmes, District of Columbia
Norwood, Charlie, Georgia, 9th
Nunes, Devin, California, 21st
Nussle, Jim, Iowa, 1st
Oberstar, James L., Minnesota, 8th
Obey, David R., Wisconsin, 7th
Olver, John, Massachusetts, 1st
Ortiz, Solomon P., Texas, 27th
Osborne, Tom, Nebraska, 3rd
Otter, Butch, Idaho, 1st
Owens, Major, New York, 11th
Oxley, Michael G., Ohio, 4th
Pallone Jr., Frank, New Jersey, 6th
Pascrell Jr., Bill, New Jersey, 8th
Pastor, Ed , Arizona, 4th
Paul, Ron, Texas, 14th
Payne, Donald M., New Jersey, 10th
Pearce, Steve, New Mexico, 2nd
Pelosi, Nancy, California, 8th
Pence, Mike, Indiana, 6th
Peterson, Collin C., Minnesota, 7th
Peterson, John E., Pennsylvania, 5th
Petri, Thomas, Wisconsin, 6th
Pickering, Charles W. "Chip", Mississippi, 3rd
Pitts, Joseph R., Pennsylvania, 16th
Platts, Todd, Pennsylvania, 19th
Poe, Ted, Texas, 2nd
Pombo, Richard, California, 11th
Pomeroy, Earl, North Dakota, At Large
Porter, Jon, Nevada, 3rd
Portman, Rob, Ohio, 2nd -- Vacancy
Price, David, North Carolina, 4th
Price, Tom, Georgia, 6th
Pryce, Deborah, Ohio, 15th
Putnam, Adam, Florida, 12th
Radanovich, George P., California, 19th
Rahall, Nick, West Virginia, 3rd
Ramstad, Jim, Minnesota, 3rd
Rangel, Charles B., New York, 15th
Regula, Ralph, Ohio, 16th
Rehberg, Dennis, Montana, At Large
Reichert, David G., Washington, 8th
Renzi, Rick, Arizona, 1st
Reyes, Silvestre, Texas, 16th
Reynolds, Thomas M., New York, 26th
Rogers, Harold, Kentucky, 5th
Rogers, Mike, Alabama, 3rd
Rogers, Mike, Michigan, 8th
Rohrabacher, Dana, California, 46th
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana, Florida, 18th
Ross, Mike, Arkansas, 4th
Rothman, Steven, New Jersey, 9th
Roybal-Allard, Lucille, California, 34th
Royce, Ed, California, 40th
Ruppersberger, Dutch, Maryland, 2nd
Rush, Bobby L., Illinois, 1st
Ryan, Paul, Wisconsin, 1st
Ryan, Tim, Ohio, 17th
Ryun, Jim, Kansas, 2nd
Sabo, Martin Olav, Minnesota, 5th
Salazar, John T., Colorado, 3rd
Sanchez, Linda, California, 39th
Sanchez, Loretta, California, 47th
Sanders, Bernie, Vermont, At Large
Saxton, Jim, New Jersey, 3rd
Schakowsky, Jan, Illinois, 9th
Schiff, Adam, California, 29th
Schwartz, Allyson L., Pennsylvania, 13th
Schwarz, John J.H. "Joe", Michigan, 7th
Scott, David, Georgia, 13th
Scott, Robert C. "Bobby", Virginia, 3rd
Sensenbrenner, F. James, Wisconsin, 5th
Sessions, Pete, Texas, 32nd
Serrano, José E., New York, 16th
Shadegg, John, Arizona, 3rd
Shaw Jr., E. Clay , Florida, 22nd
Shays, Christopher, Connecticut, 4th
Sherman, Brad, California, 27th
Sherwood, Don, Pennsylvania, 10th
Shimkus, John, Illinois, 19th
Shuster, Bill, Pennsylvania, 9th
Simmons, Rob, Connecticut, 2nd
Simpson, Mike, Idaho, 2nd
Skelton, Ike, Missouri, 4th
Slaughter, Louise, New York, 28th
Smith, Adam, Washington, 9th
Smith, Chris, New Jersey, 4th
Smith, Lamar, Texas, 21st
Snyder, Vic, Arkansas, 2nd
Sodrel, Michael E., Indiana, 9th
Solis, Hilda, California, 32nd
Souder, Mark E., Indiana, 3rd
Spratt, John, South Carolina, 5th
Stark, Fortney Pete, California, 13th
Stearns, Cliff, Florida, 6th
Strickland, Ted, Ohio, 6th
Stupak, Bart, Michigan, 1st
Sullivan, John, Oklahoma, 1st
Sweeney, John E., New York, 20th
Tancredo, Tom, Colorado, 6th
Tanner, John, Tennessee, 8th
Tauscher, Ellen, California, 10th
Taylor, Charles H., North Carolina, 11th
Taylor, Gene, Mississippi, 4th
Terry, Lee, Nebraska, 2nd
Thomas, Bill, California, 22nd
Thompson, Bennie G., Mississippi, 2nd
Thompson, Mike, California, 1st
Thornberry, Mac, Texas, 13th
Tiahrt, Todd, Kansas, 4th
Tiberi, Pat, Ohio, 12th
Tierney, John, Massachusetts, 6th
Towns, Edolphus, New York, 10th
Turner, Michael, Ohio, 3rd
Udall, Mark, Colorado, 2nd
Udall, Tom, New Mexico, 3rd
Upton, Fred, Michigan, 6th
Van Hollen, Chris, Maryland, 8th
Velázquez, Nydia M., New York, 12th
Visclosky, Peter, Indiana, 1st
Walden, Greg, Oregon, 2nd
Walsh, Jim, New York, 25th
Wamp, Zach, Tennessee, 3rd
Wasserman Schultz, Debbie, Florida, 20th
Waters, Maxine, California, 35th
Watson, Diane E., California, 33rd
Watt, Mel, North Carolina, 12th
Waxman, Henry, California, 30th
Weiner, Anthony D., New York, 9th
Weldon, Curt, Pennsylvania, 7th
Weldon, Dave, Florida, 15th
Weller, Jerry, Illinois, 11th
Westmoreland, Lynn A., Georgia, 8th
Wexler, Robert, Florida, 19th
Whitfield, Ed, Kentucky, 1st
Wicker, Roger, Mississippi, 1st
Wilson, Heather, New Mexico, 1st
Wilson, Joe, South Carolina, 2nd
Wolf, Frank, Virginia, 10th
Woolsey, Lynn, California, 6th
Wu, David, Oregon, 1st
Wynn, Albert, Maryland, 4th
Young, C.W. Bill, Florida, 10th
Young, Don, Alaska, At Large
<
> PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATORS
> Senators:
Armstrong , Gibson E. (R) - District 13
Boscola , Lisa M. (D) - District 18
Brightbill , David J. (R) - District 48
Browne , Patrick M. (R) - District 16
Conti , Joe (R) - District 10
Corman , Jake (R) - District 34
Costa Jr. , Jay (D) - District 43
Earll , Jane M. (R) - District 49
Erickson , Edwin B. (R) - District 26
Ferlo , Jim (D) - District 38
Fontana , Wayne D. (D) - District 42
Fumo , Vincent J. (D) - District 1
Gordner , John R. (R) - District 27
Greenleaf , Stewart J. (R) - District 12
Hughes , Vincent J. (D) - District 7
Jubelirer , Robert C. (R) - District 30
Kasunic , Richard A. (D) - District 32
Kitchen , Shirley M. (D) - District 3
LaValle , Gerald J. (D) - District 47
Lemmond , Charles D. (R) - District 20
Logan , Sean (D) - District 45
Madigan , Roger A. (R) - District 23
Mellow , Robert J. (D) - District 22
Musto , Raphael J. (D) - District 14
O'Pake , Michael A. (D) - District 11
Orie , Jane Clare (R) - District 40
Piccola , Jeffrey E. (R) - District 15
Pileggi , Dominic F. (R) - District 9
Pippy , John R. (R) - District 37
Punt , Terry L. (R) - District 33
Rafferty, Jr. , John C. (R) - District 44
Regola , Bob (R) - District 39
Rhoades , James J. (R) - District 29
Robbins , Robert D. (R) - District 50
Scarnati , Joseph B. (R) - District 25
Stack , Michael J. (D) - District 5
Stout , J. Barry (D) - District 46
Tartaglione , Christine M. (D) - District 2
Thompson , Robert J. (R) - District 19
Tomlinson , Robert M. (R) - District 6
Vance , Patricia H (R) - District 31
Washington , LeAnna M. (D) - District 4
Waugh , Michael L. (R) - District 28
Wenger , Noah W. (R) - District 36
White , Donald C. (R) - District 41
White , Mary Jo (R) - District 21
Williams , Anthony H. (D) - District 8
Williams , Constance H. (D) - District 17
Wonderling , Robert C. (R) - District 24
Wozniak , John N. (D) - District 35
> House of Representatives
Adolph, Jr., William F. (R) - District 165
Allen, Bob (R) - District 125
Argall, David G. (R) - District 124
Armstrong, Gibson C. (R) - District 100
Baker, Matthew E. (R) - District 68
Baldwin, Roy E. (R) - District 97
Barrar, Stephen E. (R) - District 160
Bastian, Bob (R) - District 69
Bebko-Jones, Linda (D) - District 1
Belardi, Fred (D) - District 112
Belfanti, Jr., Robert E. (D) - District 107
Benninghoff, Kerry A. (R) - District 171
Biancucci, Vincent A. (D) - District 15
Birmelin, Jerry (R) - District 139
Bishop, Louise Williams (D) - District 192
Blackwell, IV, Thomas W. (D) - District 190
Blaum, Kevin (D) - District 121
Boyd, Scott W. (R) - District 43
Bunt, Jr., Raymond (R) - District 147
Butkovitz, Alan L. (D) - District 174
Buxton, Ronald I. (D) - District 103
Caltagirone, Thomas R. (D) - District 127
Cappelli, Steven W. (R) - District 83
Casorio, Jr., James E. (D) - District 56
Causer, Martin T. (R) - District 67
Cawley, Gaynor (D) - District 113
Civera, Jr., Mario J. (R) - District 164
Clymer, Paul I. (R) - District 145
Cohen, Mark B. (D) - District 202
Cornell, Susan E. (R) - District 152
Corrigan, Sr., Thomas C. (D) - District 140
Costa, Paul (D) - District 34
Crahalla, Jacqueline R. (R) - District 150
Creighton, Thomas C. (R) - District 37
Cruz, Angel (D) - District 180
Curry, Lawrence H. (D) - District 154
Daley, II, Peter J. (D) - District 49
Dally, Craig A. (R) - District 138
DeLuca, Anthony M. (D) - District 32
Denlinger, Gordon (R) - District 99
Dermody, Frank (D) - District 33
DeWeese, H. William (D) - District 50
DiGirolamo, Gene (R) - District 18
Diven, Michael (R) - District 22
Donatucci, Robert C. (D) - District 185
Eachus, Todd A. (D) - District 116
Ellis, Brian L. (R) - District 11
Evans, John R. (R) - District 5
Evans, Dwight (D) - District 203
Fabrizio, Florindo J. (D) - District 2
Fairchild, Russell H. (R) - District 85
Feese, Brett (R) - District 84
Fichter, John W. (R) - District 70
Fleagle, Patrick Elvin (R) - District 90
Flick, Robert J. (R) - District 167
Forcier, Teresa (R) - District 6
Frankel, Dan B. (D) - District 23
Freeman, Robert L. (D) - District 136
Gabig, William I. (R) - District 199
Gannon, Thomas P. (R) - District 161
Geist, Richard Allen (R) - District 79
George, Camille (D) - District 74
Gerber, Michael (D) - District 148
Gergely, Marc J. (D) - District 35
Gillespie, Keith J. (R) - District 47
Gingrich, Mauree A. (R) - District 101
Godshall, Robert W. (R) - District 53
Good, Matthew (R) - District 3
Goodman, Neal P. (D) - District 123
Grell, Glen R. (R) - District 87
Grucela, Richard T. (D) - District 137
Gruitza, Michael C. (D) - District 7
Habay, Jeffrey Earl (R) - District 30
Haluska, Gary (D) - District 73
Hanna, Michael K. (D) - District 76
Harhai, R. Ted (D) - District 58
Harhart, Julie (R) - District 183
Harper, Kate (R) - District 61
Harris, Adam (R) - District 82
Hasay, George
Hennessey, Tim (R) - District 26
Herman, Lynn B. (R) - District 77
Hershey, Arthur D. (R) - District 13
Hess, Dick Lee (R) - District 78
Hickernell, David S. (R) - District 98
Hutchinson, Scott E. (R) - District 64
James, Harold (D) - District 186
Josephs, Babette (D) - District 182
Kauffman, Rob (R) - District 89
Keller, Mark K. (R) - District 86
Keller, William F. (D) - District 184
Kenney, Jr., George T. (R) - District 170
Killion, Tom H. (R) - District 168
Kirkland, Thaddeus (D) - District 159
Kotik, Nick (D) - District 45
LaGrotta, Frank (D) - District 10
Leach, Daylin (D) - District 149
Lederer, Marie A. (D) - District 175
Leh, Dennis E. (R) - District 130
Lescovitz, Victor John (D) - District 46
Levdansky, David K. (D) - District 39
Mackereth, Beverly (R) - District 196
Maher, John A. (R) - District 40
Maitland, Stephen R. (R) - District 91
Major, Sandra J. (R) - District 111
Manderino, Kathy M. (D) - District 194
Mann, Jennifer L. (D) - District 132
Markosek, Joseph F. (D) - District 25
Marsico, Ronald S. (R) - District 105
McCall, Keith R. (D) - District 122
McGeehan, Michael P. (D) - District 173
McGill, Eugene F. (R) - District 151
McIlhattan, Fred (R) - District 63
McIlhinney, Jr., Charles T. (R) - District 143
McNaughton, Mark S. (R) - District 104
Melio, Anthony J. (D) - District 141
Metcalfe, Daryl D. (R) - District 12
Micozzie, Nicholas A. (R) - District 163
Millard, David (R) - District 109
Miller, Ronald E. (R) - District 93
Miller, Sheila (R) - District 129
Mundy, Phyllis (D) - District 120
Mustio, T. Mark (R) - District 44
Myers, John (D) - District 201
Nailor, Jerry L. (R) - District 88
Nickol, Steven R. (R) - District 193
O'Brien, Dennis M. (R) - District 169
O'Neill, Bernard T. (R) - District 29
Oliver, Frank L. (D) - District 195
Pallone, John E. (D) - District 54
Payne, John D. (R) - District 106
Perzel, John Michael (R) - District 172
Petrarca, Joseph A. (D) - District 55
Petri, Scott A. (R) - District 178
Petrone, Thomas C. (D) - District 27
Phillips, Merle H. (R) - District 108
Pickett, Tina (R) - District 110
Pistella, Frank J. (D) - District 21
Preston, Jr. , Joseph (D) - District 24
Pyle, Jeffrey P. (R) - District 60
Quigley, Thomas J. (R) - District 146
Ramaley, Sean M. (D) - District 16
Rapp, Kathy L. (R) - District 65
Raymond, Ron (R) - District 162
Readshaw, Harry A. (D) - District 36
Reed, Dave (R) - District 62
Reichley, Douglas G. (R) - District 134
Rieger, William W. (D) - District 179
Roberts, Lawrence (D) - District 51
Roebuck, Jr., James R. (D) - District 188
Rohrer, Samuel E. (R) - District 128
Rooney, T.J. (D) - District 133
Ross, Chris (R) - District 158
Rubley, Carole A. (R) - District 157
Ruffing, Kenneth W. (D) - District 38
Sainato, Chris (D) - District 9
Samuelson, Steve (D) - District 135
Santoni, Jr., Dante (D) - District 126
Sather, Larry O. (R) - District 81
Saylor, Stanley E. (R) - District 94
Scavello, Mario M. (R) - District 176
Schroder, Curt (R) - District 155
Semmel, Paul W. (R) - District 187
Shaner, James E. (D) - District 52
Shapiro, Josh (D) - District 153
Siptroth, John (D) - District 189
Smith, Samuel H. (R) - District 66
Smith, Bruce (R) - District 92
Solobay, Timothy J. (D) - District 48
Sonney, Curtis G. (R) - District 4
Staback, Edward G. (D) - District 115
Stairs, Jess M. (R) - District 59
Steil, David J. (R) - District 31
Stern, Jerry A. (R) - District 80
Stetler, Stephen H. (D) - District 95
Stevenson, Richard R. (R) - District 8
Stevenson, Thomas L. (R) - District 42
Sturla, P. Michael (D) - District 96
Surra, Dan A. (D) - District 75
Tangretti, Thomas A. (D) - District 57
Taylor, Elinor Z. (R) - District 156
Taylor, John J. (R) - District 177
Thomas, W. Curtis (D) - District 181
Tigue, Thomas M. (D) - District 118
True, Katie (R) - District 41
Turzai, Mike (R) - District 28
Veon, Michael R. (D) - District 14
Vitali, Greg S. (D) - District 166
Walko, Don (D) - District 20
Wansacz, Jim (D) - District 114
Waters, Ronald G. (D) - District 191
Watson, Katharine M. (R) - District 144
Wheatley, Jr., Jake (D) - District 19
Williams, Jewell (D) - District 197
Wilt, Rod E. (R) - District 17
Wojnaroski, Sr., Edward P. (D) - District 71
Wright, Matthew N. (R) - District 142
Yewcic, Thomas F. (D) - District 72
Youngblood, Rosita C. (D) - District 198
Yudichak, John T. (D) - District 119

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 26 2006 5:17 pm
From: "Liberal Ass Kicker"

Hey I totally agree with your weird rambling, posting of links to image
files, and strange list of a bunch of politicans!!

Even thought your post makes no sense, I get the point. Evolution is a
joke!

Ask any scientist in the world to proven that evolution is true and
know what they will tell you? "I can't prove it, it's just a theory."

EXACTLY!!!!

Checkmate.

-----------------------------------
Liberal Ass Kicker
www.liberalsmustdie.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: BLOOD AND GORE OF "SWARMER"
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/a0949fc51b705622
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 27 2006 12:57 am
From: "Salah Jafar"

I did not fuck you mama yet. So don't call me names until your mother give you her evolution of my cock.
SJ

==============================================================================
TOPIC: MURDERER FREE, INNOCENTS ROT IN JAIL!
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/d7d9c526ac3af31d
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 27 2006 1:01 am
From: "Salah Jafar"

We know you IQ Jim it is below 60, I know why Hitler was about to cleanse your ass.
SJ

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 27 2006 1:03 am
From: "Salah Jafar"

Jew are the foundation of every known dog humanity knows.
SJ

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 27 2006 1:05 am
From: "Salah Jafar"

Do you know what dexterity mean?, come osculate this cock since you have the dexterity.

SJ

==============================================================================
TOPIC: RABBI IMPRISONED VIEWING SEXUALLY EXPLICIT IMAGES
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/7be167cab0a0417e
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 27 2006 1:07 am
From: usenet@mantra.com2m0 or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)

Former rabbi sentenced for viewing sexually explicit images

The Associated Press
KVOA, Tucson
Sunday, March 26, 2006

Prescott, Ariz. - A former rabbi was sentenced to more
than a dozen years in prison for viewing sexually
explicit images of young children on his computer.

Fifty-six-year-old former Rabbi David Lipman received a
13-and-a-half-year sentence for one charge of sexual
exploitation of a minor and lifetime probation for three
counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor. He
also has to register as a sex offender.

The charges stem from images that the police downloaded
from Lipman's computer while he worked at a temple in
Prescott.

He also faces 16 counts of child molestation and sexual
abuse charges in an investigation that involves two
teenage girls.

At Lipman's sentencing on Friday, Yavapai County Superior
Court Judge William Kiger said Lipman violated his
position of trust.

Lipman says he takes responsibility for his actions and
he hopes he'll be able to overcome his sexual
distortions.

More at:
http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=4681538&nav=HMO6

Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/a5ljc
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: immortality4
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/16624f2a7c8d6037
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 26 2006 5:18 pm
From: "gubernacullum"

hello noone.

neither, i suspect, would aliens have ethical problems with eating you
for food.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What makes a religion valid?
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/692fbde3edebb694
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 26 2006 5:18 pm
From: "*Anarcissie*"

Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> ...
> We do not all wear baseball caps and watch American football and eat
> hot dogs, while thumping our chests and loudly and proudly proclaiming
> that our way is the *only* way on the planet.

Oh, _baseball_hats_! We musn't mention Americans without
_baseball_hats_! But wait a minute: the subject wasn't about
Americans at all. How did _they_ creep in?

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "soc.culture.usa"
group.

To post to this group, send email to soc.culture.usa@googlegroups.com or visit
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to soc.culture.usa-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/subscribe

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com