Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

bin Laden tried to kill cokeheads

From Drudge:

PAPER: Bin Laden Had Plan To Sell Poisoned Cocaine To Americans In 2002
Tue Jul 26 2005 09:43:35 ET

Osama bin Laden tried to buy a massive amount of cocaine, spike it with poison and sell it in the United States, hoping to kill thousands of Americans one year after the 9/11 attacks, the NEW YORK POST reported on Tuesday.

The evil plot failed when the Colombian drug lords bin Laden approached decided it would be bad for their business – and, possibly, for their own health, according to law-enforcement sources familiar with the Drug Enforcement Administration’s probe of the aborted transaction.

The feds were told of the scheme earlier this year, but its existence had never been made public.

The Post has reviewed a document detailing the DEA’s findings in the matter, in addition to interviewing sources familiar with the case.

Damn, imagine the boredom that would have resulted from that. I mean, with half of Hollywood and the music industry wiped out, just what in the hell would the rest of us have done for entertainment?

July 26, 2005 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

"The Smell of Fear"

Absolutely the best piece I’ve ever read about Islamic terrorism. PLEASE read it (it’s not very long). Link to story here, excerpt follows:

The ultimate targets of the London bombings were not, of course, human beings. Rather, they were a set of governmental policies that the terrorists hoped to change by separating political leaders from the support of their shaken citizenry. Despite this distinction, however, the underlying psychological principles involved in investigating such crimes remain the same as they would were we studying a mass- or serial-murder case, of which terrorists are in many respects the politicized version. Is this to say that the four young men suspected of being the instruments of terror on this occasion can be classified as clinical sociopaths? We will likely be unable to answer that question with certainty, now that they are dead. What we can focus on, however, are the motivations and perversities of the vastly more dangerous Islamist clerics and terrorist organizers who sought out youthful pawns and instilled in them a theology of murder.

Many political analysts have long been anxious to exclude terrorists from psychological profiling. Some fear that such scrutiny undermines the rationalization that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” (as indeed it does – just ask Reuters – ed.), while others worry that focus on the mental pathologies of terrorists will detract from whatever legitimacy their causes may hold–just as the psychosis of Hitler overshadowed Germany’s grievances about excessive war reparations. But Hitler did not redress injustices against his nation, he prostituted them to his megalomaniacal visions. In the same way, the preachers of Islamist terror are less interested in securing prosperity and dignity for their peoples than they are in finding new communities of human instruments that they can enlist in their demented campaign to turn History’s clock back.

The article also gives examples at how trying to negotiate with terrorists, such as Spain’s election of an anti-war socialist so as not to further piss off the terrorists that had just killed a bunch of their citizens, has always backfired. In short, it shoots to hell this notion that terrorists have a grievance that, if assuaged, would just make them start playing more nicely with those of us in the civilized world.

“Sociopaths revel most in assaulting terrified, submissive victims.” If Howard Dean and the MoveOn moonbats had their way, we would be said submissives.

July 26, 2005 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hubbub over Roberts’ involvement with the Federalist Society

OK, I admit that I’m not fully aware of the activities of the Federal Society (of which it has been alleged, in a disparaging context, that SCOTUS Justice John Roberts was a member). I went to their web site, which obviously will shine themselves in the brightest light. Here’s what I found:

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.

The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, and law professors.

In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.

At first blush, it seems like an admirable organization. I dug deeper into the site, and I didn’t read anything that caused me undue alarm or stress. Quite the opposite.

So why is it a big deal if Roberts is, was, or has ever been a member? Roberts says he wasn’t, but if he was, why doesn’t he just say so? Is he afraid that the Senate Democrats and their allies in the MSM will paint him as some kind of extremist? If so, he’s worrying over nothing. I doubt seriously that he has to worry about being Borked.

I do see why the left would flip out like Ted Kennedy upon hearing the words “Last call!” Look at the emphasized words above. Those words are anathema to liberal politicians, the MoveOn crowd, etc. Neal Boortz sums it up best:

Remember, we are supposed to be at war against individualism in this country … Ted Kennedy told us so! So if we have a Supreme Court nominee who is a member of an organization that not only supports the idea of individualism, but that believes that individual citizens can make better choices for themselves then can government … why, that’s just about as close to blasphemy as you can get … for a liberal! People just have to understand that government is there to relieve them of the oppressive responsibilities that go with actually go with being a practicing individual! Everybody knows that individuals should not try to make important decisions and chooses for themselves … this crucial task should be left to government!

Clearly, not all liberals feel this way…but a vocal chunk do.

If anyone knows what’s wrong with the Federalist Society (do they advocate women not working, stay home barefoot and pregnant while the menfolk bring home the bacon, etc.?), feel free to post what you know or have heard. Admittedly, I know only what they have on their web site.

July 26, 2005 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment