Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in New York this last weekend for his whirlwind tour. He was at Columbia University Monday.

This is a state sponsor of terrorism, a man who has sworn the destruction of the United States and Israel a number of times, and the people at Columbia think they are opening themselves up to ideas, and, “We must listen to what these people think. We must listen to their ideas for us.” These are basically liberals who hate this country or find great deficiencies in this country, and they embrace totalitarian dictators and our enemies as though they have all the answers. Of course, this president of Columbia is nothing more than a dupe.

You know, they talk about free speech. Remember what happened to the Minutemen, the anti-illegal immigration group? They got booed off the stage by the students, and nobody did anything about it. They’re not interested in ideas there. They hate George W. Bush.

“They’re really worried that the whole world hates us. They’re so scared that we’ve lost our reputation in the world,that they hope by opening their arms to this thug Ahmadinejad that he will end up liking us more and pose less of a threat.” I know how these people think. Now, Ahmadinejad was on 60 Minutes Sunday, Pelley flew over to Tehran last Thursday to interview him.

The first question: “President Bush has pledged that you will not be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon and will use military force if necessary.”

AHMADINEJAD (via translator): I think Mr. Bush, if he wants his party to win the next elections, there are cheaper ways…and ways to go about this. I can very well give him a few ideas so that the people vote for him. He should respect the American people. They should not bug the telephone conversations of their citizens. They should not kill their sons and daughters of the American nation. They should not squander the taxpayers’ money and give them to weapons companies. If — and also help the people, the victims of Katrina. People will vote for them, if they do these things.

He’s by basically reciting the Democrat Party platform! This guy could keynote the 2008 Democrat National Convention after he finishes at Columbia. He’s reciting the Democrat Party platform? Katrina? He was actually praising, the ’06 election results. He said he was encouraged! Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was encouraged by the ’06 election results.

PELLEY: “When I ask you a question as direct as ‘Will you pledge not to test a nuclear weapon?’ you act…you dance all around the question. You never say ‘yes,’ you never say ‘no.'”

AHMADINEJAD (via translator): Well, thank you for that. You are like a CIA investigator and —

PELLEY: I’m just a reporter!

AHMADINEJAD (via translator): (giggling)

PELLEY: I am a simple, average American reporter.

AHMADINEJAD (via translator): This is not Guantanamo Bay. This is not a Baghdad prison. This is not a secret prison in Europe. This is not Abu Ghraib. This is Iran! I am the president of this country!

He is regurgitating Democrat Party talking points — not “liberal” talking points. He is reciting what he has heard said on the floor of the United States Senate by people like Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and people like Harry Reid — and over in the House, Nancy Pelosi. If I were an elected official of this country and somebody like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a state sponsor of terror, starts mimicking and reciting my talking points — personally, I get mad and embarrassed. I don’t know that the Democrats have that ability to be embarrassed by this. I sit here and marvel at the similarity.

Forget the Democrats. What about the American people who saw this, who pay attention? Did they not recognize that one of our sworn enemies is reciting Democrat Party talking points in an effort to try to sway the American people? He’s basically, Ahmadinejad is, saying to these people in the audience, “Hey, I’m no different than your average Democrat, and we’re very encouraged by the election results in ’06.”

This ought to be shameful. This should be embarrassing these people all to hell, but I guarantee you it’s not. It’s making them proud, probably making them happy. Because the focal point of all this is they hate Bush, and anybody else who hates Bush is on the same page.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The liberals refute it with, “He’s got a right. What about the right to free speech?” There’s no obligation for Columbia to invite him to speak.

Nobody is under any obligation to invite him to speak, and nobody — including Ahmadinejad, nobody — in this country has the right to be heard. Everybody confuses the right to free speech with the right to be heard. There’s no such thing. You have to earn the right to be heard. This guy doesn’t have the right to be heard by anybody.

He’s been invited to the United Nations. That’s a different thing, but it’s going to be the same diatribe.

Of course, the liberals are out there saying, “Well, we’re going to ask him the tough questions.”

Really?

They say…”I’m helping to preserve and provoke this continued partisan divide in this country, because all you do is talk about liberals.” “You know what? We’ve gotta get rid of the partisanship. There’s too much of this blue and red divide out there. We’ve gotta start bringing people together.”

Get along with them? Anybody heard of the new tone? Who among you thinks we can get along with them? I mean, you can get along with them civilly, one on one in a lot of places, but when you boil it all down, we’ve always had these arguments about what’s best for the country, what we need to preserve about the country, how best to do that — and those arguments are never going to go away unless one side cedes. Now, I am fully willing to talk to people on the left to try to persuade ’em. But the idea that I somehow should tone it down or stop focusing on and reminding people about liberals so much is intriguing to me, because that, to me, is a recipe for our defeat.

They want to control as much of your individual life as they can. What do you think that’s about, getting along with you? They have contempt for the average American. You’re not smart enough to do anything on your own, and when you exhibit the ability to be smart enough to do anything on your own, you genuinely don’t vote for them, and that’s a threat, so they gotta stop that somehow!

George W. Bush has reached out more times than anybody I can think of, and what has it gotten him? Pure, unadulterated hatred.

Is it a coincidence, for example, that they both recite the Democrat Party platform? Is it a coincidence that they recite the Democrat Party talking points from both the floor of the House of Representatives, the floor of the US Senate, and many of the major American newspaper editorials? Is it a coincidence that you can’t tell the difference between Ahmadinejad, Bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Harry Reid, take your pick, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha? Is it any coincidence that both Ahmadinejad and Bin Laden talk about Abu Ghraib and Hurricane Katrina and Club Gitmo, and they both cite the election results in ’06 and say that they were encouraged? Is it a coincidence? It cannot be, ladies and gentlemen. It cannot be a coincidence. Why, then, do both Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad obsess on this country’s political systems and send messages in their speeches for America to follow the course of Democrats?

I’m getting tired of the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger and all these other people involved in this patting themselves on the back, talking about how brave they are, how courageous they are to extend this controversial invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr. Bollinger and all of you new castrati at Columbia University, and at Harvard, and at Yale, wherever you are found in academe, let me tell you the truth. It doesn’t really take much courage to speak in this country. You know where it does take a lot of courage to speak, Mr. Bollinger?

Iran.

JUST SHOVE YOUR WREATH

CITY TO IRAN PREZ: STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM GROUND ZERO

By MURRAY WEISS and DAVID SEIFMAN in New York and GEOFF EARLE in Washington

NO DOGS ALLOWED: New York politicians said just the thought of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad setting foot on…

“do us all a favor and go live in Iran where you won’t find one for miles you scum bags” Rick – if you bothered to check some facts before making sweeping statements you would find Iran has over 25,000 Jews (I believe the most in the Middle East…
posted by Mark

September 20, 2007 — That was the response when the Iranian Mission to the United Nations asked city, state and federal officials if Holocaust-denying Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could lay a wreath at Ground Zero during his visit next week.

At a Sept. 6 meeting with the NYPD, Secret Service and Port Authority — five days before this year’s emotional 9/11 ceremony – the Iranian Mission was told no one is allowed in the pit because it’s a live construction site and dangerous.

Giuliani: It’s war if Tehranis get bomb

Post Opinion: A’jad’s Obscene ‘Respects’

Post Column: A Monster With Chutzpah

As for Ahmadinejad, who is arriving Sunday to address the U.N. General Assembly, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, says his country is giving “lethal” support to Iraqi militias.

Speaking yesterday in London, Petraeus said evidence shows the Axis of Evil member, which sponsors Hezbollah, listed by the State Department as a terrorist group, is training militias and giving them weapons – including rockets and especially deadly improvised explosive devices that have killed many American troops.

According to recent reports, EFPs – explosively formed penetrators – accounted for 18 percent of U.S. and allied troops’ combat deaths in Iraq in the last quarter of 2006. And intelligence reports point to Iran’s role in providing them.

But for a few hours yesterday, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly had City Hall and civic and religious leaders reeling with his remarks that talks were under way on a possible Ahmadinejad visit.

“They have expressed an interest in having the president do that [visit Ground Zero],” Kelly said at a news conference. “We are engaging in conversation with them right now as to that possibility. . . It is something we are prepared to handle if, in fact, it does happen.”

In a terse clarification hours later, Kelly spokesman Paul Browne set the record straight.

———————————–

So Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he wants to go visit Ground Zero, lay a wreath down there. And this idiot mayor, Bloomberg: “Oh, yeah, I’ll be glad to escort you down there. NYPD will be glad to take you,” in a giant appeasement move, and a firestorm erupted.

They said, “No way, he is not going down there escorted by NYPD, Secret Service, or anybody else. He’s not going down there.” Then Columbia University got in on the act! “Well, we can’t have a great leader like this disrespected, so we want him to come speak to our students at Columbia University.” He’s going to do that.

Then Ahmadinejad says, “Screw it. I’m going to Ground Zero anyway, whether you take me or not.” Why don’t they just have Ahmadinejad do a joint address at Congress? If he’s going to go to Columbia University… I mean, he’s an enemy of Bush and he’s a friend of the Democrats, right? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Right?

Just check’n. Still waiting for something formal from Nancy P. and Harry R.

Nothing yet.

All right, folks, you gotta hear this. It takes a blogger with a video camera to ask Jack Murtha the questions that the Media will not. This is a courtesy of HotAir.com. On Capitol Hill Wednesday, the Young America’s Foundation’s Jason Mattera had this exchange with Jack Murtha about the Haditha trial.

JASON MATTERA: Congressman Murtha? Jason Mattera, Young America’s Foundation. Now that the murder charges against Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt and Steven Tatum have been dropped in the Haditha incident or are in the process of being dropped, would you like to issue an apology for saying that they “killed innocent civilians in cold blood”?

MURTHA: The trial is still going on.

JASON MATTERA: Justin Sharratt and Steven Tatum, the two men you accused of murdering innocent civilians in cold blood —

MURTHA: The trial is still going on.

JASON MATTERA: No. No, the charges are in the process of being dismissed.

MURTHA: I don’t know what’s going on.

JASON MATTERA: They’re in the process of being dismissed.

MURTHA: Out! Out!

JASON MATTERA: Do you like besmirching our troops, sir? Do you like besmirching our troops, sir?

MURTHA: You been in the service? I enlisted in Korea, and I enlisted in Vietnam.

JASON MATTERA: Sir, you accused them of murdering innocent civilians in cold blood. That’s something that would come from Al Jazeera, not a congressman, sir.

That’s Jason Mattera. He is from the Young America’s Foundation, and that was from the HotAir.com blog which is Michelle Malkin’s.

So Murtha said, “I served in Vietnam. You been in the service? I enlisted in Korea. I enlisted in Vietnam.”“If pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq results in ‘a bloodbath,‘ the I have another Murtha story. This is from Wednesday: guilt will rest with the Iraqi peopleand not with the U.S. Congress, according to Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) … ‘Many have threatened that there will be chaos, a bloodbath, when the United States redeploys from Iraq, and this in fact may be the case,’ Murtha said in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Monday. ‘If they continue to choose to spill blood, it will not be on the conscience of the United States.’ Murtha said ethnic violence in Iraq would be ‘a continuation of decades of its own conflicts, which they and they alone can solve.’

“‘The fact that Rep. Murtha acknowledged that leaving Iraq in chaos would lead to genocide but then says it wouldn’t be our fault is striking,’ Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio)…”

So, a post-withdrawal bloodbath would not be Congress’s fault, according to Jack Murtha. These guys want no responsibility for any chaos or sheer hell that they have caused or will cause.

Resource:

Typical Associated Press headline:
“‘Unemployment Claims Make Surprise Drop.’ The number of laid-off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits fell to the lowest level in seven weeks, an unexpected sign of improvement for the jobs market.” Unexpected to whom? The Media… The Dems… , every time we get good economic news, they have to say that their experts were stunned by it or that the news was unexpected.

Am I the only one that notice this? Sorry guys, its not the next ‘Great Depression’ or the ‘End of the World’.not everything sucks. Hell, go figure…

Resource:

‘Unemployment Claims Make Surprise Drop’

There’s no such thing.

You can go to the Constitution, go to First Amendment, and freedom of religion is the first thing that’s mentioned. And it just says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” That seals us against the fear of a state church. That’s it. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Now, the key here is coercion, which I will get to in a moment.

But in that First Amendment, there’s no separation clause there.

This phrase, separation of church and state, comes from Thomas Jefferson’s letter. He wrote it on January 1st, 1802, to the Danbury Baptist Association. He used the phrase, “a wall of separation between church and state” to describe what the First Amendment had accomplished so that these Baptists didn’t need to fear state governments’ declarations of days of prayer and fasting, as abridging their religious rights. They didn’t have to fear it because nothing could be done to them. The First Amendment protects religious expression even by individuals in government, and even in public halls and government buildings. Jefferson solidified this by concluding his letter with a reference to the common father and creator of man. Now, this letter ended up being seized on in 1947 by the Supreme Court, in a case called Emerson vs. Board of Education. The Supreme Court in ’47 asserted that separation of church and state is mandated by the Constitution. That was a complete misstatement of Jefferson’s record, to seize a single letter and to ignore the rest of his record and to take that whole phrase, a wall of separation, out of the context of the letter that Jefferson wrote.

Now, as an aside, ladies and gentlemen, Thomas Jefferson was not at the constitutional convention. He was representing our country in France. He was investigating Bordeaux. He didn’t vote on the Constitution. He was a deist, not an atheist. In other words, he believed in a supreme being, but not a supreme being who intercedes simply because someone prays and asks him to. But without getting into all that, the point is that Jefferson was not hostile to religion, his record is not one of banishing it from the public square, at all. So this is something that’s been taken totally out of context, purposefully by liberals, teachers, and so forth, who have a great fear of religion.

Liberalism can be defined in many ways, and one of the ways you can define it is, it has no meaning beyond itself. Everything’s about them. They are the center of their universe, individually and collectively. They do not have any sense that there’s something bigger than they are. They have never learned that there are things in life that are more important than they are. They’re hostile to religion. They’re hostile to God because that gives people meaning. You can have everything in the world you want; you can go out and achieve everything you want, and still people have empty lives who have achieved all those things. Those things do not provide happiness and a sense of meaning in life. We’re all searching for meaning, but liberals aren’t.

They think they’ve found it in themselves. So when they are confronted with people who know that there are many things larger than themselves individually, and have faith in a God, that is a huge threat, because liberals want themselves to be looked at that way and their government that they run looked at that way. So you have these liberals who take the Supreme Court decision and they run with it, and they use it and point at it, and say, “See? See? This country is not about Christians; it’s not about God; it’s not about anything. You can’t put the nativity scene in my town at Christmastime, because that’s a violation of the First amendment.” It is not, because nobody’s being coerced. You put the nativity scene up, fine and dandy. Nobody has to go watch it; nobody has to understand it; nobody has to go on and pay devotion to it; nobody has to be anything.

Without coercion, there cannot be any forcing by government, local, state, federal, whatever, of religion on anybody. But people get offended — and why do they get offended? It’s not because they hate nativity scenes. It’s larger than that. They get offended because the nativity scene, or any other such expression, represents a threat to the world view they have that they are the center of the universe. They are genuinely afraid of people who have discovered or are on the path trying to discover genuine meaning in life. Now, we human beings are very curious, and we all have questions. Why are we here? Where did this come from? How did it happen?

We have questions we are capable of asking, but we have no way of ever answering them. Not on this earth, anyway. That will always be the case, I don’t care what scientists tell us, what they do with the genetic code, what they do with DNA, all this stuff, we are going to have questions we will never ever have the answers to. So what sustains us when we don’t get the answers? Faith.

It’s not hard to understand who liberals are, at all, and why it is that they are motivated the way they are. This separation of church and state thing is a great illustration. Why go out of your way to distort this and then try to teach it to kids when, by the way, you are a teacher and you’re in the public school, you are part of the state, and you are coercing. If you are telling your students that you’re not going to let God in your classroom because it shouldn’t be part of the country, it was never part of the country, separation of church and state, you are coercing and you are prohibited from doing that.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence — and, of course, it speaks of God repeatedly. It speaks of unalienable rights which are endowed by our Creator. Now, the Declaration of Independence is our founding document. So if Thomas Jefferson was hostile to religion, the basis of which is God, it’s hard to explain his writings in such an important document.

The George Washington 1789 Thanksgiving proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor — and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

… Please read the rest at the above title link.