In 2006, five year old Mariya was unfortunate enough to be in a nearby vehicle when the Israelis launched a missile attack on the car of an Islamic Jihad activist.

Mariya was left paralyzed from the neck down and her mother, brother, grandmother, and uncle were killed instantly.

Since sustaining her injuries, the Israeli Ministry of Defense has paid for her care in a Jerusalem hospital (Bravo!) but now they’ve decided to end her care and ship her off to a pathetically inadequate West Bank hospital that lacks the ability to address her intensive needs (not so bravo).

Her father, Hamdi Aman, has brought an action in the Israeli Supreme Court asking that her care be continued in the specialized childrens’ hospital in Jerusalem. Said Mr. Haman, “I’m not asking for compensation for my dead son – I’m asking that my daughter be kept alive.”

Very moving sentiment but it can’t hold a candle to this:

She has also learned to chatter away in fluent Hebrew to her dedicated Israeli therapists. “I have always avoided telling Mariya who aimed that missile at us,” says Aman. “How can I explain that the people who hurt us are the same people who are helping us now?”

Israeli law holds the state immune from responsibility in these situations and, as a matter of law, I’m willing to stipulate that the Ministry of Defense has no obligation to continue caring for this poor child. As a moral matter, however, they have every responsibility to provide the best possible care for this broken little girl who lost her mother and brother in the same attack that left her paralyzed. The glory of Judaism is its emphasis on justice and I hope the Supreme Court acts accordingly.

Should the court rule against Mr. Hamdi, I say we bring the family to America. (Maybe we can deduct the cost of her care from the fat check that we send to the Israeli Ministry of Defense) After all, our tax dollars supplied the weapons used in the attack and, as such, we bear some moral culpability in this tragic episode. (The real reason that they hate us)

If you’re one of those bible toting, venom spewing people who worship the Prince of Peace while simultaneously advocating endless war, you don’t have to look at this as an act of mercy for a five year old Muslim child. Think of it instead as a good PR move for the USA (a.k.a. Zion, the Promised Land, the New Jerusalem, or whatever the hell you call America on Sunday mornings) and a stroke of political genius for the GOP.

Our magnanimity in helping a little terrorissss will earn us kudos from abroad while the Bush Administration brings democracy to the Middle East one family at a time…

____________

Read the entire article in the current issue of Newsweek

Richard Viguerie, frequently portrayed as the Lord Voldemort of the right by hysterical libs, has had all he can stands and he can’t stands no more of the GOP under Bush.

While his name is certainly familiar to most movement conservatives, I don’t think 1 in 4 could pick him out of a lineup.  Which is truly amazing because Viguerie raises millions and millions of dollars for conservative causes and his resume is packed with references to his intimate associations with  all of the “base” organizations.

Viguerie hasn’t been too happy with Bush for a few years now but I have to admit that I was suprised when I caught him on C-SPAN’s Book TV yesterday passionately urging conservatives to bolt the Republican Party.

Here’s the blurb on Viguerie’s speech:

From FreedomFest in Las Vegas, Richard Viguerie argues that President Bush and other “big government Republicans” have betrayed conservative policies and describes how conservatives can take their party back.

That’s not entirely accurate.  He wasn’t advising the attendees on how to get their party back – he was urging them to  walk out the door.

Viguerie is not a man who is willing to continue funding the GOP because “they’re better than the alternative” or “the Supreme Court’s at stake” – he’ll take his money and run.

It’s fashionable to predict the demise of political parties when they’re kicked to the curb in any given electoral cycle (the Liberal crack-up, the Conservative crack-up, etc) but I wonder if the disintegration of the GOP isn’t already underway.  Can the Republican Party  continue to be a significant force in American politics a generation hence if its appeal is limited to discredited neocons and a brain addled mass of religious fundamentalists?

I don’t think so…

________________

You can catch Viguerie’s speech on Book TV/ C-Span2 on Sunday, August 26, at 1:00 PM EDT

To follow up on an earlier post, here’s the original news clip from KSLA-12 (Shreveport, LA) on the Homeland Security Department’s Clergy Response Team [Making America safe for fascism]

If the guhmint’ imposes martial law to keep you safe (© GOP) from terrorisssss (© GWB), the Feds have clergymen trained and ready to go to help assure the masses that Jesus established civil authority and that the government response is in keeping with His holy will:

Remember when the Dems promised us that they’d rein in the Bush Administration if we trusted them with control of the Congress? What do you think happened?

To dampen resistance to martial law…

This one really left me speechless. Something I’d better get used to because they’ve gone from Compassionate Conservatives (sic) to reckless fascist bastards:

KSLA-12 (CBS affiliate in Shreveport, LA) reports:

Homeland Security Enlists Clergy to Quell Public Unrest if Martial Law Ever Declared

If martial law were enacted here at home, like depicted in the movie “The Siege”, easing public fears and quelling dissent would be critical. And that’s exactly what the ‘Clergy Response Team’ helped accomplish in the wake of Katrina.
Dr. Durell Tuberville serves as chaplain for the Shreveport Fire Department and the Caddo Sheriff’s Office. Tuberville said of the clergy team’s mission, “the primary thing that we say to anybody is, ‘let’s cooperate and get this thing over with and then we’ll settle the differences once the crisis is over.’”
Such clergy response teams would walk a tight-rope during martial law between the demands of the government on the one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other. “In a lot of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in which they’re helping to diffuse that situation,” assured Sandy Davis. He serves as the director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.
For the clergy team, one of the biggest tools that they will have in helping calm the public down or to obey the law is the bible itself, specifically Romans 13. Dr. Tuberville elaborated, “because the government’s established by the Lord, you know. And, that’s what we believe in the Christian faith. That’s what’s stated in the scripture.”

For the record, Romans 13 reads (in part):

1

Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.

2

Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.

3

For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,

4

for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.

5

Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience.

6

This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

7

Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Yeah, I know that’s a little too easy, but seriously…

I saw about 2 minutes of Larry King’s interview with the VP the other night and I was really surprised by how bad he looks and sounds. I know he’s never been a well man but he seems to have aged ten years and his features are ashen and drawn.

The pic at right is from this morning.

That, my friends, is a very sick man.

…well you know the rest but here’s Congressman Ron Paul on the subject:

To calm fears, Americans accepted the patriot act and the doctrine of pre-emptive war. We tolerated new laws that allow the government to snoop on us, listen to our phone calls, track our financial dealings, make us strip down at airports and even limited the rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury. Like some dysfunctional episode of the twilight zone, we allowed the summit of our imagination to be linked up with the pit of our fears.

Paranoia can be treated, but the loss of liberty resulting from the social psychology to which we continue to subject ourselves is not easily reversed. People who would have previously battled against encroachments on civil liberties now explain the “necessity” of those “temporary security measures” Franklin is said to have railed against.

Back in the days when I was screaming, stomping, and pulling my hair out over so-called conservatives who were pissing on the Constitution and embracing an expansive (and ever expanding) government in the name of “security”, Dr. Paul was the only Republican in Congress to stand against the excesses and encroachments.

What I wouldn’t give to have a few hundred more like him in that big, ugly building on Capitol Hill.

_________________________

Be sure to check out:

Mideast Peace is anti-God: Spoken tongue-in-cheek, of course. The author, a minister, takes on the razor-clawed, bloody fanged Evangelicals.

Books we haven’t read: Are you embarrassed by the rather obvious holes in your reading list? Here’s how to discuss Proust without having read him.

D. M. Giangreco, Editor Emeritus of Military Review, smells a Tet-like Iraqi insurgent attack just over the horizon. (Most likely just prior to General Petraeus’ mid-September report to Congress):

Al Qaeda and other Islamic militants have displayed over and over again through their public statements that they are astute observers of the American political discourse over Iraq. That a violent “offensive” of some sort will be launched to drown out or subvert the heavily promoted and anticipated appearance of General David Petraeus before Congress in September is practically a given. It is also certain that Coalition forces in Iraq will work aggressively to disrupt the coming offensive — and the “troop surge” itself serves that end. But in the current news environment, any attacks by the insurgents, no matter how reckless or costly to themselves, are guaranteed to generate massive press coverage and criticism of US efforts even if the insurgents fail militarily.

Meanwhile, The Decider’s propaganda efforts continue apace. In a desperate effort to link the Iraq war solely with al Qaeda — whose presence in Iraq was made possible by his war– Bush is, once again, trying to forge a subconscious link between Iraq and September 11th in the minds of the American people.

Consider the number of al Qaeda references in recent addresses:

• It’s All About Al-Qaeda Again – Dana Milbank, Washington Post, May 3, 2007 (12x)
• In the Rose Garden, It Was All Al-Qaeda- Dana Milbank, Washington Post, May 25, 2007 (19x)
• Seeing Al Qaeda Around Every Corner – Clark Hoyt, New York Times, July 8, 2007 (27x)
• And, yesterday, in a speech at Charleston Air Force Base in Charleston, SC, Bush mentioned al Qaeda no fewer that 91 times.

With his poll numbers in the cellar, his war thoroughly rejected, and his presidency in tatters, I’d like to think that the American people are too astute to buy this bill of goods again, but… ok, maybe not…

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) gets his panties in a bunch when Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) jumps ugly on him over Iraq [From yesterday's MTP]:

Credit: Lew Rockwell

For me, one of the most interesting — if completely unscientific — methods of guaging public opinions after a significant event is to check the most emailed stories on Yahoo! News.

This morning, I expected the number one slot to belong to some thoughtful commentary on September 11th; its meaning and impact on our national life, etc.

But the most popular story this AM isn’t a tribute to the fallen, or memories of that fateful day – it’s a commentary by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann taking George Bush to task for, well, just about everything.

Here’s Olbermann:

[Post 9/11/2001] Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President — and those around him — did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, “bi-partisanship” meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President’s words yesterday, “validate the strategy of the terrorists.”

They promised protection, and then showed that to them “protection” meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaida as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had ’something to do’ with 9/11 is “lying by implication.”

The impolite phrase is “impeachable offense.”

Hear, hear!

When Michael Ledeen (a man with the finest of neocon pedigrees) isn’t hyping up a case for an American attack on Iran, he’s reminding people like me why we began to hate neoconservatism in the first place.

To illustrate, here’s a line or two from his latest column:

In any event, the first time I encountered the notion that Syria is really our friend was in the mid-Eighties, when I was working on counterterrorism. The synagogue in Vienna had been savagely attacked by terrorists carrying hand grenades and a machine gun. We had learned that the terrorists had gone to Damascus, and then directly from Damascus to Vienna. They had not stopped between the Vienna airport and the synagogue.

I suggested that we might contemplate doing something mean to Syria.

Ok, so the obvious question here is: WHY should WE do something mean to Syria in response to an attack on a synagogue in Vienna? Isn’t that, properly, the responsibility of the Austrians?! (Or the Israelis, for that matter.)

The United States Government should have condemned the attack and shared whatever intel it had with the Austrian authorities. Period. End of story. Time to move on.

It was, by the way, exactly what the Reagan administration did. (The above incident occured over twenty years ago.) But for Ledeen, it seems, American restraint in a matter that didn’t involve us in the least was, naturally, [get ready for it!] appeasement.

These are the people who are in charge of our foreign policy, folks. For the love of God, vote Democrat in November…

(WHO said that???!!!)