21/05/2004

Cosby sur les Afro-Américains

Nouvelle page 1




Bill Cosby, le célèbre comédien afro-américain a
choqué tous les cohortes du politically correct über alles lors de la
commémoration du 50ème anniversaire de Brown vs. Board of education.  Que
va-t-il lui arriver?  Comme tous les autres Afro-américains (Clarence Thomas,
Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell) qui luttent contre le racisme de la
discrimination directe positive, ils ne seront plus considérés comme
Afro-américains, mais comme collaborateurs d’un ennemi raciste (uncle Toms).

 

"Ladies and
gentlemen, the lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal.
These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids – $500 sneakers
for what? And won't spend $200 for 'Hooked on Phonics.'

He added:
"They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English. I can't even talk
the way these people talk: 'Why you ain't,' 'Where you is' ... And I blamed the
kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk. ...
Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. ...
You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth!"

The Post said Cosby also targeted imprisoned blacks.

"These are not political criminals," he said. "These are people going around stealing
Coca-Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound
cake and then we run out and we are outraged, [saying] 'The cops shouldn't have
shot him.' What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand?"







12:43 Écrit par Kathy Schmurtz et Had | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) |  Facebook |

08/05/2004

Competitiveness statistics

Nouvelle page 5



Le nouveauWorld Competitive Yearbook de l’IMD pour l’année 2003 est sorti.
 Que constatons nous encore ?

Les pays étatistes reculent et les pays ayant un plus grand marché libre
mènent la danse en termes de compétitivité.

Si il est certain qu’il faut prendre en compte le niveau assez haut de l’Euro,
ce n’est pas encore demain que nos démocraties sociales dépasseront les méchants Zaméricains (1ère place).

La situation s’est tellement dégradée que la Belgique (25ème)
se trouve même derrière le Japon (23ème) en pleine crise ! 
La France et sa capitale quant à elle se trouvent en très enviables 30 et 32ème places !

Le Yearbook prend en compte des facteurs telsles performances économiques,
l’efficacité du gouvernement (sic),l’efficacité des entreprises etl’infrastructure.

En efficacité du gouvernement, nos beaux pays francophones battent tous les records : 38 et 41ème
places pour la France et sa capitale et 44ème place pour la Belgique. 
A titre de comparaison, la Malaisie, la Thaïlande, la Chine, la Jordanie,
l’Inde et la Colombie se situent devant nous !

En profitabilité des entreprises,la France se situe aussi au 43ème rang mondial,
de quoi être extrêmement fiers…





00:28 Écrit par Kathy Schmurtz et Had | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) |  Facebook |

Its the economy, stupid!

Nouvelle page 4

Petite information dont le Monde ne parlera sans doute pas:

le chiffre du chômage Américain a encore reculé; en Avril, 288.000 emplois
on été retrouvés, de quoi faire rêver Verhofstadt. 867.000 Emplois avaient
aussi été trouvés depuis le début de cette année, ce qui fait descend le niveau
national du chômage aux Etats Unis à 5.6%. Ces chiffres tombent très mal pour
Flip-Flopy qui trouve décidément de moins en moins de thèmes de campagne.

Par la même occasion, visitez le blog du président himself !




00:18 Écrit par Kathy Schmurtz et Had | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) |  Facebook |

Iran: pro-American country

Nouvelle page 2


Le New York Times (!) publie un formidable article d'un journaliste qui
revient d'Iran:

Those Friendly Iranians

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: May 5, 2004

TEHRAN, Iran

Finally, I've found a pro-American country.

Everywhere I've gone in Iran, with one exception,
people have been exceptionally friendly and fulsome in their praise for the
United States, and often for
President Bush as well. Even when I was detained a couple of days ago in the
city of Isfahan for asking a group of young people whether they thought the
Islamic revolution had been a mistake (they did), the police were courteous and
let me go after an apology.

They apologized; I didn't.

On my first day in Tehran, I dropped by the "Den of Spies,"
as the old U.S. Embassy is now called. It's covered with ferocious
murals denouncing America as the "Great Satan" and the
"archvillain of nations" and showing the Statue of Liberty as a skull
(tour the "Den of Spies"
here).

Then I stopped to chat with one of the Revolutionary
Guards now based in the complex. He was a young man who quickly confessed
that his favorite movie is "Titanic." "If I could manage it, I'd go
to America tomorrow," he said wistfully.

He paused and added, "To hell with the mullahs."

In the 1960's and 1970's, the U.S. spent millions
backing a pro-Western modernizing shah — and the result was an outpouring of
venom that led to our diplomats' being held hostage. Since then, Iran has been
ruled by mullahs who despise everything we stand for — and now people stop me
in the bazaar to offer paeans to America as well as George Bush.

Partly because being pro-American is a way to take a
swipe at the Iranian regime, anything American, from blue jeans to "Baywatch,"
is revered. At the bookshops, Hillary Clinton gazes out from three different
pirated editions of her autobiography.

`It's a best seller, though it's not selling as well as
Harry Potter," said Heidar Danesh, a bookseller in Tehran. "The other
best-selling authors are John Grisham, Sidney Sheldon, Danielle Steel."

Young Iranians keep popping the question, "So how can I
get to the U.S.?" I ask why they want to go to a nation denounced for its
"disgustingly sick promiscuous behavior," but that turns
out to be a main attraction. And many
people don't believe a word of the Iranian propaganda.

"We've learned to interpret just the opposite of things
on TV because it's all lies," said Odan Seyyid Ashrafi, a 20-year-old university
student. "So if it says America is awful, maybe that means it's a great place to
live."

Indeed, many Iranians seem convinced that the U.S.
military ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are going great, and they say this
with more conviction than your average White House spokesman.

One opinion poll showed that 74 percent of Iranians
want a dialogue with the U.S. — and the finding so irritated the authorities
that they arrested the pollster. Iran is also the only Muslim country I know
where citizens responded to the 9/11 attacks with a spontaneous candlelight
vigil as a show of sympathy.

Iran-U.S. relations are now headed for a crisis over
Tehran's nuclear program, which appears to be so advanced that Iran could
produce its first bomb by the end of next year. The Bush administration is right
to address this issue, but it needs to step very carefully to keep from
inflaming Iranian nationalism and uniting the population behind the regime. We
need to lay out the evidence on satellite television programs that are broadcast
into Iran, emphasizing that the regime is squandering money on a nuclear
weapons program that will further isolate Iranians and damage their economy.

Left to its own devices, the Islamic revolution is
headed for collapse, and there is a better chance of a strongly pro-American
democratic government in Tehran in a decade than in Baghdad. The ayatollahs'
best hope is that hard-liners in Washington will continue their inept diplomacy,
creating a wave of Iranian nationalism that bolsters the regime — as happened
to a lesser degree after President Bush put Iran in the axis of evil.

Oh, that one instance when I was treated inhospitably?
That was in a teahouse near the Isfahan bazaar, where I was interviewing
religious conservatives. They were warm and friendly, but a group of people two
tables away went out of their way to be rude, yelling at me for being an
American propagandist. So I finally encountered hostility in Iran — from a table
full of young Europeans.  






00:08 Écrit par Kathy Schmurtz et Had | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) |  Facebook |

07/05/2004

Flip-Flopy

Flip-flopy fait encore des sienn


Flip-flopy fait encore des siennes:

1.

"found video of Kerry telling environmentally conscious New Hampshire voters that he
sold his gas guzzlers to buy fuel-efficient autos and just one month later, in
Michigan car country, giving a long list of big-engine vehicles he owns–including
two SUVs, one imported."

2.

Kerry's Vietnam Doc: Wound Accidentally Self-Inflicted

The Navy medic who treated Sen. John Kerry
after he sustained his first battlefield wound in Vietnam said Tuesday that he
thought that the injury had been inadvertently self-inflicted - raising new
questions about why Kerry sought a Purple Heart after the incident.

Contacted by National Review Online,
Dr. Louis Letson recalled that Kerry insisted during treatment that he was
injured by enemy fire while his swift boat was patrolling the Mekong Delta on
Dec. 2, 1968. However, "some of his crew confided that they did not
receive any fire from shore," the Navy doc told NRO. Instead, his crewmen
claimed that Kerry "had fired a mortar round at close range to some rocks on
shore." One crewman told Letson that he thought Kerry's injury "was caused
by a fragment ricocheting from that mortar round when it struck the rocks."
Concluded Letson, "That seemed to fit the injury which I treated." He
described the top Democrat's wound as "a small piece of metal sticking very
superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm.

"The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and
was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a
rifle." Letson recalled that he "simply removed the piece of metal by
lifting it out of the skin with forceps. "I doubt that it penetrated
more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any
anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound.
"The wound was covered with a bandaid," Dr. Letson said. Based on the
bandaid wound that was likely a result of a mortar round he fired, Kerry sought
and eventually received his first Purple Heart.

3.

Et aussi:

Kerry 'Unfit to be Commander-in-Chief,' Say Former Military Colleagues
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
May 03, 2004

(2nd Add: Includes additional details about Sen. John Kerry's ad campaign.)

(CNSNews.com) - Hundreds of former commanders and military colleagues of
presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry are set to declare in a signed letter
that he is "unfit to be commander-in-chief." They will do so at a press
conference in Washington on Tuesday.

"What is going to happen on Tuesday is an event that is really historical in
dimension," John O'Neill, a Vietnam veteran who served in the Navy as a PCF (Patrol
Craft Fast) boat commander, told CNSNews.com. The event, which is
expected to draw about 25 of the letter-signers, is being organized by a newly
formed group called
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

"We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding
officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit
to be commander-in-chief," O'Neill said.

O'Neill, currently a Houston, Texas, based attorney, is no stranger to Kerry.
O'Neill served in the same naval unit as Kerry and commanded Kerry's swift boat
after Kerry returned to the United States. Kerry's command of the PCF boat
lasted four months and ended shortly after he received his third Purple Heart.
According to naval regulations at the time, any sailor who received three Purple
Hearts could request a transfer out of the combat zone.

Kerry and O'Neill engaged in a nationally televised debate in 1971 on The Dick
Cavett Show over Kerry's allegations that many Vietnam soldiers had routinely
engaged in atrocities such as raping and cutting off ears and heads of
Vietnamese soldiers and citizens. Kerry was the then spokesman for the anti-war
group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

"We are going to be presenting a letter that deals with Kerry's unfitness to be
commander and chief that has been signed by hundreds of swift boat sailors,
including most of those who served with Kerry," O'Neill explained.

"The ranks of the people signing [the letter] range from admiral down to seaman,
and they run across the entire spectrum of politics, specialties, and political
feelings about the Vietnam War," he added.

Among those scheduled to attend the event at the National Press Club and declare
Kerry unfit for the role of commander-in-chief are retired Naval Rear Admiral
Roy Hoffmann, who was the commander of the Navy Coastal Surveillance Force,
which included the swift boats on which Kerry served.

Also scheduled to be present at the event is Kerry's former commanding officer,
Lt. Commander Grant Hibbard. Hibbard recently questioned whether Kerry deserved
the first of his three Purple Hearts that he received in Vietnam. Hibbard
doubted both the severity of the wound and whether it resulted from enemy fire.

"I've had thorns from a rose that were worse" than Kerry's wound for which he
received a Purple Heart, Hibbard told the Boston Globe in April.

Organizers are confident that Tuesday's event and the letter with hundreds of
signatures will educate people about Kerry.

"It is one of the largest outpourings of concern about him being
commander-in-chief that anybody could have in a presidential campaign and it is
by the people who know him best," O'Neill said.

'Unfit Commander-in-Chief'


Swift Boat Veterans For Truth maintains that Kerry's fellow Vietnam veterans are
almost uniform in their disdain for his military service and anti-war protests.

"Not only a majority of the people who served with him feel that way, but a vast
and overwhelming majority," O'Neill said. He added that more than "ninety
percent of the people contacted by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth responded to
the request to sign their name, with only 12 declining to sign.

"Comrades who actually served with him, almost all of them, are opposed to him,
and believe he would be an unfit commander in chief and intend to bring the
truth of his actual record to the attention of the American people," O'Neill
said.

O'Neill hopes the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth can reveal to the American
people what he sees as Kerry's flawed character.

"In the military, loyalty between commanders and the troops serving them is a
two-way street. We have here a guy (Kerry) that with all of us in the field [in
Vietnam] -- actually fighting the North Vietnamese -- came home and then falsely
accused all of us of war crimes at a time when the people in uniform couldn't
even respond," O'Neill said.

"And he did that knowing that was a lie," he added.

'Real John Kerry'


B. G. Burkett, author of the book Stolen Valor and a military researcher,
believes that Tuesday's event will not be dismissed easily by Kerry's campaign
as a "partisan" attack.

"There are probably just as many Democrats amongst sailors who sailed swift
boats as there are Republicans. What Kerry fails to realize is this has nothing
to do with politics -- this has to with Vietnam Veterans who served, who have a
beef with John Kerry's service, both during and after the war," Burkett told CNSNews.com.

"The American people do not know John Kerry and hopefully the swift boat crews
and other Vietnam veterans will make sure that the American public knows the
real John Kerry," he added.






.

23:52 Écrit par Kathy Schmurtz et Had | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) |  Facebook |

GAZA Judenrein?

Nouvelle page 1

 

Abandoning Gaza will not end terrorism

By Jeff Jacoby

Savages don't deserve a state

Meirav, the 2-year-old, had been strapped into a car seat for safety. But car seats are no
protection against bullets, and by the time rescue workers reached the Citroen
station wagon, Meirav was dead of multiple gunshot wounds to the head. So was
her 7-year-old sister, Roni. And Hadar, the 9-year-old. And Hila, 11. One by
one, each had been shot at point-blank range.


In the driver's seat, their mother was dead too. Tali Hatuel, 34, was a social
worker who was often called upon to comfort and assist victims of terrorism.
Eight months pregnant with her first boy, she had been driving to Ashkelon on
Sunday for an ultrasound exam. Then she and the girls had planned to join her
husband David at an election precinct to urge voters to oppose the controversial
Israeli referendum on unilaterally "disengaging" from the Gaza Strip.


But David never saw his wife and daughters alive again. He buried them Sunday
evening, sobbing with grief and surrounded by thousands of mourners in
Ashkelon's new cemetery. "You were my flowers," he wept. "I am all alone and
there is no one left."


Not long after the slaughter of the Hatuel family, two terror groups — Islamic
Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committee — proudly claimed responsibility in a
call to the Associated Press. The official Voice of Palestine radio praised the
quintuple murder as a "heroic" operation against "five settlers," not bothering
to mention that the victims were an unarmed pregnant woman and four children.


The savagery of the attack was similarly downplayed by National Public Radio in
its broadcast the next morning. Actually, reporter Julie McCarthy did more than
minimize the horror of the massacre. She blamed the victims for "provoking"
their own murder — not by anything they did, but by their mere "presence" in the
disputed territory.

"The settlers rallied
support [against the referendum], saying Israel was withdrawing under fire,"
McCarthy reported, "but there was ample evidence yesterday to show that their
continued presence in Gaza is provoking bloodshed. Israeli troops shot dead two
Palestinian gunmen after the men ambushed a mother and her four small daughters
outside the Gaza settlement of Gush Katif. The family was shot and killed on
their way to the Israeli city of Ashkelon."


In NPR's warped moral calculus, Tali Hatuel and her children are in early graves
not because Palestinian culture celebrates the mass-murder of Jews, but because
Jews have no business living among Arabs. If McCarthy had been reporting from
Birmingham in September 1963, would she have blamed the bombing of the Sixteenth
Street Baptist Church on the provocative "presence" of the four black girls who
died in the explosion?


The Hatuels opposed Ariel Sharon's proposed Gaza pullout because they understood
that unilaterally surrendering land to Hamas and the PLO could only result in
more terror and bloodshed, not less. If the past decade — the era of the "land
for peace" delusion — has made anything clear, it is that the more Israel
concedes to the Palestinians, the worse Palestinian terror becomes. Abandoning
Gaza will not make the Arabs more peaceful. It will simply strengthen their
conviction that Israelis can be defeated through terrorism, and make Gaza a more
effective staging-area for violent attacks on Jews.


Notwithstanding the defeat of Sunday's referendum, Sharon says he still intends
to go forward with his "disengagement" from Gaza. That presumably will mean the
uprooting of some 8,000 Gazan Jews from the homes, farms, and schools they have
built over the past quarter-century. The State Department and the United Nations
will cheer the sight of Gaza being ethnically cleansed of its Jewish population
— being rendered Judenrein, as the Nazis used to say. But having approved
Sharon's expulsion of Jews from territory largely occupied by Arabs, what will
they say if he then proposes to expel Arabs from places whose majority is Jewish?


No: Arab-Israeli peace will not be won by dragging people, kicking and screaming,
from their homes. Nor will it be won by giving land and statehood to the
gangsters who run Hamas and Fatah. Abandoning the field to the terrorists will
not make the terrorism stop.


The only workable recipe for lasting Middle East peace is the enormously
difficult one of remaking Palestinian society from the bottom up. Of destroying
its poisonous culture of violence, death-worship, and Jew-hatred. Of educating
its people for democracy and tolerance. Of replacing its cruel and corrupt
rulers with leaders genuinely committed to moderation.


Only when — only if — such a transformation takes place will the Palestinians be
ready for statehood. To confer sovereignty on them now would be disastrous, a
guarantee of violence for years to come. If there is one thing a regime that can
call the execution of a mother and her four daughters "heroic" doesn't need, it
is a reward.

JWR contributor Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist.






23:34 Écrit par Kathy Schmurtz et Had | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) |  Facebook |

02/05/2004

La Belgique vue de Londres

Le Times publie un fantastique article sur la Belgique:

I've seen the future: it's scary and Belgian

THE PRIME MINISTER makes much of the “scare stories” and “myths” which opponents of further deepening of the EU supposedly propagate. They are based, apparently, on paranoia, and are products of not-so-latent xenophobia.

Well here’s a very scary story which is not speculation but fact. This week democracy — the right to vote for the party you wish to support — ended inside one EU member state.

 

On Wednesday, the Belgian judiciary banned a political party from operating in Belgium. The reason? The country’s political establishment dislikes its views. The party it banned is not some obscure fringe organisation but one which has 18 MPs in the 150-seat Belgian parliament, many local councillors and two MEPs. The opinion polls were predicting that it could win the most Belgian votes at the European and local elections in June.

The banned party is Vlaams Blok (VB). The Court of Appeal in Ghent — notorious for its left-liberal bias — deemed it to be an “undemocratic and racist” organisation because of its policy that immigrants should be given only two choices: “to assimilate or to return home”.

Maybe such a policy is indeed racist; maybe it isn’t. The VB itself, which has much in common with the Fortuyn List in the Netherlands, has been accused of this. But in a democracy, surely, that is a decision which voters should make, not judges. But the VB’s racism was merely an excuse. The real reason why the Belgian authorities have been bent on banning the VB for years has nothing to do with racism and the rights of immigrants. It is that the party advocates secession from Belgium and the establishment of a Republic of Flanders. Worse still, as Belgium’s only conservative party it upsets the country’s cosy political applecart. The Belgian Establishment has responded not by defeating it in argument but by banning it.

After Wednesday’s ruling, it is now illegal to distribute VB publications and its politicians are barred from state radio and television. The party is appealing against the ruling, but the Belgian judiciary’s predisposition to do the bidding of the political class means that the appeal has almost no chance of succeeding. When the ban is confirmed, the VB will be proclaimed a criminal organisation and disbanded, unable to exist, let alone to field candidates and argue its case.

I hold no brief for the VB; and were I to have a vote in Flanders, I would not vote for it. But that is not the point. What happened in Ghent on Wednesday is a frightening, but classic demonstration of the political mindset which lies behind the EU’s “ever-closer union”: if you do not sign up to certain beliefs then your politics are, by definition, beyond the pale and thus illegitimate.

The ruling was merely the latest in a series of attempts to destroy the VB because of the threat it posed to the Belgian status quo. In 1999, “undemocratic and racist” parties were banned from receiving state funding (private donations of more than 125 euros are illegal in Belgium). This decision was immediately followed by an action against the VB on those grounds. When a Flemish judge refused to issue a judgment, arguing that these were matters for the electorate rather than the courts, the head of the Centre for Equal Opportunities, the quango which had brought the case said that he would continue appealing until he had found a judge who would find against the VB. This week one emerged: Alain Smetrijns, who happens also to be the chairman of the Lions Club in Ghent, a francophone pro-Belgian unity group.

Belgium is in many ways a mini-EU: an artificial state created (much like Europe’s three former such states, the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia) as a result of political ideology rather than any sense of national unity, and held together by a political class which is prepared to subvert democracy to achieve its ends. Add to that a judiciary which, far from being independent of the political establishment, is an important part of the problem — and you have a recipe for what took place in Ghent this week: democracy, Belgian-style, in which you may vote only for a party whose views are approved by the elites.

The actions may be specific to Belgium, but the lesson is of wider import. The EU is in the process of becoming just such an artificial state. The fate of the Vlaams Blok shows that worries about the future of democracy are not scare stories. They are real dangers and they are with us today.

The author is a senior Fellow at the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think tank.


14:55 Écrit par Kathy Schmurtz et Had | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) |  Facebook |

Réponse à l'article du Times




Un lecteur m'envoie une réponse qu'un certain Drieu Godefridi a envoyé
au Times concernant l'article mentionné ci-dessus:



Letter to the editor of "The Times",

April 29, 2004



Dear Sir,

This letter in reaction to your article on the banning by the Belgian judiciary
of a political party, the Vlaams Blok, because of its racism
(your April 24 edition).
The author writes that "the VB's racism was merely an excuse"
and that the real reason was that the VB advocates secession of Flanders
from Belgium -- "an artificial state created (...) as a result of political ideology"
-- and that "as Belgium's only conservative party -the VB- upsets the country's
cosy political applecart."



May I submit that this is not only false, but utterly ridiculous.
First, the banning was by an all-Flemish court of law.
Second, the VB has nothing to do with conservatism in the
Anglo-American sense, and everything to do with Jean-Marie Le Pen's
Front National, Jord Haider's FPÖ or the British National Party.
That kind of so-called "conservatism" is better named etatism
and nationalism. Thirdly, Belgium is certainly no more artificial than,
say, the United Kingdom, and there is a difference :
the "linguistic question" in Belgium has never caused the death of
a single person. There is nothing like a Flemish or Walloon IRA,
if you see what I mean.



Finally, as the director of one of the leading conservative,
classical-liberal think-tanks in Belgium, the Hayek Institute
(http://www.fahayek.org), and as a regular reader of "The Times",
let me suggest you to better check your sources next time you write
on conservatism in Belgium.


Yours faithfully

Drieu Godefridi

av. Louise, 2/3
1050 Bruxelles
Belgium
+32 2/6407393
+32 475/319936
fax +3210 867779
info@notisumus.com






14:30 Écrit par Kathy Schmurtz et Had | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) |  Facebook |