Jenna Jameson, who’s been called the world’s most famous porn star and is the author of the New York Times bestseller “How To Make Love Like a Porn Star,” talked about Hillary Clinton in an interview with PR.com….May 17, 2007…
PR.com: “Who’s your favorite Democratic front runner for 2008? Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards?”
Jenna Jameson: “I love Hillary. I think that in some ways she’s pretty conservative for a Democrat, but I would love to have a woman in office. I think that it would be a step in the right direction for our country, and there would be less focus on war and more focus on bettering society.”
PR.com: “Do you find that the climate of the adult industry changes when there is a Republican administration versus Democratic?”
Jenna Jameson: “Absolutely. The Clinton administration was the best years for the adult industry and I wish that Clinton would run again. I would love to have him back in office. I would love to have Al Gore in office. When Republicans are in office, the problem is, a lot of times they try to put their crosshairs on the adult industry, to make a point. It’s sad, when there are so many different things that are going on in the world: war, and people are dying of genocide…I look forward to another Democrat being in office. It just makes the climate so much better for us, and I know that once all our troops come home, things are going to be better and I think that getting Bush out of office is the most important thing right now.”
China is about to become the world leader in the cultivation of jatropha, a sustainable, perennially growing oil-seed crop that can be used to produce the planet’s fastest-growing alternative fuel–biodiesel.
By 2010, the country plans to plant 13 million hectares of bushy jatropha trees, from which a whopping six million tons of oil–nearly two billion gallons–can be extracted every year, according to conservative government estimates. Some analysts believe the yield could actually be three times that amount.
Jatropha oil is a prime–perhaps even superior–feedstock for making biodiesel. Like soy, palm, or peanut oil, jatropha oil can be mixed with methanol and a catalyst, such as sodium hydroxide, in a process called transesterification to produce pure, non-toxic biodiesel–known as B100–which can then be blended with petroleum-based diesel at any ratio for use as a petro-diesel replacement. Transesterification is basically a thinning process that reduces the viscosity of vegetable oil to that of petro-diesel. (Used, or waste, vegetable oils require an additional up-front treatment, called acid esterification.)
Unlike other alternative fuels, such as economically questionable corn- or sugar beet-based ethanol, biodiesel can be used in any existing diesel burning engine or boiler without technical modifications. So-called splash-blending–simply adding levels of petro-diesel–is mainly done to prevent gelling in colder climates and to avoid violating the arguably overly cautious (but slowly but steadily changing) warrantees of leading engine manufacturers.
Consistently reliable, alternative additives–green substitute solutions that will eliminate the need for blending biodiesel with petro-diesel–represent a kind of holy grail for biodiesel researchers. China Confidential has learned that Chinese scientists have developed and are already testing products described as being close to commercialization.
India is also experimenting with large-scale jatropha cultivation; and several major jatropha plantations are in various stages of development in various African countries.
The hearty plant’s potential for breaking the cycle of poverty in Africa–and helping to end the world’s addiction to petroleum–has excited energy experts. Studies indicate that more than half the continent could be used for growing jatropha–which requires no irrigation and prevents and may even reverse desertification–and that the oil output from just half of this area could satisfy the annual oil needs of the United States.
Help educate the world about Hamas rockets
May 16, 2007
An Israeli mother and her three children were wounded this week by rockets from Gaza. On Tuesday, 24 rockets hit Israel and wounded 30 people. Since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Palestinian terrorists have fired more than 1,300 rockets into Israel.
The Palestinian response? More TV campaigns – this time with a Mickey Mouse look-alike – to teach children to be terrorists.
We need your help educating the media about these attacks.
Today there are huge and deadly fights between Hamas and Fatah. Palestinian terrorists are trying to draw Israel into their fight. However, how many rockets on civilians can Israel take?
The IDF may have to act firmly to destroy the rockets and the workshops where they are made. The media will come to Sderot and Gaza to cover this story. Your help can help make sure they get the facts they need to present the truth.
During the Second Lebanon War, The Israel Project (TIP) set up media centers in Northern Israel to provide journalists with sources, press briefings, background research, transportation, information on lodging and anything else they needed. Press coverage of the war was seen worldwide and in general Israel was portrayed as defending themselves.
Today we need to set up the same kind of media center in Sderot, the town being pummeled by Hamas Kassam rockets. We need to act now to make sure Israel is again seen as defending their citizens against terror from the sky.
Please help educate journalists and help protect Israel by supporting our work at http://www.theisraelproject.org/donate.
TIP needs your help to:
Our Washington DC and Jerusalem staff are efficient, but educating the media costs money. We need your help and we need it now.
Please help fund our Sderot media center at http://www.theisraelproject.org/donate. Help us educate the press and the world – and allow the IDF to stop Palestinian rockets and protect innocent Israeli children.
Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi
Founder and President
The Israel Project
Was Osama Right?
Was Osama Right?
BY BERNARD LEWIS, 16 May 2007
Islamists always believed the U.S. was weak. Recent political trends won’t change their view.
D uring the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: “What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?”
A few examples may suffice. During the troubles in Lebanon in the 1970s and ’80s, there were many attacks on American installations and individuals–notably the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, followed by a prompt withdrawal, and a whole series of kidnappings of Americans, both official and private, as well as of Europeans. There was only one attack on Soviet citizens, when one diplomat was killed and several others kidnapped. The Soviet response through their local agents was swift, and directed against the family of the leader of the kidnappers. The kidnapped Russians were promptly released, and after that there were no attacks on Soviet citizens or installations throughout the period of the Lebanese troubles.
These different responses evoked different treatment. While American policies, institutions and individuals were subject to unremitting criticism and sometimes deadly attack, the Soviets were immune. Their retention of the vast, largely Muslim colonial empire accumulated by the czars in Asia passed unnoticed, as did their propaganda and sometimes action against Muslim beliefs and institutions.
Most remarkable of all was the response of the Arab and other Muslim countries to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. Washington’s handling of the Tehran hostage crisis assured the Soviets that they had nothing to fear from the U.S. They already knew that they need not worry about the Arab and other Muslim governments. The Soviets already ruled–or misruled–half a dozen Muslim countries in Asia, without arousing any opposition or criticism. Initially, their decision and action to invade and conquer Afghanistan and install a puppet regime in Kabul went almost unresisted. After weeks of debate, the U.N. General Assembly finally was persuaded to pass a resolution “strongly deploring the recent armed intervention in Afghanistan.” The words “condemn” and “aggression” were not used, and the source of the “intervention” was not named. Even this anodyne resolution was too much for some of the Arab states. South Yemen voted no; Algeria and Syria abstained; Libya was absent; the nonvoting PLO observer to the Assembly even made a speech defending the Soviets.
One might have expected that the recently established Organization of the Islamic Conference would take a tougher line. It did not. After a month of negotiation and manipulation, the organization finally held a meeting in Pakistan to discuss the Afghan question. Two of the Arab states, South Yemen and Syria, boycotted the meeting. The representative of the PLO, a full member of this organization, was present, but abstained from voting on a resolution critical of the Soviet action; the Libyan delegate went further, and used this occasion to denounce the U.S.
The Muslim willingness to submit to Soviet authority, though widespread, was not unanimous. The Afghan people, who had successfully defied the British Empire in its prime, found a way to resist the Soviet invaders. An organization known as the Taliban (literally, “the students”) began to organize resistance and even guerilla warfare against the Soviet occupiers and their puppets. For this, they were able to attract some support from the Muslim world–some grants of money, and growing numbers of volunteers to fight in the Holy War against the infidel conqueror. Notable among these was a group led by a Saudi of Yemeni origin called Osama bin Laden.
To accomplish their purpose, they did not disdain to turn to the U.S. for help, which they got. In the Muslim perception there has been, since the time of the Prophet, an ongoing struggle between the two world religions, Christendom and Islam, for the privilege and opportunity to bring salvation to the rest of humankind, removing whatever obstacles there might be in their path. For a long time, the main enemy was seen, with some plausibility, as being the West, and some Muslims were, naturally enough, willing to accept what help they could get against that enemy. This explains the widespread support in the Arab countries and in some other places first for the Third Reich and, after its collapse, for the Soviet Union. These were the main enemies of the West, and therefore natural allies.
Now the situation had changed. The more immediate, more dangerous enemy was the Soviet Union, already ruling a number of Muslim countries, and daily increasing its influence and presence in others. It was therefore natural to seek and accept American help. As Osama bin Laden explained, in this final phase of the millennial struggle, the world of the unbelievers was divided between two superpowers. The first task was to deal with the more deadly and more dangerous of the two, the Soviet Union. After that, dealing with the pampered and degenerate Americans would be easy.
We in the Western world see the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union as a Western, more specifically an American, victory in the Cold War. For Osama bin Laden and his followers, it was a Muslim victory in a jihad, and, given the circumstances, this perception does not lack plausibility.
From the writings and the speeches of Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, it is clear that they expected this second task, dealing with America, would be comparatively simple and easy. This perception was certainly encouraged and so it seemed, confirmed by the American response to a whole series of attacks – on the World Trade Center in New York and on U.S. troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000 – all of which evoked only angry words, sometimes accompanied by the dispatch of expensive missiles to remote and uninhabited places.
Stage One of the jihad was to drive the infidels from the lands of Islam;
Stage Two – to bring the war into the enemy camp, and the attacks of 9/11 were clearly intended to be the opening salvo of this stage. The response to 9/11, so completely out of accord with previous American practice, came as a shock, and it is noteworthy that there has been no successful attack on American soil since then. The U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of their assessment, and of the policies based on that assessment, was necessary.
More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences – both for Islam and for America – will be deep, wide and lasting.
Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of “From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East” (Oxford University Press, 2004).
Everyday, American Congress for Truth (ACT) is a 501c3 non profit organization on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of radical Muslim fundamentalists to world peace. We are committed to combating the global upsurge of hate and intolerance.
American Congress for Truth (ACT) , P.O.Box 6884, Virginia Beach, VA 23456
|Just How Liberal Are Liberals?|
|Politics Erik Rush
May 17, 2007
These colors don’t run and we’re speaking as one
I am often surprised at people who squirm when I identify myself as a conservative. The reason for my perplexity is not because I know going in that they’re avowed liberal Democrats; it is because during the course of most conversations with these people I discover that many, I daresay the majority, hold the same core values as I do.
Practically none are in favor of unfettered abortion, porous borders, legalizing illicit drugs, a hamstrung criminal justice system, early sexualization of children, redefining marriage, religious intolerance, rampant taxation, weak foreign policy or social engineering in our schools. They don’t get their political analysis from Rosie O’Donnell and Tim Robbins. They aren’t sympathetic to al-Qaeda or child molesters. Hardly any honestly believe that the United States is an imperialist, racist nation, although they do hold that the Bush administration screwed the pooch relative to the postwar plan for Iraq and the Republican Party did similarly concerning the mandate they received when they became a majority (It would almost be irresponsible not to point out here that the latter two are beliefs to which quite a few conservative Republicans adhere as well).
The only thing these aforementioned liberal Democrats appear to hold in common is that they’ve been conditioned to squirm when they hear the word “conservative”, i.e., sufficiently propagandized that they fear conservatives as socially retrograde, bigoted, soulless capitalists who wish to supplant our constitutional republic with a Christian theocracy.
I’ve been taken aback again and again by “liberal Democrats” who believe in raising children in much the same way I do (that being in a disciplined, traditional manner), the sanctity of marriage and classical American education. I was even more astounded when one advocated employing nuclear weapons against North Korea, Iran and Syria (It was, after all a Democrat president who chose that route against Japan).
It makes sense, though; this would be a lot less expensive in American blood and treasure than what’s going on in Iraq right now. If one looks back in time, as it were, at what “liberal Democrat” meant in the ‘Eighties, the ‘Seventies and ‘Sixties, the chasm between liberals and conservatives becomes narrower and narrower. In the main, I’d wager that some would simply rather be called such than “conservative” due to conditioning; the poor performance of Republican politicians in recent years merely lent credence to the ongoing effluvia of propaganda. Indeed, many Republicans are furious at the phenomenon of their leaders having followed the Democrat lead (of being spendthrifts, hypocrites and self-serving elites) when they finally actualized their long-sought majority.
My use of the reference to Charlie Daniels’s song (written in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks) is meant to remind the reader of how widespread that sentiment was in America leading up to our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. It wasn’t just conservatives. Granted, support for President Bush and the Republican Party has waned considerably since then, but I contend propaganda is more the culprit than the acknowledged poor performance.
The point is that liberals and conservatives at large aren’t why there’s so much dissent in America right now.
A minority of global socialists – they call themselves “Progressives” – in the political arena and the media are the ones who have given rise to this mental redirection, pathological cynicism and the cult of Bush hatred. They are not the opposition, but the enemy, and unfortunately are the only choice many liberal Democrats think they have in the voting booth.
The problem: Too many conservatives have come to use the terms “liberal”, “far Left” and “Progressive” – and perceive them – interchangeably. This is a mistake.
I wouldn’t suggest for a moment that conservatives change who we are; conservatism is the more mature, sane and prudent course, and the enemy will continue to operate at gutter level no matter what we do. I think, however that there are ways to bring a lot of liberal Democrats around, although this period in our history just might be the most difficult juncture at which to suggest or attempt such action.
One method I have touched on before is holding conservative leaders accountable. If Progressives lay claim to moral relativism and conservatives to moral grounding, then we must be willing to hurl the hypocrites among us directly under the bus with all due speed, laughing out loud as the wheels roll over them.
Two, we must intelligently and rationally call attention to the intellectual immaturity of the enemy’s ideas (rather than the enemy himself) whether on a one-to-one basis or if we are fortunate enough to have access to larger forums. This ought to be relatively easy since we are exposed to a plethora of the far Left’s half-baked ideas on an hourly basis.
Last, we have to stay out of the hater camp. Cliché as it sounds, if we do that then we’ve become what we behold. We’ve done a pretty good job of this inasmuch as the radical Right in America has been marginalized into near-insignificance, but I have seen frustration among some of us lead to imprudent, rash rhetoric and an abandonment of civility. This we cannot afford, since we are scrutinized to a far greater degree than are Progressives. One can be a classy killer like James Bond, ever-ready with a clever quip as his coup de grâce, rather than a scroungy gangbanging cussmonster.
If we look hard enough, we might just find that we have many more allies than we know…
|Erik Rush is a New York-born columnist, author and speaker who lives in Colorado and writes columns of sociopolitical fare for The New Media Journal as well as dozens of nationally-distributed print and online news sources. He is also a Staff Writer and Acting Associate Editor and Publisher for the New Media Alliance, Inc., a national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets. Erik is the veteran of numerous radio appearances and is the author of several books; his latest, “Annexing Mexico: Solving the Border Problem Through Annexation and Assimilation”, has just been released by Level 4 Press.|
The Debates Should Be Over
The 2008 Election isn’t for another year or so, but you couldn’t tell it by watching the potential candidates. First, Democrats raised a stink about Fox News offering to host a Democrat debate because, according to John “Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Beautiful” Edwards, Fox News is…biased! Once Edwards said it, other Democrats jumped on the bandwagon and the event was cancelled. And how did I find out about it? Watching candidates talk about the issue on CNN.
Republicans, on the other hand, walked agreed to let MSNBC and Politico host a Republican debate recently. With the moderator being Chris Matthews, the candidates walked into a lion’s den, or would that be a spitting cobra’s pit? Either way, people could email suggested questions for the candidates to answer, including this winner by someone in California: “Governor Romney, what do you like least about America?”
I’ll give the Republican candidates points for taking on this venture, but you had to know it was going to be a set-up. After all, MSNBC makes a living off Matthews and Keith Olbermann, two figures known for teeing off on Republicans like Tiger Woods at a driving range. The only way it could have been more of a set-up would have been to have it sponsored by MoveOn.org and have Cindy Sheehan be the moderator.
Both of these situations lead me to two conclusions. One, having MSNBC host a Presidential debate is like letting Arthur Andersen prepare your taxes. And, two, we don’t really need Presidential debates anymore. They’re fun to watch (that is, if you’re into sadomasochism C-Span style), but they don’t really provide the solid information or rhetorical value they used to.
One reason for this is that we have changed. At the turn of the 20th Century, politicians and other speakers would give speeches that lasted hours. Rumor has it that former President William Howard Taft gave a speech so long it continued for a good two hours after he died. Anymore, a 90 minute movie tends to tax our attention spans. Why is that? Because we’ve allowed the media to turn us into people with the attention span of a crack-addicted ferret riddled with ADD drinking its 14th triple espresso.
And as our attention spans have shrunk, so has the content of a politician’s speech. Instead of focusing on wide, thought-provoking concepts on the various issues that we have to deal with, Democrats and Republicans have opted for the Political Campaigns for Dummies route. Short, punchy, catchy slogans that could have very easily come from Madison Avenue as from Pennsylvania Avenue are commonplace. All it takes is the right slogan for the right situation and before you know it, you’re thinking Dennis Kucinich is Presidential.
What’s also changed is how we get our information. Debates filled a void in the days when our media options were limited to talking or listening. Nowadays, there are websites (like CommonConservative.com), blogs (like The Bottom Line blog), radio shows (like Warchick Revolution, of which I’m a frequent guest), YouTube (sorry, but I don’t have a shameless plug for something I’m doing on YouTube, but give me time), and many other sources. The media can keep airing the debates, but by the time they roll around for Election 2008, the only way you’d be undecided would be if you were a complete moron or you’re still using dial-up to get online.
Instead of having Presidential or candidate debates, why not have something more fun? For example, bring back the show “American Gladiators” and have the candidates compete to see who wins. Speaking personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing John Edwards get pelted with tennis balls shot out of an air cannon at speeds close to 100 miles per hour. And who wouldn’t want to see John McCain try to fight a beefed-up, oiled-up, hairy bodybuilder type who is hitting him with what appears to be a giant Q-Tip? And maybe after he’s done sparring with one of the women he could take on one of the guys.
But if you’re more of a traditionalist, we could keep the debates, but with one addition. Well, two, technically.
Penn and Teller.
They have a show called “BS” (the actual name is something I can’t repeat here) where they debunk commonly held beliefs that are simply not true. I would suggest putting them as moderators of all the debates. Whenever a candidate says something that sounds like BS, they would hit a loud buzzer, and the letters BS would appear on the screen. Then, they or people on the staff would research it and the debate would stop until the factoid could be verified or debunked. Oh, and did I mention no one could leave the auditorium until that happened? Granted, this would turn a 2 hour debate into something akin to the Florida recounts from 2000, but I guarantee it would only happen once before the candidates figured out the score.
So, we have two options: “American Candidate Gladiators” or the Penn and Teller Presidential Debates. Either one would be light years ahead of what we currently have, and it would ultimately benefit us all. Or at least it would benefit me because I really want to see John Edwards meet the business end of a tennis ball.
Thomas Lindaman is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. and NewsBull.com. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets. He is also Publisher of CommonConservative.com.
Pelosi Proclaims Women as “Peacekeepers of our Societies”
I once assumed that Mother’s Day would be immune from the intrusions and calculations of partisan politics. But no longer.
This past week House speaker Nancy Pelosi used Mother’s Day to launch her latest salvo against the Iraq war. And while she was at it, she indulged in some back-handed gender stereotyping, making the remarkable claim that “Women have always been the peacekeepers of our societies.”
So is it true that women are the gentle harbingers of peaceful co-existence? And men are testosterone-addled warmongers, as Pelosi seems to imply?
Of course, women have long played supportive roles for male combatants, serving as nurses, supply specialists, and the like. In his report War and Gender, University of Massachusetts political scientist Joshua Goldstein documents how women have actively encouraged military adventurism, both in modern and indigenous societies.
Goldstein notes that in the face of imminent conflict, women goad their men into combat. In the Revolutionary War, women were known to withhold sexual favors from reluctant fighters. During the Civil War, Southern belles refused to accept suitors who did not take up arms. In World War I, British women organized the White Feather campaign, calculated to shame able-bodied men into uniform.
Among the Bedouin, frenzied Rwala women bare their breasts and urge their men to war. And before the 1973 coup in Chile, women threw corn at soldiers to taunt them as “chickens.”
There are numerous documented cases of women killing prisoners of war, often in retaliation for the loss of loved ones. In colonial Massachusetts a mob of women tortured two Indian prisoners to death after they overcame their guards. During the era of the Soviet Gulag, female interrogators were just as ruthless as their male counterparts in extracting “confessions.” In 1993 a group of enraged Somali women murdered four foreign journalists.
Women also play a key role socializing future warriors. Goldstein explains, “since mothers control child care, they could change gender norms, training girls to be aggressive and boys to be passive. But in fact mothers worldwide generally reward boys for being tough and girls for being nice.”
Based on his extensive review, Goldstein reaches this simple conclusion: “Most women support most wars.”
A scan of history likewise reveals that female political leaders are fully adept at the war-making craft.
Let us recall the crusade of Queen Mary I of England, who beginning in 1553 betrayed a fondness for burning unrepentant Protestants at the stake? A sobering thought the next time you plan to raise a toast in the name of Bloody Mary.
Anne of Great Britain was the first female monarch to have an entire war named in her honor – Queen Anne’s War. Thanks to her unblemished support, that devastating conflict persisted in both North America and Europe for over a decade.
It was the scheming Queen Isabella II of Spain who saw to it that military expenditures were multiplied during her rule. That enabled bellicose sorties to be launched against Morocco, Peru, and Chile.
In 1982 British prime minister Margaret Thatcher decided that a chain of wind-swept islands in the South Atlantic warranted the shedding of blood, which triggered the Falklands War. That escapade cost the lives of 258 British and 649 Argentinian soldiers.
During the 1994 Rwanda genocide, Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, former minister for family affairs, handpicked the “nicest” Tutsi women to be abducted and de-flowered. Nyiramasuhuko was later tried for war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal.
Three days after the 9/11 attacks, an Authorization to Use Military Force was brought before Congress. All but one female member of Congress voted to authorize to “use all necessary and appropriate force” to wage the war on terror.
And a few weeks ago the eight Democratic presidential candidates squared off in a South Carolina debate. In response to a question about responding to a terrorist attack, Hillary Clinton shot back, “I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate.”
“Retaliate” – spoken like a true peacekeeper, for sure.
But what about the women’s peace movements that have sprouted up over the years –don’t they prove the ladies are peace-makers at heart? No, for one simple reason: History proves that when women begin to fear for their personal security, they quickly revert to a pro-military stance.
So coming just a month after her ill-fated peace mission to Syria, it’s regrettable the Speaker of the House would tap the occasion of Mother’s Day to indulge in gender stereotyping and male-bashing. As my mother used to say, “If you can’t speak well of someone, it’s better to not speak at all.”
Carey Roberts is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. (www.thenma.org). The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.