Off to Church and then Brunch. The TiVo is set. More later after we’ve had a chance to watch.
Please scroll down for more of the transcription. It's coming along in sections.
Hot Air has video
I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States because their threat is in their own house. The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself is right in the house. And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here. (crosses himself) Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today. This table that I am now standing in front of, yesterday ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the President of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as 'the devil' came here talking as if he owned the world. Truly as the owner of the world. I think we can call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the President of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism he came to share his nostrums. To try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world. An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title, 'The Devil's Recipe'.
As Chomsky says here clearly and in depth, the American Empire is doing all it can to consolidate its hegemonistic system of domination and we can not allow them to do that. We can not allow a world dictatorship to be consolidated.
And that's as much as I can stand to transcribe from the translation as shown on Fox News…
(I will be transcribing more of this since the interest level is high – Give me a little time please).
Here's some more transcription of Chavez' speech:
The world tyrant's statement, cynical, hypocritical, full of his imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything. They say they want to impose a democratic model? But that's their [emphasis translator's] democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites and I would say a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons. What a strange democracy. Aristotlese [name used by translator] might not recognize it. Or others who are at the root of democracy. What type of democracy do you impose with Marines and bombs and…
The President of the United States yesterday said to us right here in this room and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look you hear extremists telling you you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror, and martyrdom." Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother, he looks at your color and he says, 'oh, there's an extremist.' Evo Morales, the worthy President of Bolivia looks like an extremist to him. The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists, it's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over and people are standing up.
I have the feeling, dear World Dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare. Because the rest of us are standing up. All of us are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.
Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.
Break time, more later.
The President then – and this he said himself – I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East to tell them that my country wants peace. That's true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city – San Antonio – San Francisco, and we ask individuals – citizens of the United States – 'What does this country want? Does it want peace?', they'll say yes. But the government doesn't want peace, the government of the United States doesn't want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war. It wants peace but what's happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? Palestine? What's happening? What's happened over the last hundred years in Latin America and in the world? And its now threatening Venezuela, new threats against Venezuela. Against Iran.
Another break. Little Guy needs an escort to the bus stop for kindergarden. Will be back shortly with more. (12:30 CDT)
He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities have been caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie. Shamefacedly. The bomb in Beriut? With milimetric [translator's word] precision? This is crossfire? He's thinking of a Western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire. This is imperialist fire, fascist, assasin, genocidal. The empire and Israel fire on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened and now we hear we're suffering because we see the homes destroyed.
James Taranto at Opinion Journal missed something today I think and he doesn't often miss anything.
He noted two stories in different papers speaking about arresting, detaining, or otherwise holding a head of state when said head of state arrives in a particular country:
"Those who recognize the Iranian threat are left with the law-enforcement option. Police Commissioner Kelly, District Attorney Morgenthau, or any enterprising federal prosecutor or G-Man has a perfect opportunity at hand to seize Mr. Ahmadinejad and to hold him as a material witness or even as a suspect."–editorial, New York Sun, Sept. 19
"Employees of Ankara's Directorate General for Religious Affairs, or Diyanet, presented a petition to the [Turkish] Justice Ministry asking it to launch a probe into the pope's remarks and to detain him when he arrives, the Anatolian news agency said. They said the pontiff had violated Turkish laws upholding freedom of belief and thought by 'insulting' Islam and the Prophet Mohammed."–Reuters, Sept. 19
I think what he missed was the last sentence of the second quote above:
They said the pontiff had violated Turkish laws upholding freedom of belief and thought by 'insulting' Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. (emphasis mine)
How free is the freedom of belief and thought if 'insulting' Islam and the Prophet Mohammed are not covered by such freedom? How is it that the Head of State of the Vatican, Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, speaking in Germany can violate the laws of Turkey?
Granted, the emperor he was quoting was from Constantiople which is modern day Istanbul, but still…
If your laws uphold freedom of belief and thought then those laws should cover all belief and thought, not only belief and thought that you agree with.
Dontcha be forgettin' now that it be [tag]Talk Like a Pirate Day[/tag]!
So don't be a land lubber and get out there with yer mug of grog and Talk Like a Pirate!
VDH at his very best. A few quotes, but do read it all:
On Oriana Fallaci's courage to confront radical Islam:
Candor, after all, can get one killed, exiled, or ostracized—whether a Danish cartoonist, a Dutch filmmaker, a Wall Street Journal reporter, or a British-Indian novelist. So here, ill and in her seventies, returned Ms. Fallaci one last time to take up the hammer and tongs against radical Islam—a diminutive woman of the Left and self-proclaimed atheist who wrote more bravely on behalf of her civilization than have most who are hale, males, conservatives, or Christians.
Her fiery message was as timely as it was caricatured and slandered: Muslims who leave the Middle East to live under the free aegis of the West have a moral duty to support and protect the civilization that has welcomed them, rather than romanticize about what they have forsaken; Christianity is more than a religion, but also a powerful emblem of the force of reason, in that it seeks to spread belief by rational thought as well as faith; and that affluent and leisured Westerners, bargaining away their honor and traditions out of fear and for illusory security, have only emboldened radical Islam that seeks to liquidate them.
I wish she were still alive to scoff at the politically correct, the appeaser, and the triangulator, but alas she is gone, defiant to the last.
On the Pope:
And what are we to make of poor Benedict XVI, the scholastic, who, in a disastrous display of public sensitivity, makes the telling point, that Christianity, in its long evolution to the present, has learned to forsake violence, and to defend its faith through appeals to reason—and thus can offer its own experience in the current crisis of Islam. And by quoting from the emperor rhetorician Manuel Paleologus—whose desperate efforts at strengthening the Morea and the Isthmus at Corinth a generation before that awful Tuesday, May 29, 1453 all came to naught—the Pope failed to grasp that under the tenets of radical Islam of the modern age, context means little, intent nothing, learning less than zero. If a sentence, indeed a mere phrase can be taken out of context, twisted, manipulated to show an absence of deference to Islam, furor ensues, death threats follow, assassins load their belts—even as the New York Times or the Guardian issues its sanctimonious apologies in the hope that the crocodile will eat them last.
His concluding lines:
So long may you run, Ms. Fallaci, you who by now have learned that, yes, there is a soul, and, yes, yours was indeed saved for eternity if only for its singular courage and honesty alone. And dear Pope: clarify, contextualize, express sorrow over the wrong interpretation of your remarks, but please don’t apologize for the Truth—not now, not ever.
On September 17, 1787 the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met for the last time to sign the document they had created. The National Archives and Records Administration celebrates this important day in our nation's history by presenting the following activities, lesson plans, and information. We encourage teachers and students at all levels to learn more about our Constitution and government.
The First Amendent reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Let's break this down into it's constituent parts shall we?
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
2. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
3. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
4. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
5. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
6. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Let's also remember that the rights in the Bill of Rights are not absolute. Restrictions can – and in a place that follows the rule of law, must – be placed. For example, your right of free speech is restricted in that you may not shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Your right to peaceably assemble ends when you try to assemble on my private property.
And a final point: Congress herein means federal House and Senate (and bills signed by the President into law). States can make all sorts of laws regarding each of these six issues as long as making such laws is not contrary to that state's own constitution.
The Vermont Constitution states:
That all persons have a natural and unalienable right, to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings, as in their opinion shall be regulated by the word of God; and that no person ought to, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of conscience, nor can any person be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of religious sentiments, or peculiar mode of religious worship; and that no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by, any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship. Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.
So, you can be whatever religion you want, but if you are Christian, you should go to Church on Sundays.
1. Congress (federal) can not make a law to establish the Church of the United States. (In my mind that would include the first church of atheism). This clause was added so that United States would not follow England's example and have a Church of England situation with a King or Queen as titular head of said church.
2. Congress (federal) can not make a law to prohibit the free exercise of religion. (Legal restrictions can, again, be placed on this. For example human sacrifice is against the law. You may not practice that even if your religion calls for it. Polygamy is against the law. You may not practice it even if your religion calls for it.)
3. Congress (federal) can not make a law abridging the freedom of speech. (There are legal restrictions. As noted above, one can not shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The safety of the patrons outweighs your free speech rights).
Alaska's Constitution says this best I think:
SECTION 5. FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.
So, say or write what you will, but be prepared to take responsibility and the consequences should you abuse that right.
4. Congress can not make a law abridging the freedom of the press. The press have the right to print what they want. This is restricted by laws regarding libel and slander. The press do not have the right to get in your face and ask questions. If they are on your property (or other private property) you can tell them to go away. If they won't, you can have the police remove them. They can ask questions but do not have the right to an answer. There is no special privilege for journalists to keep secrets. Doctors/Patient and Attorney/Client relationships are covered by privilege. Journalist/informant relationships are not.
5. Congress (federal) can not make a law abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble. Once again, the federal government can not make a law. A municipality has the right to require a permit if they so desire. A municipality may want to know when and where an assembly may be held in order to schedule police presence and perhaps even close off streets to accomodate crowds.
6. Congress (federal) can not make a law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. One is able to petition the Government without fear of reprisals.
These are all my own thoughts on the First Amendment, memories of High School civics courses (lo these many years ago), and recent readings all over the Web…
*made up number – lost count long ago… (partial transcript)
Gregory: As you well know, this is not a campaign season about whether America is a great place or not, right? I mean it's a lot more substantive than that and it has to do with the path that this president took the country after 9/11. Now when a Republican leader of Congress says 'I wonder if democrats are more interested in protecting terrorists than they are in protecting the American people.' [ed note: actual quote is 'I wonder if they're more interested in protecting terrorists than they are in protecting the American People.' This was said by John Boehner in response to what Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Tuesday that Bush was “more consumed by staying the course in Iraq and playing election-year politics.” source] As a spokesman for the President, do you think that it's your duty to say that's out of bounds, or not?
Snow: Frankly again, this is one of these things. I haven't even seen the Boehner statement. But let me make a larger point. When people call the President a liar or a loser – that happens -there have been all sorts of names and smears aimed at the President and he understands and is a big enough boy to deal with that. The other thing is that in this present political season unfortunately there will be a lot of it. There will be some name calling. You know what? I think you and I agree. Let's figure out what the substantive issues are, let's get past the name calling, and let's get down to it and let's talk about it.
Gregory: But this is important because as a matter of fact the Vice President said over the weekend to Tim Russert that the sort of debate we're having in this country about withdrawing troops from Iraq emboldens the terrorists. Now you have a Republican leader of Congress saying the Democrats may be more interested in protecting terrorists than the American people. Does the President agree with that?
Snow: The President, What you've done is you've taken two things. Let's focus on what the Vice President said which is that withdrawal from Iraq would embolden the terrorists. And it's true. Osama Bin Ladin has made it clear. And one of things he says is that if the United States is pushed from Iraq it will be to the eternal humiliation of the United States. So it is clear that from the standpoint of Bin Ladin, who in the past – you've quite kindly corrected me on a misstatement back in August when I got it wrong – Bin Ladin drew the conclusion when we left Somalia that the Americans didn't have what it took to stick it out. See, that's the way that the enemy is looking at this. So as an objective statement about the way in which Bin Ladin views the United States, that is a true statement. I'm not going to get into trying to characterize what John Boehner said.
Gregory: You certainly would get into if somebody accused the President of being a liar. You want to let a statement like this stand from a Republican leader of Congress?
Snow: You're presenting me with a statement that I haven't seen. I'll tell you what. I'll get back to you on it.
Gregory: It's been out for a couple of hours. I think you've had ample time to see it. Let me ask you this final point. Can you describe how it's possible to oppose the President on the war in Iraq without emboldening the terrorists?
Snow: There are probably… Yes, absolutely. There are ways to do it but also if you say we need to leave, right now, without preconditions, and I'm not sure anybody says that but I give you a hypothetical, that would embolden the terrorists. If the end result was that we left Iraq and we did not have an Iraq that was able to sustain itself, govern itself, and defend itself that would embolden the terrorists. If the terrorists have the ability, if the terrorists draw the conclusion that they can use political means – because they defeat us militarily, so it has to be a political battle – if they can use political means to drive us from Iraq and make Iraq a place from which – like Afghanistan before – they can mount terrorist attacks and set up their own headquarters and this time have in addition, oil as a weapon, then that, in fact, is the kind of situation that we can't let stand. But there are ways of disagreeing. You can disagree over a lot of things. If you share the objective, of having an Iraq – this is what's kind of interesting about the debate last night because if you look at the President's speech, he talks about an Iraq that's going to be able to be democratic. I don't know that that's controversial with anybody. An Iraq where Iraqi forces are going to be able to defend Iraqi ground. I don't that that's controversial. I think those are the things. So to answer your question – I want to get back to this – to answer your question, it is possible to disagree, but on the other hand, if you are proposing a position that says to Bin Ladin in effect 'Iraq is yours' then that is not the kind of thing that I think is going to lead to victory.
Gregory: Do Democrats want to protect terrorists more than the American people? What do you think?
Snow: Again, you know I know you think that in the last hour – I had an hour to prepare because we had long meetings –
Gregory: Forget about what Boehner said. I'm putting the proposition to you. Do you have an opinion on that topic?
Snow: Do I think, no I think…
Gregory: Democrats are more interested in protecting the terrorists than the American people. What do you think?
An audience member on Dayside 9/12/2006 (paraphrased) It’s time to stop debating whether or not we should have gone into Iraq. We’re there. The discussion now should be all about how to win. (emphasis mine)
Straw Poll time again at GOP Bloggers!
Let your opinion be heard!
Bumped to top for 9/11 – please scroll down for new posts.
Paul Pansini – WTC (#2,472)
The Anchoress remembers Matthew David Garvey, FDNY, USMC
Sensible Mom remembers Thomas Fitzpatrick
Gina Cobb remembers Amenia Rasool
Laura Lee Donoho remembers Ada M. Davis
Ed Morrisey remembers Ysidro Hidalgo-Tejada
Michelle Malkin remembers Giovanna Porras
Rory Peterson remembers Patricia Cushing
Curt at Flopping Aces remembers Aram Iskendarian
Hang Right Politics remembers Stephen Lauria
Junk Yard Blog remembers Lisa J. Raines
Lone Star Times remembers William J. Martin
Kim Priestap remembers John T. Gnazzo
Lady Jane remembers Betty Ann Ong
Sister Toldjah remembers Peter Edward Mardikian
James Mabry remembers Soo-Jin “Stuart” Lee
[tags]9/11, 2996, “2,996”[/tags]