In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
9/11 MONEY GOING TO LIBERAL POLITICAL USES
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
9/11 MONEY GOING TO LIBERAL POLITICAL USES: I was afraid of this. There's just too much money that has been collected for this fund and someone is always going to rip some of it off if they get a chance. Look at what the national board of the American Red Cross tried to do until Bill O'Reilly caught them. The United Way confidently told O'Reilly that they were going to distribute 100% of the money to other charities that were closer to the people. They didn't say that some of them, while having good-sounding names, were more into political causes than into helping the victims of the 9/11 disaster. "One of the largest relief funds set up to help the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, has awarded grants totaling more than $1 million to a variety of left-wing political groups devoted to causes like hate crime legislation, expanded welfare, gun control and nationalized health care. In one case, the September 11th Fund awarded a grant of $31,000 to the Children's Defense Fund (CDF). The CDF has been at the forefront of lobbying for 'children's rights,' gun control and expanded welfare programs. According to the fund's financial documents, the grant to the CDF was 'to get out information about subsidized health insurance expanded in response to September 11th.' But this and other grants are drawing criticism. "Giving money to organizations that have controversial political agendas like CDF's and not directly assisting victims' families is just flat out wrong," said John Carlisle of the Capital Research Center, a conservative charity watchdog group. Children's Defense Fund is a major advocate for the vast expansion of the federal welfare state and their affiliation with Hillary Clinton is well known," he added. Clinton served as a CDF board member between 1986 and 1992." To me, this is the best reason why no money should have gone to this group, and if the grants made by the United Way are examined closely, I believe we'll see that grants have been given to many other groups with left-leaning political goals rather than goals to help the 9/11 disaster victims. Hey O'Reilly! Did you catch this? (Source: CNS News, 11/19/2001) [112101-1] DANGEROUS PRACTICE: Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would surrender freedom to ensure security deserve neither freedom nor security." Apparently, many of today's citizens have forgotten this: "In times of war, there has been a willingness among Americans to give up some rights -- to honor curfews, martial law and even restrictions on speech." Some say Internet companies are screening material with a double standard -- supporting patriotic messages while frowning on those that criticize the government's actions. In some cases, people say, anti-U.S. or anti-Israeli messages appear to be deleted faster and more frequently than anti-Arab posts. Yahoo has admitted to removing many messages they didn't like from web sites on their servers, based solely on their own opinion of what is right or wrong, and way too often it turns out that patriotism suffers while anti-Americanism benefits. This is true in spite of the current trend in the opposite direction. This acceptance of the loss of "certain rights" in the "war effort is dangerous because rights, once taken away, rarely return. If they do at all it is out of the "largesse" of politicians, for which they demand their "pound of flesh." Today, they claim that to protest their usurpation of power is "unpatriotic" and "un-American." It is not. It is absolutely patriotic to demand that we retain the rights that are ours by the fact of our birth, and nothing could more pro-American, no matter what the power seekers might wish for us to believe. (Source: Washington Post, 11/18/2001, Page H01) [112101-2] I WON'T BE FLYING SOON: No, I'm not afraid to fly. I'm well aware that the chance of the flight I'm on being hijacked by terrorists is a very small one, and if it was, the hijacker would die at my hands -- one of them, anyway. I'm a trained expert in making a weapon out of just about anything, so there are many weapons around for me to use. I won't be flying because the government, as usual, is "throwing out the baby with the bath water" in deciding what to allow us to carry on an aircraft. Confiscating nail clippers! How stupid is that? You can do just as much damage with a ball-point pen. Not only that, the level of indignity they demand of us in order to be able to get on a flight is way too high and I refuse to subject myself to it. If I wish to travel, there is still rail travel (so far) and the bus (again, so far). If those go, I'll simply drive. If they start putting up roadblocks, I'll just stay home. I won't allow myself to be searched in order to go somewhere. If my refusal requires me to stay home, then so be it. One of the things that always dismays me is the power seekers' tendency to use anything that happens to enhance their power over the rest of us. The power to tell us what to do in more areas. This country is well and truly becoming an "armed camp" because of what the terrorists did, and that's sad. It was already moving in that direction, but now it has burst out of the government office buildings into the general population. The new practice in Chicago of subjecting people who enter their highest building to airport-like searches in order to enter that building is an abomination. If I worked in that building, I would quit my job immediately. If, as a security officer, I were asked to do such things, I would refuse. I will not subject my fellow human beings to such indignities. And I will not subject myself to them. (No source, just common sense) [112101-3] TALIBAN NOW REDUCED TO MURDER: Did I say "now? They've always been murderers. What they did in New York and Washington, DC was murder. They can call it a "political statement" if they want, but it was mass murder. It was killing people who have never done them any harm, including women and children, to make their point and show their ignorance. And "show their ignorance" it did. To think that your God wants you to kill people who are "unbelievers" so badly that He has set up a place for you to have sex with virgins for all of eternity is ignorance of the highest water. If God wanted somebody dead, they'd be dead. He doesn't need help from a bunch of scruffy, ignorant nomads who are living two centuries ago in their own country. But what I refer to is their act in pulling four journalists out of a car on the road, taking them up into the hills and killing them. Some they shot, but the female they beat to death and left on the road. Nobody's talking about whether or not she was raped as part of their "revenge," but I'd bet she was. Jerks like this never lose an opportunity to demean women and get their rocks off. It's funny: they insist their women hide from the world so no one else will think of them as "sex objects," but they live to go to "Paradise" and have sex with virgins for all of eternity. The bad thing is that the mainstream media just can't seem to bring themselves to call this "murder," and always refer to it as an "execution." It was not an "execution." It was murder (Fox News excepted). They spent their entire "reign" in Afghanistan demeaning women and murdering many people under the color of law. Now they can't do that so they just kill people without the "color of law." They had it made, but they screwed it up. They don't care, they just want to kill people. (Source: Inspired by an item on Fox News) [112101-4] CONVERSATION BETWEEN OSAMA AND OMAR: Omar: "So Osama, we had it made. Why did you have to go and screw it up?" Osama: "What do you mean?" Omar: "You know what I mean. We were absolute dictators in this country. We could take all women's rights away, force them to wear those ugly tents, Stay at home and never be able to go to work on their own and become independent. We could beat them on the streets or take them to the soccer field and blow their brains out on the ground. We could screw any woman we wanted. We had 'Paradise' right here on earth. We could kill any man we wanted with impunity and dictate the religious practices of an entire nation. We were like Allah. And you just had to send those ignorant jerks to America to crash airplanes into large buildings so the United States would come over here and destroy us. Why? Why?" Osama: "Because of the power! Nobody in the history of terrorism has done so much damage to an enemy as have I, and I did it in one stroke!" Omar: "And what have you accomplished? We started out in 'the stone age' and America has bombed us further back. They have destroyed our infrastructure and killed many of our friends. The innocent citizens don't matter except for the use they are in blaming the Americans. But our friends, Osama. We were the rulers of this country and now here we are cowering in a cave, ducking their bombs while they decide what sort of government will replace us! You have done this, Osama! I condemn you!" Osama: " Don't talk to me like that, you dimwitted, one-eyed coward! I made you what you were!" Omar: pulls out gun and shoots Osama between the eyes. "Now I have made you what you are!" (Booooooooom!) End of story for Omar as the pilot who dropped the bomb on their heads goes back for her coffee break. (No source, just common sense) [112101-5] RAY'S SHORTS: These are very short items, but on important subjects: Dangerous: "It's more dangerous to live in the United States than to be at was with Afghanistan." (Roger Hedgecock while hosting the Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/14/01) Air tax: "If the government could regulate breathing, there would soon be a tax on air." (Ashleigh Brilliant, 11/15/01) Where were they? The United Nations calls the Northern Alliance revenge killings "crimes against humanity." Where were they when the Taliban was brutalizing and killing Afghanis for all those years? (CNN Headline News, 11/16/01) Are feds better? What makes them think that making baggage screeners into federal employees will make them more competent? It has been my experience that when you "federalize" anything, you make it worse. Why not just come up with competent standards and insist the private companies adhere to them? They could include standards for competence, coupled with higher pay rate to draw better people. But they'd have to "ride herd" on them to make sure they followed them. Federalizing it isn't going to work. (Just common sense) Which is it? A report by Leslie Stahl on Iraq run on 60 Minutes showed footage of an active marketplace and reported that the vendors were prosperous. How does this square with the liberal claim that the United states sanctions against Iraq resulted in the starvation of thousands of Iraqi children every year? As usual, when reality intrudes on a favorite liberal lie, they just ignore it. Contradictions don't bother them because they know most people aren't paying attention. (Letters, Rocky Mountain News, 11/16/01) [112101-6]
Comments
I judge Thee!, Not for what you are , but for what you say !