YouTube - "These Colors Don't Run" PSA

YouTube - "These Colors Don't Run" PSA Some idjit over there defending Melanie "War-Whorse" Morgan is directing me to visit the ANSWER website and find all the "lies", and contrast that with all the truths at MAF's or Move America Forward, Melanie's neocon dick-sucking sitewhere OBL gets more terrorism out of one attack than the USSR got out of it's fleet of nuclear submarines. Simply amazing that they don;t seem to realize who's actually spreading the terror. Anyhow......If I'm to list the lies on her website, I guess I'll just have to do it here.

Canada's Own Problem With "Mission Creeps"

Is Hillier out of line? Feb 20, 2007 04:30 AM Michael Byers Chief of defence is playing a highly unusual public role in promoting the mission in Afghanistan, even bypassing the defence minister to deal directly with the Prime Minister Canada's mission in Afghanistan is failing and Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier deserves much of the blame. Since becoming Canada's top soldier two years ago, Hillier has pushed the politicians hard. At his own swearing-in ceremony, he criticized Paul Martin for underfunding the military; one month later, he browbeat the Liberal cabinet into volunteering troops for a combat mission to Kandahar. Then-prime minister Martin and his ministers assumed Canadian casualties would be limited. So far, 44 soldiers have lost their lives. Hillier, the professional upon whose expertise the politicians relied, should have explained the real risks to them. The Martin government also assumed Canada would contribute to the combat mission for a limited time only. But Hillier changed his tune shortly after Stephen Harper was elected: "From NATO's perspective, they look at this as a 10-year mission, right? Minimum. There's going to be a huge demand for Canada to contribute over the longer period of time." Hillier promised Martin that the combat mission would not preclude Canadian participation in UN peacekeeping missions elsewhere. He's since broken that promise, ruling out troops for Lebanon and Darfur on the basis that Canada is fully committed in Afghanistan. We're experiencing a serious case of "mission creep." Under Hillier's leadership, Canada's role in Kandahar has morphed from a "provincial reconstruction team" made up of soldiers, diplomats and development personnel, into a "battle group" supported by Leopard tanks. Hillier has also used language that may have placed ordinary Canadians at greater risk. Foiled terrorist plots in Toronto and London were reportedly motivated, at least in part, by anger at the presence of Western troops in Afghanistan. Characterizing the enemy as "detestable murderers and scumbags" can only exacerbate the situation. It also makes the jobs of diplomats and politicians more difficult, as they search for the inevitable, negotiated peace. Hillier has even compromised this country's commitment to international law. In December 2005, he usurped the role of the Canadian ambassador by signing a detainee-transfer agreement with the Afghan defence minister. The agreement provided only the most rudimentary protections for prisoners, despite the fact that Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands had already concluded much more rigorous transfer agreements – copies of which were available to Hillier as models of "best practice." Some of the consequences of this were visible recently. After evidence emerged of possible beatings in Canadian custody, the Canadian Forces were forced to admit they had no idea what had happened to the more than 50 prisoners transferred to Afghan or U.S. custody since 2002. On the whole, Hillier has been content to adopt the approach of the Bush administration, emphasizing aggressive search-and-kill tactics and downplaying diplomacy, development, and international law. It's an approach that's already failed in Iraq, leading to the resignation of U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It's failing in southern Afghanistan, too. After five years, the region has become more, rather than less, dangerous. The Taliban is recruiting new fighters, opium production has skyrocketed, and the plight of ordinary people has not improved – if measured by their security from violence and access to food, medicine and other basic services. Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, still doesn't have a reliable electricity supply. A new approach is clearly needed, one that focuses on effective and transparent development assistance, the training and ongoing support of a well-paid and professional Afghan police force, and dialogue and diplomacy with at least some of the groups we're fighting against. Twenty-one out of 26 NATO countries realize this, which is why Canada has been carrying so much of the combat load, and suffering 25 per cent of the casualties. Hillier shares the dubious company of U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in stubbornly refusing to admit his mistake. In 1951, U.S. general Douglas MacArthur violated the principle of civilian control over foreign and defence policy, first by speaking directly to the media about the overall direction of the Korean War, and then by issuing an ultimatum to China. President Harry S. Truman promptly relieved MacArthur of his command. Hillier is demonstrating similar tendencies. In addition to signing the detainee-transfer agreement, he's dominated Gordon O'Connor, keeping important information from the defence minister – such as the fact that Canada had acquired a number of Excalibur artillery shells costing $150,000 apiece – and bypassing him to deal directly with the Prime Minister. He's played a highly unusual public role in promoting the mission, and has even used wounded soldiers as part of an elaborate cross-Canada PR campaign. On Friday, Hillier, who claims to be non-partisan, called the Liberal cutbacks of the 1990s a "decade of darkness" for the military. Last week, the Senate Defence Committee asked: "Are Canadians willing to commit themselves to decades of involvement in Afghanistan, which could cost hundreds of Canadian lives and billions of dollars, with no guarantee of ending up with anything like the kind of society that makes sense to us?" With spring arriving in Afghanistan, the risk to Canada's soldiers is about to escalate. How many more of them must die before Hillier is called to account? Michael Byers hold the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia. His new book, Intent for a Nation, will be published in May. Michael Byers

More Conservative Lies For Conservative Morons To Prove How Life begins Where Their Influence Ends

Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies by Gregory Jackson - Google SearchClaim: It is uncertain when human life begins; therefore it’s a religious question, not a scientific one. Response: It is an undisputed biological scientific fact that human life begins at conception.

Scientifically life begins at conception.…this new, unique, human creation is a defined sex and is alive, complete and growing….

Lie. The sex of the fetus upon fertilization has nothing in, on or about it that would distinguish it from a cell scraped from another part of the body. In fact, the scrapings would be more complex, more like the human being from which it had at least become an identifiable cell with a role to play; this in contrast to the haploid cell or egg (only half the DNA of donor body) that is then infrequently paired with a similarly haploid sperm cell the male offers, with most cells being washed out during the period, many of them being fully fertilized cells that "God" apparently decided were unworthy of becoming a developing fetus by not allowing it time to become attached to the ovum, which must then make any human so aborted one done by God himself. Conception is actually nothing more than the penetration of the female gamete or haploid cell with its male counterpart, a sperm cell. These two separate, half-cells each have a half-nuclei that remain separate after the cells have then rejoined for a time afterwards. These two nuclei eventually integrate into one whole set of uncombined DNA, split apart into two recombined but half-cells again, join again to make fully separate as well as complete sets of DNA which occupy only one cell however. This then splits into separate cells, which continue the process undifferentiated for some time further again. Now. Where in their did a baby come into the picture...when did life begin? Both cells were living cells despite their lack of the full compliment of genes even before fertilization. Still dead tho? How about after the parent cells combined but before the DNA has? Or when the DNA combines into separte halves making a complete compliment of genes, yet still haven't recombined to make the unique set that will eventually become the signature of any baby that might proceed from a succesful pregnacy devoid of any miscarriages or Holy Abortions as you must presume them to be? Or how about once these cells division begin to start the differentiation process well into pregnacywhen only then do they start to have the difining characteristics of nerve cells, skin cells, etc. but as yet still no brain, heart or limb cells? Or is it when the sex has been determined by the mothers hormonal secretions even later into the pregnancy? Or perhaps when the first braincell makes it's way into the bulb that will eventually become a head? When the first brain cell fires a human signal into a human set of cells perhaps?

The new developing baby has the same 46 human chromosomes he or she will have until death…

. Not at fertilization, i.e conception. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist who was personally responsible for 75,000 abortions…in the New England Journal of Medicine…[Nathanson} admitted he has come to know life begins at conception. “There is no longer serious doubt in my mind,” he wrote, “that human life exists from the very onset of pregnancy.” A sperm cell is identifiable as a living human cell. That does not make it a human life. Of the 8 undifferentiated cells that appear some time after fertilization has been successful in causingMieosis and mitosis to create this complete set of chromosomes, if one or seven are taken away, they are all identical to the remaining cell. Are there then 8 babies, 16 ---32 ----64 babies living in the mothers womb? Would removal of 4 be murder of four babies, even though the remainders will go on unaffected due their nature as "stem cells"? The sacred protection of life should be the final word on this topic. The United States Declaration of Independence affirms that the first and most sacred right is the right to “life.”… No human being should be discriminated against based on his or her stage of development, place of residence (inside the womb), or arbitrary notion of “when life begins.” If you have a Had dozen chicken eggs in an omelet dor breakfast, are you lying you tell someone you ate a small flock of chickens that morning? Of course you are, just as eating a bag of acorns doesn't make you a devourer of forests. You are simply a liar Jackson.

Profiling The Conservative Mind

Researchers help define what makes a political conservative By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations | 22 July 2003 (revised 7/25/03) BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations? Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include: * Fear and aggression * Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity * Uncertainty avoidance * Need for cognitive closure * Terror management "From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin. Assistant Professor Jack Glaser of the University of California, Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy and Visiting Professor Frank Sulloway of UC Berkeley joined lead author, Associate Professor John Jost of Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, and Professor Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park, to analyze the literature on conservatism. The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies. Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said. Cont.....

Mr. Milgrams Children

The following "hystorical analysis" of the war in Iraq is exceeded only by the level of astounding ignorance about the previous wars America found itself in. Fighting the ignorance of such men will reduce the stubbornly high numbers of such followers. But I dare anyone to explain the logic or rationale in saying that somehow a fight in one country keeps fights and attacks from happening in America. Please explain the cause and effect behind the strategy this man keeps telling others is one that's grounded in sanity. Of course, explaining why people believe it is the basis of Milgram's "Obedience To Authority" study that showed a frightening tendency for otherwise sane people to separate their own mind from their morals simply by learning an authority figure gave the order to act otherwise. Mycos ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ All the President is Saying is "Give War" a Chance John Peter Muhlenberg distinguished himself in the Revolutionary War rising to the rank of Major General. After the United States won their independence from Great Britain, Muhlenberg continued to serve his country first as a congressman and then as a senator from his home state of Pennsylvania. John's brother, Frederick Muhlenberg, also a minister, chastised his brother for going to war and urging others to follow his lead. However, when the British occupied New York, Frederick joined realized war was the only path to peace and he joined his brother in the Colonial army, distinguishing himself in several battles and ultimately becoming the first Speaker of the House of the U.S. Congress. Like the Muhlenberg brothers, President Bush knows there is now only one way to achieve peace and stability in Iraq. The determined enemy we face must be defeated and held at bay long enough for the newly formed Iraqi Government to reach a political solution to the sectarian violence that is threatening to tear the new nation apart.