Why the world still hates America and why American 's hate Lawyers : Thunderbay IMC

Why the world still hates America and why American's hate Lawyers
I usually am not that hateful. Yesterday's lesson at Church was on kindness and forgiveness and yet I am here talking about these idiots in the news. Also..taking a break from Politics to keep my 1 Hawaiian reader happy. (funny hand wave and aloha to you Joe) So without further adieu and punctuational errors..here is my list of some things that make me wonder about this great country.

So. First. As a proud iPod owner and frequent user I was dismayed by this one. There is a guy a suing apple over his hearing lost from use of the iPod listening device. He contends that sufficient warnings to the iPods danger wasn't present. Moron. I dont ever recall anyone ever suing Sony over the Walkman. We were just happy in the 80's to have our cassette players and headphones all mobile in our fanny packs. (For the record, I never had a fanny pack.) Some of you all did. Read this lunacy here.

Secondly..continuing with the "I am not responsible for me and I will sue" theme..this guy. This guy claims he was bullied by mean men. The mean men admit to teasing the guy and "razzing him". A safe workplace violation? No. School kids being mean in the classroom? No. Fraternity hazing incident? Nope. This crime occurred in a Chatroom. An interweb chatroom. On AOL. First thoughts. Why are people still using AOL? I thought we all decided to use those free disks for a retro/geek chic coffee cup coaster? So. Second thought. This guy was logged on into a chatroom..(I am a bit clueless how this works. I havent chatted since the telnet days in '94.) But..he is in a chatroom..these bullies that are 500 miles away are teasing him and he doesnt do an [alt f4] and get out of there? In the midst of being humiliated it never occurred to him to change rooms, log off, pick a new room, go to work, clean his mom's basement where he was probably living or go to the john? Geesh. Read the link above for the full story.

Finally..Christians on my nerve. This week it has been circulating via Christian media of AOL committing blasphemy by their new logo for AOL instant messenger. First thought. Why are people using AOL instant messenger. Second thought..why are Christians using AOL instant messenger and why would they care. But apparently the new logo is something like AOL, I AM. Jesus when identifying himself as God used the phrase, I AM. God said it too in the old testament and the unwritten word that is written Yahweh translates to I Am. You know what...some greek philospher used it..Socrates..he thought..he was..so what. Was he calling himself God? I dont think so. Is AOL calling itself God. I hope not. We know they arent. [cough] Google [cough] free wifi [cough] AOL's days are over and this is just a blip on the screen for the aged internet giant.

Why are Christians so quick to ban agaist AOL..or Target at Christmas..or theatres over a mediocre gay cowboy movie...yet we are slow to spread the message of Christ in love? Why are we quick to add a bumper sticker declaring God is my co-pilot..then retort that If God is your co-pilot you are in the wrong seat yet we are slowest to allow someone else infront of us while we are pulling out of the Christian bookstore? This gets me. Gets me bad. If we spent as much time loving folks..and loving Christ instead of spreading rumors about the Satan lair at P&G or whatever Christians are mad about this week..we would have won this world over years ago. This is so bad that Snopes has a category just for the religious urban legengs. Look here at Snopes.com

For the full story about AOL's new logo and all..read it here at World Net Daily.

One last thing..who are the lawyers who would sue on behalf of these two guys? Tort Reform Now! Bigger than that..who are the juries that give a guy who played his iPod too loud a stack of cash?

Continue reading "Why the world still hates America and why American's hate Lawyers" »

Washington diary: Culture of giving
By Matt Frei
BBC News, Washington

It is easy for stingy foreigners, myself included, to underestimate the culture of philanthropy and fundraising in the United States.
Soon after one of my daughters started going to a private school in Washington, I received a call from a mother of one of her classmates.

An initial donation helped create one of the greatest museums
There was the usual friendly, non-committal chit-chat, after which I moved swiftly to the subject in hand.

"Yes, my daughter would love a play date," I said, assuming - wrongly, as it turned out - that this was the purpose of the call.

"We were actually looking for some help with our scholarship fund. We are still half a million dollars short of our target!"

A lump formed in my throat, immediately followed by huge relief that the caller had clearly got the wrong parent, since we do not - unfortunately - have half a million bucks to give away.

"Any donation would be appreciated," came the reply to my unspoken thoughts, "however small!"

Worth of a 'friend'

There was the challenge. What exactly is the price of self-esteem? Reputation? A good deed?

As my mind raced through all the possibilities of humiliation, the mother threw me a lifeline.

Andrew Carnegie kick-started US philanthropy in the 19th Century
"It's all on the web! I can call you back at the same time tomorrow!"

Phew... no need to make excuses about misplaced credit cards and empty cheque books.

The web spelled it out. Donations from $1 to $500 earned you the accolade of "friend".

Not bad. But there were six other categories, and everything over $10,000 turned you into a "millennium donor", a stellar title which came with the embossing of your name on a plaque.

So in the school's fundraising code, "friend" was the equivalent of "lunch" in that infamous phrase: "Let's do lunch one of these days!"

Concrete charity

Once a year it is possible to witness this generosity "live" in the form of the school auction.

Hundreds of parents meet in a fancy Washington hotel, chase some surf and turf around a plate, and bid for everything from holiday homes donated by wealthy parents to paintings or pottery made by their own children.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates and his wife have given billions away
The item that took my breath away was the family handprint on a slab of wet concrete outside the school gates.

It went for $24,000.

The man sitting next to me helped out: "Don't worry, Matt. Everything over value can be deducted from tax. And the value of a slab of concrete is probably $20."

Americans give to schools, hospitals, libraries, galleries and the poor like no other country in the world.

Last year, American citizens gave more money to victims of the tsunami than their government did.

Cornerstone of culture

Yes, charity can be written off against tax, but it is also hard-wired into the psyche of a nation founded by pilgrims and enriched by private enterprise.

It is impossible to imagine modern America without philanthropy, because so many of the institutions funded by the state in Europe are financed by private citizens in this country.

I'm still giving it away - it's not as if I'm missing any meals or anything

Ted Turner

Send us your comments
The Metropolitan Opera House in New York would not exist without philanthropy. Nor would the Museum of Modern Art or the New York Public Library.

In Washington, 16 of the nation's greatest museums are free because of the Smithsonian Institution.

In 1829, James Smithson, an English scientist, left his fortune to his nephew but stipulated that if the nephew died without children (legitimate or illegitimate) "the money should go the United States of America to found at Washington an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men".

Thankfully, Smithson's nephew died childless, and the seed money has been invested and supplemented to produce one of the greatest cultural foundations in the world.

Andrew Carnegie, the Scottish-born steel magnate who became the father of modern philanthropy, not only gave his name to one of the most famous concert halls in the US, as well as dozens of other theatres, he also funded thousands of public libraries all over America.

It was he who once quipped: "He who dies rich, dies disgraced."

Others have followed suit. Bill and Melinda Gates have already spent $30bn of their money on good causes.

Every year their foundation gives more to global health causes like malaria, TB and Aids than the World Health Organization.

Thanks a billion

Ted Turner, the founder of CNN who sports a pencil moustache and calls the actress Jane Fonda "my favourite ex-wife", famously gave $1bn to the UN, because his own country would not pay its dues.

"Why a billion?" I asked him. "Nice round figure!" he told me.

The money is doled out over 10 years in lots of $100m, and Mr Turner keeps on giving even though he also sustained the biggest personal loss ever in financial history.

After the Time-AOL merger and the bursting of the dot.com bubble, Ted - as he insists on being called - lost more than $6bn.

"I sure took a hit," he said in a recent interview. "But I'm still giving it away. It's not as if I'm missing any meals or anything."

Philanthropy is so well established it has spawned its own academic discipline.

New York University has a department of philanthropy. There is also the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

I have even attended a philanthropy workshop in the bowels of Congress, where rich Americans learned how to give their money away and how to make sure it was spent on the right causes.

Whether it is the quest for a legacy, the desire to change the world, the determination not to spoil one's children or simply the tax code, Americans - wealthy and not so wealthy - are giving their dollars away by the lorry load.

And the rest of the world has a long way to catch up

Because of all that "Diversity" sewage, for all the troubles the blacks and the homos and the womyn cause, for the price of everything being so high, including college tuition.

If it wasn't for the Left, decent people could live and breathe freely. But no, the deeply mentally disturbed for some reason we allow to not only live, but fuck up the planet.

The Jews and Zionists Stirring up Racism in Britain.

Richard Desmond.
Richard desmond, a jew, owns the ‘daily express, the ‘sunday express’ and the ‘daily star’ which he uses to promote his rabid brand of zionist fundamentalism. Desmond's acquisition of express newspapers had been financed by a german bank, "The frankfurt-based Commerzbank bankrolled the former pornographer's £125m acquisition of the Express group four years ago." In april 2004, desmond attended a business meeting with telegraph executives to discuss a joint express-telegraph printing venture. A few days earlier he'd been told that the telegraph organization would not consider his bid for ownership of telegraph newspapers and so he was probably not in a good mood when he arrived for the meeting, "Witnesses at last week's meeting with Telegraph executives said Mr Desmond accused all Germans of being Nazis. He is understood to have greeted the Telegraph team with "guten Morgen" (good morning) before holding a finger under his nose and lifting his arm in a "Sieg Heil" salute. The Telegraph executives then left the meeting as Mr Desmond instructed his minions to join him in a rendition of Deutschland über Alles. Mr Desmond has not apologised, in spite of condemnation of his behaviour." The guardian also reported that he "goosestepped around" the meeting." (Jane Martinson and Dan Milmo ‘Desmond says Commerzbank link will survive anti-German outburst’ Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1204705,00.html 28.4.2004).

Desmond was angry with the telegraph organization for rejecting his takeover of the telegraph newspapers and doubtlessly saw the meeting with telegraph executives as an opportunity to express his annoyance with the organization they were working for. But why should he have taken out his anger on germans especially when it was a german bank which had financed his takeover of express newspapers? It seems that psychologically, zionists are so preoccupied by nazism that they regard anyone who opposes them (and even those who help them) as being a nazi, capable of resurrecting concentration camps for jews around the world. It also has to be wondered just how many more times that germans are going to take such racist abuse from zionists seeking to exploit events that happened over 60 years ago.

The Smearing of Ken Livingstone.
After being accosted by a reporter ken livingstone reacted by comparing him to a concentration camp guard. Such a remark might have been quickly forgotten as the usual banter between politicians and journalists but the reporter, who is jewish, chose to turn the comment into a political issue. The story was then turned over to the zionist dominated media who tried to exercise their power to force livingstone into making an apology. However, livingstone refused to provide an apology and this incensed the zionist dominated media into even more accusations against him. In the end livingstone turned the issue against his zionist opponents by writing an article about the state of zionism in britain rather than submitting to the will of the zionist media.

Stephen Pollard's The Odour of Antisemitism.
In march 2005, lord ahmed invited israel shamir to discuss the launch of his new book at the house of lords. A few days later, steven pollard wrote an article, printed simultaneously in the ‘jewish chronicle’ and ‘the times’, making a number of accusations about shamir and the state of anti-semitism in britain. According to pollard, the shamir talk was just one of a litany of developments threatening the survival of jews living in what he deemed to be anti-semitic infested britain. To pollard an odour of anti-semitism pervades the country, "In January, Labour produced two posters. One depicted Michael Howard as a Shylock or Fagin caricature. The other pasted the faces of Mr Howard and Oliver Letwin on to pigs’ bodies. In February, figures showed that anti-Semitic attacks rose to record levels in 2004 - 42 per cent higher than in 2003. Add to this Ken Livingstone’s comparison of a Jewish reporter to a concentration camp guard, and the odour of anti-Semitism is clearly with us once more." (Stephen Pollard ‘Lord Ahmed's unwelcome guest’ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1557932,00.html April 07, 2005).

According to pollard, anti-semitic attacks rose by 42%. Pollard has never indicated where these figures came from but it seems a frightening, and serious, increase. This hype, however, is not very illuminating firstly because we don’t know the numbers involved – up from 3 to 4? – and secondly, because we don’t know what sort of attacks are involved. Were they physical attacks involving actual bodily harm to ordinary jews going about their everyday lives or were they commentators making critical remarks about the jews-only state in palestine? These days zionists define criticisms of the jews-only state as being anti-semitics so the large increase in anti-semitic attacks could just be the result of journalists criticizing the summary execution of palestinian children being carried out by the jews-only state in palestine. If such criticisms are all that jews in britain have to worry about, then they must be living in paradise in comparison to the hideously oppressive conditions in which the jews-only state keeps palestinians. The british government has been a steadfast supporter of the jews-only state in palestine for many decades even to the extent of providing it with the weapons, munitions, and torture devices, needed to quell the uppity nigger palestinians. But of course to many of britain’s rabid zionists who are dual citizens of britain and the jews-only state in palestine, even the pro-semitic bigotry of the british government is deemed insufficient, nay almost anti-semitic in its failure to praise everything done by the terrorist, mass murder, war criminal, and now state terrorist, ariel sharon.

Shamir retorted, "For Pollard displays all the traits that have caused journalists to be likened to "intellectual prostitutes", ready to do the bidding of rich newspaper owners without any regard for the truth. Here he reports on a book presentation he did not attend, to a mixed crowd of Muslims, Jews and Christians all searching for peace in the Middle East. A book written by a man Pollard describes as a "rabid anti-Semite", without mentioning his true origins or the fact that a former speaker from the Israeli Knesset also addressed the same book presentation. Nor does Pollard mention that Shamir also worked in the Knesset himself as the spokesman for the Israel Socialist Party. None of this is mentioned by Pollard because it would undermine the fiction he is trying spin: a story about "anti-Semitism" which masquerades as journalism."

Ian buckley wrote to the times pointing out that one of Pollard's articles begins: 'I am a warmonger. I am bloodthirsty. I am rabid.' Buckley continued, "Enough said! The Times has gone downhill a lot under Murdoch, becoming the paper for people who are too ignorant to read the Sun."

A Plague of Anti-semitism in Britain??? Has the Bitch gone Mad?
Julie birchill, a jew living in britain, complains in an article for a jewish newspaper, ‘British AUT getting 'down wiv the kidz'’ (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?item
No=570880&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0 May 4th 2005) about the recent proposal by the british association of university teachers to ban all contact with two universities in the jews-only state in palestine. She laments the belief that "Israel was accused of being 'a colonial apartheid state' worse than South Africa" as if the possibility that it might not be as bad as south africa (in reality it is far worse) should legitimize its continuing oppression of palestinians – and its continued acceptance by the west.

Picking up the gross zionist fabrication concocted by the rabid zionist extremist stephen pollard, birchill believes that, "Britain IS currently playing host to the biggest ever annual number of violent anti-Semitic attacks, both on people and on property, since the 1930s." Once again, just like pollard, she fails to mention:-
Firstly, where these figures come from;
Secondly, what sort of attacks are involved – physical or intellectual;
Thirdly, just how many attacks this consists of; and,
Fourthly, what proportion this is of all attacks on gays, blacks, asians, and ordinary people minding their own business. It is arguable that of all physical attacks being carried out in britain most are committed against ordinary people, then gays, asians, blacks whilst attacks on jews are virtually negligible.

Birchill’s inflammatory hype does nothing to dissipate suspicions that she’s a jew who suffers from a grossly paranoid fear of anti-semitic crime which is totally unrelated to the actually number of racially inspired attacks on jews.

In setting the scene for a big conclusion to her article she indulges in a little bit of national stereotyping, "And now, sixty years after the rough-necked Brits showed the cultured Krauts the true meaning of civilization, we are going through our own dark night of the anti-Semitic soul."

Her big conclusion, which reveals that she must be on the edge of a total mental breakdown, is that "I've always loved being English - but more and more these days, living through this latest, almost post-modern plague of anti-Semitism with a 'caring' face, I wish it was a club that I could resign from, as opposed to a flag I carry in my blood." Surely she must be either insane or paranoid to believe there is a plague of anti-semitism in britain. Such a gross level of abuse of british jews would be a total shock to every non-jew in the country.

Birchill then addresses her fellow jews in her beloved jews-only state in palestine by making the truly astonishing statement, "but you're not bullies." No, that’s the last thing anyone would accuse jews in palestine of. They might be regarded as torturers, sadists, bigots, oppressors, murders, and war criminals, but not, thank-goodness, bullies. Birchill believes that whilst the british are engaged in a plague of bullying against jews living in britain, the jews in the jews-only state in palestine aren’t bullying palestinians!!! The only sane response to such rabid zionist extremism is that she ought to pretend to be a palestinian in her beloved jews-only state.

Birchill is a rabid zionist hyping up the fear of global anti-semitism to make jews in the jews-only state feel more secure than their counterparts living in britain. Quite how jews in the jews-only state could feel secure given their vile brutality against palestinians is beyond comprehension. Such a bigot as this really ought to just bugger off to the jews-only state.

The Global Jewish Conspiracy to defame George Galloway.
George galloway has been a long time supporter of the palestinian cause, an opponent of the united nations’ sanctions on iraq after america’s first proxy zionist war against iraq in 1991, and an opponent of america’s second zionist proxy war against iraq in 2003. As charley reese states, "Both in England and the U.S., to speak up for Palestinians will get you on the s-list right away. Fanatical supporters of Israel are well-entrenched in both the British and American establishments. Their standard response to supporters of Palestinians or critics of Israel is character assassination." (Charley Reese ‘More Manly Galloways, Fewer Slimy Colemans’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=6028 May 21, 2005).

The first move to ruin galloway’s reputation was made in britain a couple of years ago when the zionist dominated daily telegraph newspaper accused him of financially benefiting from the united nations' oil for food program. "These charges, which later were proven false, first surfaced in the neoconservative controlled London-based Daily Telegraph, owned by the Hollinger Corporation, a company that had financial ties to arch-neoconservative Richard Perle." (Wayne Madsen ‘Galloway hounded by AIPAC cell within U.S. Congress; Bolton tied to same cell’ http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/051305Madsen/051305madsen.html May 13, 2005).

The zionists became even more incensed with galloway when he managed to defeat the incumbent labour mp, oona king in the may 2005 british parliamentary elections. Oona king is jewish and, not surprisingly, a hardline supporter of the war against iraq.

The zionist campaign against galloway was continued in america by two more de jure citizens of the jews-only state in palestine both of whom are members of the american branches of the likud party in america. Norm coleman is a member of the republican likud party. He has been described as "a senator who is bought and paid for by AIPAC." (Wayne Madsen ‘Galloway hounded by AIPAC cell within U.S. Congress; Bolton tied to same cell’ http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/051305Madsen/051305madsen.html May 13, 2005). Joseph lieberman is a member of the democratic likud party. He supports aipac and the international fellowship of christians which has "contributed over $100 million in recent years toward Jewish immigration, resettlement and social welfare projects in Israel". In other words he helps to raise money from christian evangelists to send jews back to the jews-only state in palestine where they can help to steal palestinian land. (See Edward Ericson, Jr., "What About Those End Times, Mr. President? Sen. Joe Lieberman Announces his Candidacy, But Not His Association with Lunatic Fringe of Biblical Prophecy," Hartford Advocate, January 16, 2003). Coleman, in his position as chair of the american senate investigations sub-committee examining sanctions-busting oil deals in iraq before the war, repeated the allegations that had first been made against galloway by his zionist chums in the daily telegraph.

What was amazing was that coleman thought he could prove galloway’s corruption by using the same fake evidence that had been used against galloway in britain but which had been dismissed as a forgery by a judge in the libel case that galloway took out against the daily telegraph. But even more amazingly, coleman accused galloway of profiting from illegal iraqi oil deals despite the fact that he had no proof whatsoever that galloway had received any payment from such deals. As galloway stated, "What counts is not the names on the paper. What counts is where's the money, senator? Who paid me money, senator? Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars?" (Simon Jeffery ‘Galloway defends himself at US Senate’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1486025,00.html May 17, 2005).

Coleman’s allegations against galloway were nothing more than smears, "A Senate subcommittee out to discredit the United Nations made the mistake of inviting Galloway to appear before its members. They had smeared him. Accusing a man of serious wrongdoing without a shred of evidence is a smear job, plain and simple." (Charley Reese ‘More Manly Galloways, Fewer Slimy Colemans’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=6028 May 21, 2005). Neither coleman nor lieberman informed galloway of their accusations against him. When galloway heard their accusations, he asked to be allowed to appear before the senate sub-committee in order to defend his name. The two jewish senators rather foolishly agreed to his request.

The speech that galloway delivered to the senate sub-committee became an instant legend. He ridiculed the senators, their accusations against him, and their support for american policies against iraq. "Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies."

He punctured the jewish fantasy world that america’s jewish elite have erected inside the world’s so–called leading democracy, "He said that 100,000 people had paid with their lives for false assumptions on Iraq, "1,600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies".(Julian Borger ‘George Galloway delivers senators some 'shock and awe'’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1486230,00.html May 18, 2005). It’s a shame that the zionization of the american public prevents ordinary americans from realizing that zionists have driven tens of thousands of americans to their deaths or long term injuries.

Reese implied that the reason coleman and lieberman thought they could get away with smearing galloway was because they’d got used to americans being so deferential and reverential towards them, "Sen. Norm Coleman, like most senators, is used to people either fawning or being timidly evasive." In other words, these jewish racists had become so accustomed to americans being servile towards their jewish masters they could no longer conceive of anyone challenging their power.

This incident shows all too clearly american slavery to their jewish masters. Americans have become zionized to such an extent they are no longer capable of liberating themselves and desperately need the help of their british friends to pull them out of the zionist shit in which they currently reside.

There is a global jewish conspiracy to smear galloway with fabricated evidence in the same way jewish conspirators smeared saddam for possessing non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Zionists are implacable liars and nobody should take seriously anything they say.

Board of Deputies of British Jews Stirring up the Shit against Lenni Brenner.
Lenni brenner is the leading historian highlighting the collaboration between nazis and zionists prior to, and during, the second world war. His book ‘Zionism in the Age of the Dictators’ is out of print but has been posted at http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/index.htm Brenner’s book was criticized for not including enough documentation so he decided to publish his source materials in a new book entitled ‘51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis’.

In may 2005, brenner discovered in an article, "Board's Amazon Appeal," published on May 4th in Jewish News, a Zionist website, that the board of deputies of british jews had issued a complaint to Amazon about his book. The board, which is pro-zionist religious jewry's central organization, wanted amazon to place a notice on advertisements for brenner’s new book warning potential buyers of the controversial nature of the book. Amazon had done this for the ‘Elders of the Protocols of Zion’. The board wanted something similar on brenner’s book as if to suggest his work was also entirely fake.

Brenner decided to write to the board objecting to their complaint. He published the Jewish News article and his correspondence with the board - see Lenni Brenner ‘The Plot to Stigmatize "51 Documents" on Amazon.com’ http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner05252005.html May 25, 2005).