Loyalty To A Propositional Or Notional Nation May Not Be Commanded; It Is Not Legally Punishable Treason To Betray An Ideational 'Nation'

Many impassable contradictions arise in front of the promotion of a conceptual nation, where loyalty is to some ideas, but not to the actual citizenry over against foreigners, some or all of them, as exemplified here: The Propositional Nation [Becomes] A State Of War More Than It May Be A Real Nation Of Mutual Allegiance Of Citizens...
On Wednesday, August 1, 2007, appeared this:
Global Nation or Universal Nationality is a Contradiction-in-Terms
The nation means an allegiance to fellow citizens relative to foreigners; especially relative to foreigners who increase the level of aggression within the borders. If there were no foreigners and no borders, there would be no such allegiance, and no universal nation or nationality. To try to make an ideal of such a contradiction-in-terms, is subversive of values.
[Updated 4-1-08] It is subversive of political values, where politics is the ethics of aggression.
It undermines the ethics of aggression to posit a notional nation over a real one.
It implies taking the side of aggression, against freedom-from-aggression, opening the way for hostiles to infiltrate, declaring themselves to be part of the ideational nation, while remaining in no way obliged to be loyal to the people of their new location.
Another earlier post on the same questions:
The Meaning of the Nation Contra Propositionalist Disloyalism II
The nation means the people who are loyal to fellow nationals over against foreigners, at least those foreigners whose entry increases the level of aggression inside the boundaries. Having this loyalty is a prerequisite for being really part of the nation, while beliefs in some political ideas cannot make a foreigner into a fellow national in themselves, as such a foreigner could and almost certainly would fail to have the loyalty as defined above. He would still say let my relatives in regardless of what increase of aggression or damage they may do to the pre-existing citizenry, as, for example the net taxpayer of our nationality. Not having this loyalty to the people of one's nation relative to aggression by foreigners is sufficient grounds for loss of citizenship, while disbelief in political principles never causes rescinding of citizenship. The nation cannot mean less than that this loyalty to fellows in the circumstance of foreign aggression within our territories is owed, but viciously traitorous one-worlders are trying relentlessly to destroy our nation in this exact way, by trying to break down these most basic loyalties. A secessionist region which copied exactly the laws of America would not thereby become part of the USA, nor would its residents become American citizens from that procedure, regardless of what they said about their political creed. If our nation were ideational, notional or propositional as they say, that and more would follow. When American ideas of what sort are said to be constitutive of the nation, in and of themselves, and are made out to belong to all humanity as well, it would follow that foreign hostility to America would be treason, and we could convict foreigners of it, and punish them, who had never been near this country. If all the world is assumed to share our ideas on account of their species character alone, since America is said to be for everyone, and essentially propositional, every other country would then be a rebel province of ours, in need of being subdued. If two such perfect propositional countries existed, each would have claims of sovereignty on the other, and the responsibility to wage war of aggression on the other, as well as responsibility to capitulate to the other; yielding multiple contradictions-in-terms.
Also, from 5-08, on how immigration tends to force all issues into the single one of sovereignty:
It tends to go further this way for each immigration cohort, and more quickly as the cohort is larger in quantity, or lower in quantity, or more hostile to the citizenry. The valuing of openness causes this very uncivilized outcome, in which the only issue is sovereignty, with the several sides in irreconcilable enmity. Those who promote the valuing of openness in the above way, really are trying for civil war, because conflict is the route to power, in what they would regard as a smug society.
And, also from May: One-worlders are very much interested in EQUIVOCATING national loyalties with romantic nationalism, and with further extremes of national feeling which tend to be equated with racism, fascism etc. The whole approach is a smear-mongering one, aimed at destroying the basic loyalties of citizens to each other over against the foreigner. At the minimum, the nation exists only to compel allegiance of nationals to each other in just that case where the foreigner enters with aggression. To want to destroy these loyalties is also a wish to destroy civilization, so that the assumption of good faith may not reasonably be given to universalists, one-worlders, and others who are found continually trying to smear national loyalties as leading inevitably to horrors.
Added 7-13-08 from: Saturday, July 12, 2008
Can A 'Propositional Nation' Be Fully Sovereign?
If it is less than the whole world, mustn't there be global ideas above it, in a position of sovereignty over it, if those ideas exist also in other nations? One-worlders haven't proven that sovereignty is not hopelessly degraded by propositionalism of that 'universal nation' kind; but seem really to be trying to prove that all sovereignties must degrade into one and only one.
Posted by John S. Bolton

Bush Says America Firsters, Isolationists, 'Nativists' & Protectionists Caused The Global Economic Depression Of The 1930's

Really it was the internationalists who did. Their policies of international aid, engagement and disregard for America's national interest, plus one-sided free trade pushed on the aid-takers, blew up a bubble. The bubble was pricked when more aid [e.g." The Young Plan (replaced the Dawes Plan in 1929)"] could not be obtained for Germany and Austria, which defaulted, causing France to default, then Britain to suspend gold payments. All the demand for liquidity in the world converged on the American banking system, crashing our finances, while other countries Patriotically let that demand go elsewhere.
More free trade would have been irrelevant at any point in the process, since any large growth of trade was being financed by federal reserve operations here. Concern for national interest would have had us refrain from that unsustainable export financing, which was done through support of foreign currencies. A policy of America First would not have had the international payments system depending on credit expansion from our central bank, with the side effects of a wildly booming and crashing stock market. Why would 'nativists' be interested in propping up sterling or the mark versus the dollar, if it cost a lot to do that? It was the irresponsible subsidy of foreigners which could not soon be reinflated after having reached extreme proportions, which precipitated and extended the depression of the 1930's.
From "The “Isms” That Bedevil Bush
by Patrick J. Buchanan", Bush is quoted as follows: " isolationism and protectionism is what happened in the late—in the ’30s, when we had this America First policy and Smoot-Hawley. And look where it got us.” Buchanan gives part of the refutation of that position, but not the part outlined above, involving the international payments breakdown, and what made it inevitable.

Brainwashing & A Thunderclap Against The "Universality Of Assimilation"

Added 6-16-08 from 6-5-08:
Thanks to a commenter, I was alerted to the study entitled Generations of Exclusion, which finds zero to negligible assimilation to majority educational norms among Mexicans. It was only when I read Sailer's review of this book, that I found out that it reports the results of a longitudinal study covering even five generations. They used the same questions as were given in 1965, to make a long-term follow-up study of the same people, and their children and further descendants. The approximately 50% high school dropout rate lasts like a constant across four generations. If we are to value openness to diversity, though, a requirement would seem to be that we may be confident that national norms will not be pushed backwards, towards those of the source countries of the valued diversity. Such a value is accompanied by an implicit belief: the Universality of Assimilation, which is shown to be unfounded.
Brainwashing:
After the Korean War ended in the 1950's, American experts found indications among POW's of something new and shocking. It was that which was to become known as brainwashing, but a successful kind. Although most of the ex-prisoners of the communist brainwashers, recanted their statements which they had made while in captivity, a considerable percentage actually refused to do so! This was the successful brainwashing.
Since McCain is not a defendant, but an applicant for the very highest security clearance, no presumption of innocence can apply. It is for him to prove himself low-risk, yet this is essentially impossible as he spent years in the total power of communist interrogators and brainwashers using ruthless methods.
Now he is giving us the plan of something different; a league of what, democratic people's republics, which shall henceforth have a free veto on our foreign policy? To give away independent foreign policy is to lose sovereignty to the extent of becoming a colony or protectorate. International socialism or communism has urged this for generations.
The axiomatic brotherhood and equality of all mankind, said they, as if there were no lasting enemies.
Does McCain now recant the public statements he made in support of his communist captors while a POW, each and every one of them in all their particulars?
He must be challenged closely on those, in order to determine that he was not successfully brainwashed. After all, to become a Free City of the Empire was what the USSR offered as its league of democracies without full sovereignty to each.
Proposing to give away major attributes of sovereignty without even so much as a treaty that would have to be ratified by a super majority in the Senate, shows traitorous disdain for our constitution and nationhood. McCain should be disqualified forthwith.
From an earlier post: If McCain favors the supremacy of communist Vietnam, and its blood-drenched leaders, over Thailand, do we have an interested party with sovereign power and willingness to act against the rise of a national-existential threat?In order to get McCain disqualified, there needs to be someone who will support the lawsuits at several levels as needed: defiant delegates, certain officials and possibly electors.It may take threatened foreigners to see how much can be lost, at least by them.Patriotic officials should step forward with what they know about McCain while there is still time to substitute a more loyal candidate;but they may need to see a movement afoot, and richly funded by someone, before they jump.
Also:
Does McCain Favor Indonesian Naval Supremacy Over Australia
...Our closest and most reliable ally? What does it mean to improve such relations with Indonesia, if not to help them build up towards supremacy over Australia? This would fit the pattern seen with McCain, where one betrays allies and rewards enemies, so long as the enemies are to the left or lastingly hostile, as an Islamic nation.
& Among the republican senators, governors and other plausible candidates for the presidential nomination, there could hardly be more than one or two, if any, more disloyal than McCain.This indicates that a hostile outside influence would have been the cause of his rise this year, since the most disloyal do not rise to the top of an organization or movement which has not been manipulated by an outside influence that is hostile to it

The Moderate Right Who Can't Say One Bad Word About The Obama Who Sold His Grandmother...

the other day, would seem to have very weak family values. Quoting Christopher Hitchens:"You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily. (Yet why do I say I am surprised? He still gets away with absolutely everything.) Looking for a moral equivalent to a professional demagogue who thinks that AIDS and drugs are the result of a conspiracy by the white man, Obama settled on an 85-year-old lady named Madelyn Dunham, who spent a good deal of her youth helping to raise him and who now lives alone and unwell in a condo in Honolulu." [found here:The Hitch on Obama-Wright, with thanks to Sailer ] Obama is not your future, but Madelyne Dunham, alone, ill and vilified before the tens and the hundreds of millions, is what may be expected to eventuate for those who would 'adopt' the 'transcendent' opportunist.
When Hitchens says "looking for a moral equivalent" what is really referred to is a search for a way to say everybody does it. 'Everybody does it, why can't we' is not a moral argument, but a way of avoiding moral censure and moral thought altogether. Obama sounds like a brazen amoralist; his confidence is not that of someone who believes he is good , but the shamelessness of one who considers himself protected from criticism, by some special privilege.
Here should be mentioned what all the self-righteous are in fear of speaking or observing:
It seems that no one will express the least surprise that mixed-race descendants have no concern for the well-being of their elders, and would opportunistically exploit and damage them without remorse. If this surprises literally no one, or none with a public voice at least, doesn't this also tell you that your future in the pro-diversity regime is to be that of Madelyn Dunham, and not that of Obama?

Further Obama Omerta

Obama's faith community is particularistic, racial and organized around anti-caucasianism, and he can't 'disown' that. Therefore he can't reasonably be presented as universal, non-racial nor 'transcendent' of racial hatred. The left-friendly media and other leading elements are holding to a code of silence on this and more.
Obama takes the side of the black man's freedom-for-aggression, as shown most recently in his Jena comments, as here: Obama on the Jena 6 . When one automatically takes the side of the subhuman aggressors, trying to liberate them and make excuses for them, this is the main part of what it means to be on the left. That it is racial is no surprise, that it involves and profits from codes of silence should be no surprise, nor that it effortlessly shifts into alliance or sympathy with terrorists, as shown here:
"Consider his ties to indicted Rezko, Kenyan Islamist ally Odinga, Iraqi Auchi, the Black Panther Party, the seditious La Raza, Farrakhan, and Barack's spiritual mentor, hate Pastor Wright, his presence on FARC's hard drive ....and then this.
TALK SHOW HOST REVEALS OBAMA CONNECTION TO TERRORISTS"
With the above associations and sympathies, even having been politically advanced by the terrorists Ayers and Dohrn, how can the national security operations reasonably be entrusted to him?
To return to the kind of religion which Obama can't 'disown', the inspirer of his 'inspiration', Mr. Cone said:
"White religionists are not capable of perceiving the blackness of God because their satanic whiteness is a denial of the very existence of divinity. " [This example found at Discriminations]

Anti-Merit Activists Soar To The Height Of Power...

...in a polity devoted to anti-discrimination and axiomatic equality of all genetically distinguishable sub-groups. Such a polity circles down into subhuman, anti-merit savagery.
It tends to become an anti-merit pesthole, and the more so, the more it adheres to equalization (as a goal allowing for the increase of power, to get more equality between the groups as above).
The more you give, on a racial-egalitarian basis, the more is believed to be needed, and the more distress is felt, that the improvement of environments does not lead to notable merit results, among the children of the target groups.
To understand why the more is given and done, the more the cries of distress from the uplifted redouble, it is imperative to consider this:
The Widening Racial Scoring Gap on the SAT College Admissions Test " Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 [ scored ] 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000."
Even a ten-fold increase in income cannot equalize. Recall that children do not have their own
'class' or socio-economic status; they have that of their parents. The above results are of juveniles applying to college from households with certain income ranges and racial eligibilities.
The income differentials indicated are worlds apart in terms of the range of choice of environments that they permit.
The power-greedy know all this, and relish the divisions which are intensified, so that increase of power may be made to flow from the process.

Obama's Candidacy Demonstrates Beyond Possibility Of Doubt, The All-Importance Of Race In Moderate Left Politics Here

There can be no ideas, only race, in the moderate left politics here. They are too hopelessly depraved to allow ideas to interfere with their racial power struggles and manipulations. The big lie that the left-friendly media have been pushing, is that there is a 'transcendence', rather than a new extreme of immersion in racial politics going on. If this is not so, how is it that we are hearing of Obama's refusal to 'disown' Jeremiah Wright, and the preachment of such national unity-enhancing doctrines as the HIV-is-white-bio-warfare-on-black-women-and -children one?

Obama Refuses To 'Disown' The Vicious Anti-Caucasianism Of Wright, Cone & Others...

as that would include disowning the 'black community'. Did the major media report the substance of his flat refusal to disown his preacher of anti-caucasianism? No, they reported on style, flags, anecdotes and verbal wrigglings, smiles and intonations. Will they report that Obama believes the 'black community' to be so much like Jeremiah Wright, that to 'disown' one would be to disown the other as well? Obama can't disown a faith community which holds that "Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."(see yesterday's post for links)? He certainly can't be president of all the people, who finds such attitudes congenial, and "can no more disown him [Wright] than I can disown the black community." If Obama can't 'disown' it, he owns and owns up to, long-term affinity for a cult of anti-caucasianism. If the belief that HIV is a white conspiracy to kill off blacks, is part of what he can't 'disown' without disowning his faith community and the blacks in general, he owns that sort of belief. African Kemron yesterday, and children's sandwiches curing cancer today; America would look hopelessly third-world if a Mbeki were to be elected or even nominated here.

Pervasive Respect For Anti-Caucasianism Explains The Official Silence & News Blackout On Obama's Affinities

... which has been maintained everywhere until now, except on the far right.
Even as this story has become widely known in the last few days, one still has to go to uncommonly right-wing outlets to get an unsanitized view of the intensity of the racial hatred that Obama has been immersed in, with his faith community. HIV is a conspiracy by our government to kill blacks? Why would one want to play along with race war incitement to develop political credibility among the low, and how can this be considered respectable, much less deserving of elevation to high office?
"Wright: 'U.S. of KKKA' [...] Preacher tells black-on-black criminals they're fighting wrong enemy " The fact that this does not disqualify Obama as for as officialdom and media are concerned, demonstrates that anti-caucasianism is highly respected by them.
There must be something in it for them; most likely a chance at increase of power through conflict-enhancement.

Why Black Households Essentially Cannot Be Prestigious Outside Their Own Minority Purview

It is because of the population-genetically differential regression towards the mean:
The Widening Racial Scoring Gap on the SAT College Admissions Test " Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 [ scored ] 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000."
Consider the implications of this. A six-figure income in comparison to a 10k one, allows for so many more options in terms of selecting environments. How could environment then be said to contribute any significant component to this gap in college admissions testing?
If you move away from the more objective, standardized testing, toward the more subjective, opportunity for mischief increases exponentially. These test results have to be then treated as determinative, especially insofar as one is speaking of prestige in a more civilized sense. The favor for Obama, however, is more of a media attempt at tapping the minority wish for an increase of status, and that of fools and others to indulge such wishes. What they succeed in doing, though, is just to spotlight the sordid qualities of what is, by now, America's leading black family.
Also, from an earlier post:
"The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education January 27, 2007 Latest News[...] In fact, few people realize that American Indian and Alaska Native students on average score 118 points higher than the average score of black students[...] from The College Board’s 2006 data on the SAT:[...]• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 17 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of more than $100,000." If a ten-fold increase in income cannot equalize environments, and neither can adoption, what kind of diversity value here is being added? The below link's additions give the JBHE report from 2006: http://www.affirmativeactionhoax.com/corrections.htm

There Is No Rational Argument For A Move To The Left, That Is Why Any Criticism Of Obama Must Be Smeared As Being Only Racial Hatred

This is also why it makes no difference ( to such as the media ) whether the criticisms are true or not; there is no sincerity or good faith behind it, only the amoral tactical consideration of how to get a significant move to the left. Insofar as a move to the left means an increase in power for officials, at the expense of the citizenry's freedom-from-aggression, all the power-greedy will tend to close ranks in favor of this bad-faith tactic ( to pretend that all criticisms, but especially true ones, of a candidate promoted for racial reasons, are motivated entirely from racial hatred ).
That the above is done in bad faith is also indicated here: Obama's Money Talks, Rhetoric WalksFinancing Jeremiah Wright "when a candidate is discovered to belong to a club or organization that discriminates against women or minorities, he has to leave the club or the campaign. He doesn't get to say that he disagrees with this policy or that rule and stay in the membership." Also, quoting "HANNITY: What does it say -- if there was a Republican candidate, Laura, who had as their church premise on their website 'commitment to the white community, commitment to the white family, adherence to the white work ethic, pledge to make all the fruits of developing acquired skills available to the white community,'..."
as found here- Ignored for a year . It is important to draw the conclusion, though. The left and its allied media may not be given the assumption of sincerity and good faith, after this performance on behalf of their favorites.

Ferraro Resigns: The Democratic Party Looks Like A Minority-Owned Business...

...with close to zero interest in majority concerns. Did they approach rationally, like human beings, Ferraro's claim that Obama's particular advancement could not have occurred without his racial classification? No, the media monstrosities just smeared her as racially insensitive. Is the democratic party going to rally to Ferraro's defense? Of course not, they're a racial riotous MOB [Minority-Owned Business] celebrating the black man's freedom-for-aggression, juiced on the revolution of rising expectations. It's the effrontery of hope for the undeserved, and when Ferraro reminds them of the deserving and the undeserving, they blame her, not themselves.

The Rise Of Obama Proves The All-Importance Of Race In The Democratic 'Minority-Owned Business'

Even though the formidable Geraldine Ferraro has pointed out that Obama relies on his racial status to get what no white man would ever get, the deafening squeals of faux-indignation over this observation among democrats again shows what a 'minority-owned business' their party is.
Examples of Obama's very obvious non-'transcendence' of racial exploitativeness are here, here, here, here, and here . The democrats have a strict and highly complex quota regimen [ Democratic Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 convention ] , demonstrating beyond possibility of doubt, the all-importance of race to their party structure.
It is this way to such extent that, 'we are the change' has to mean racial changeover, and the particular opposition to old politics, has to mean that racial personnel changeover, is itself the policy. All of this obscures the leftism which Obama has to dissemble, but since race is all-important on the left and moderate left here, he gets away with it.
This is indeed the politics of pro-diversity, and, since our diversity can't be our unity, Obama is a divider. He cannot unify, because pro-diversity works against unity, and necessarily so.
Added 3-28-08 from Wednesday, August 20, 2008

If The Nomination Of A Black Is Of World-Historical Importance
then race would seem to be considered all-important."I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick, and good jobs for the jobless. This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal."quoted from Obama’s speech in St. Paul, found via this PermalinkIf race is not quite that important, yet the nomination of a black for the presidency by a major party remains in itself, such a historically important event, who exactly is supposed incapable of noting the contradiction-in-terms contained, in believing both at the same time? Doesn't it have to be those too unintelligent to catch the contradiction, and those too irrational to care? Either way, the appeal is to mental weakness of some kind. For the educated progressive of intelligence and authority among his fellows, to act as though this were the best appeal for power that the left can make here and now, is to confess that there is no reasonable case for a notable move leftwards. The enthusiasm for having a racial candidate in this way, is sure to be genuine. Especially it must be so, when major media figures such as Chris Matthews of the tingling leg, reveal the secret code, in which 'inexperienced' means racially undesirable and second-class, or has some racial meaning of that kind. It's almost as if it were wanted to make out any criticism of their racial candidate to be moved entirely by racial hatred. That is the predictable pattern, of a power-greedy faction with no honest argument available as to why they should have more power.
From NewsBusters.org» Matthews: McCain Handing Out 'Permission Slips' to Racists, check there if you want to verify that this is going on.

Enthusiasm For The Importation Of Ethnic Bloc-Voters May Easily Arise From Depraved Power-Greed

From my comment here: The Audacious Epigone
"If ethnic nationalism is on the rise, so is the premium on ethnic homogeneity"
The rise of democracy is what drove the breakup of the polyglot empires. Insofar as one empire was resistant to losing land, it was also among the most resistant to democratization. Examples are the USSR, Spain and Portugal. The [proximate] reason for this is ethnic bloc voting; democracy then becomes the equivalent of taking a census more frequently. Scholars and officials may congratulate themselves on how cosmopolitan they are, even to the point of extravagantly ignoring or slighting the lethal effect of ethnic bloc voting on the polyglot polity, but they do not do so honestly and wisely. What is more likely is that they know all this very well, and only wish to have excuses for establishment of absolute dictatorship, once they have enough immigrants to make democracy a dysfunctional ethnic bloc-voting exercise in redundant census-taking.
Beyond that, is the bedrock national question of the minimum loyalty of citizens to each other, over against the foreigner, who arrives with some degree of aggression, than which the nation cannot mean less. Can this very minimum of national loyalty obtain in a polyglot polity, where the fellow subjects do not speak the same language, or not nearly enough to trust each other to have this indispensable loyalty? Although it is not actually impossible, it is so unlikely that, by now, the significantly polyglot polities are either wretchedly despotic, unable to extend their writ outwards from the capital, or moving towards both dysfunctions simultaneously. There are some mostly small exceptions, but the thrust of world-historical forces appears determined on tearing to pieces every last polyglot empire. It is not known to be other than human nature itself which drives this on.
Added 7-20-08 from: Monday, March 24, 2008

The Rise Of Democracy Is The Doom Of Polyglot Polities
For each notable increment of democratization, the polyglot polity is pushed closer to its breakup. It may be reversible, but that involves moving towards more and more despotic measures. The rise of nationalism is not the instigator, but the inheritor, of the nation-states which emerge from the wreckage of the polyglot polity which has been democratizing.The polyglot polities which resist fracturing longer than others, have done so only in proportion as they have resisted the intrusion of democratic procedures. Examples are the USSR, Yugoslavia, sundry African dictatorships, and, especially, the empires of Spain and Portugal, relative to similar recent empires which broke up faster.On March 8, 2008, I pointed to ethnic bloc voting as the chief means by which this break-up occurs, as follows:Enthusiasm For The Importation Of Ethnic Bloc-Voters May Easily Arise From Depraved Power-Greed ,and admitted to exceptions large and small. The main point that needs to be made clear, is that the power-greedy can know all of the above, and gladly seek further moves towards the polyglot polity, as through mass immigration. That is, the astute, yet unscrupulous, power-seekers may easily be for increase of diversity as above, not IN SPITE OF, but BECAUSE OF, its likely lethal effects on the polyglot polity. It allows for the disposal of democratic procedures, the closer you have the polyglot polity pushed to the edge of dissolution. A clue to the motivation being as described, is that pro-diversity and moves towards the more destabilizing polyglot polity conditions, are urged on nations, in proportion as they have been resistant to despotic rule. For this sort of motivation to drive the whole process on, it is not necessary for the correlations to be exceedingly high, as between democratization and the break-up of polyglot polities. The result need not be assured, to justify the gamble in the quest for power.
Posted by John S. Bolton

McCain's Further Associations With Forcing Openness To Terrorism & Suchlike Undesirables

From: WorldNet Daily
Group tied to al-Qaida backs McCain for prez
'They will do all they can to turn Kosovo into a jihadist camp in the heart of Europe'
Posted: March 02, 20089:07 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has enjoyed strong support from a lobbyist group that backs the Kosovo Liberation Army despite allegations the KLA is a Muslim terrorist group with ties to criminal drug networks and al-Qaida.
The Albanian American Civic League, or AACL, regards the KLA as "freedom fighters," said the AACL's president, former Republican congressman Joe DioGuardi of New York.
They're "not terrorist, like the Serbs and Greeks say," DioGuardi insisted in an interview with WND.
But Islam expert Robert Spencer, editor of the popular website Jihad Watch, contends radical Islam is the driving force behind the Kosovo independence movement.
JB Comments: Malice, power-greed and hatred against civilization and human success even of a modest degree could explain this, but what else could?