Fitzgerald: The inadequacy of the Secretary of State


* Abd el Condi under a picture of departed AIDS-ridden terrorist chief Arafart. Something to look out for, when you’re secretary of state.

* Hugh Fitzgerald explains once again how the wakademically misguided secretary of state disappoints by her continued display of ignorance and utter incomprehension of the Islamo-fascist doctrine:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice does not understand Islam. She’s not able to learn beyond what she learned long ago. She seems intelligent by comparison with her boss.

However, the nuclear-arms expert, David Kay, who had many dealings with her, described her as the “worst national security adviser” in the history of the country. And given that among the rivals for that crown are Brzezinski and Scowcroft, that is saying something.


* Condi must have been one of those students whose singular ability is that they are very good at taking tests.

Here. Read it all.


That awful Risotto

* Quotes:

“We in America understand the benevolence that lies at the heart of Islam’

“… disrespect for the Holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States.”

Oh really? There are two problems with this statement and they are exceedingly, and profoundly, at odds with the Constitution for the United States that the Secretary has sworn an oath to defend:

1. The use of the adjective “Holy” by a member of the president’s cabinet in a statement issued in the course of executing their official duty is a direct affront to the phrase, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” that is enshrined in Amendment I to the Constitution. No government official has the authority to even suggest to the citizens of the United States what is “holy” or not “holy”. Doing so is an assault on personal liberty itself. The individual, and only the individual, is endowed with the right to decide what is, and what is not “holy”. Members of all branches of government need to reflect deeply on this point and to ensure that such language is never used in an official capacity. The citizens do not suggest it, they demand it, as it is their right to demand it.

2. “Disrespect” for the Koran has never been tolerated in the United States? Which United States are we talking about here, Madam Secretary? For it cannot be the United States of America with its 1st constitutional amendment stating, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …”. I remind Madam Secretary that any citizen of the United States possesses the right to burn the Koran, defecate on the Koran, flush the Koran, roll up and smoke the Koran, or the Bible, or the Bagavad Gita, or the Zendavesta, or the Mahabharata, or the Torah, etc., as an expression of free speech.

Houston, we’ve got a problem. You see, in fact, “disrespect” for the Koran is now tolerated, has always been tolerated, and will always be tolerated in the United States, at least it will be for as long as there are patriots alive who are willing to defend the rights granted to them by the Founding Fathers. I suggest that the members of the president’s cabinet have a refresher course on the Constitution. Perhaps a one-day seminar would do the trick. I’m available and my hourly rates are reasonable. You know how to reach me.

Dr. Mack has more