When speaking in terms of the political extreme we must first define what is meant by "extreme." Most scholars will agree that political extremism can be defined as a political philosophy or ideology of a character and kind that is farthest removed from the ordinary or average. It is the farthest from the center, outermost or endmost. It is going or doing the utmost to very great lengths to the political left or right in action, habit, or opinion.

With this in mind it is fair to say that the body politic of the Untied States has largely shifted to two extremes - liberal and conservative, as defined by the plat forms of both the democratic and republican parties. The dilemma is that neither party views themselves as being "extreme." Yet, both parties categorically define each other by these extreme terms. They are fully capable of seeing the awful nature of the extremist positions of their opposition but not in themselves. That is more then troubling, it is dangerous. Let's take a good look at both extremes.

Liberalism was once philosophically favorable to progress and reform in political or religious affairs, but without defying the basic tenets and principals of the constitution or Holy Scripture. Liberalism was favorable to and in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom in a society and government that was free from prejudice and bigotry. Liberalism advocated tolerance and generosity. Liberals were patriots and champions of freedom. Now compare this to modern day liberalism.

Modern day liberalism can best be defined as "secular progressivism" in a true Bill O'Reilly sense. No doubt about it, this is extreme. Modern day liberalism will redistribute wealth by targeting the affluent for most of the government's revenue. They fully embrace the "rob Peter to pay Paul" mentality. This form of secular progressive liberalism wholly embraces the "welfare state" and is a champion of illegality with respect to illicit drug use and illegal immigration. Hard work and ingenuity will be taxed and penalized while laziness and illegal immigration will be rewarded through income redistribution.

Modern day liberalism embraces lax school discipline on American children to promote the so-called "liberties of minors." It will even go so far as to deprive parents of their right to shape and discipline their own off spring through tried and tested (and biblically supported) cross-generational and universally accepted standards. This includes the occasional spanking (not to be confused with abusive beating). Instead secular progressive liberalism would replace this with a new social order that claims to know what is better for children then their parents. They would assume/replace responsibility for children from their parents. It is Orwellian in scope.

Modern day liberalism has a "one-world" approach to US foreign policy. It will happily abdicate American sovereignty to the Untied Nations and a new world order. Modern day liberalism wholly embraces all manner of moral perversities from pornography in literature, film, art and music to all manner of sexual promiscuity. All of this is done in the name of "self-expression" and a disturbing interpretation of the first amendments right to the "freedom of expression." It doesn't matter how much societal harm this does either. The focus on "individual rights" trumps the rights of an entire society under this new and modern secular progressive form of liberalism.

Modern day liberals call themselves "patriots" yet will do and say practically anything that will disgrace or do harm to their own country. With few exceptions, modern day liberals seldom serve their country but think nothing of attacking those who do. Modern day liberalism, unlike the liberalism of yesteryear, largely defines the meaning of "coward." Modern day liberalism has lost its generosity, sense of fairness and fair play, and its patriotism.

Most modern day liberals are lazy. They believe they are owed everything yet deserve practically nothing. Few among them earn all that they have. They are much more "takers" then they are "givers." They are perpetual spoiled brats, even in to middle age and beyond. Modern day liberals are extremely stingy with their own money but they will happily give away everyone else's. They advocate gay rights but work diligently to deny "Christian rights." Modern day liberalism bears naked hostility to religious values and their expression in public. They even flaunt obscene perversities in the face of Christians in the name of progressive free expression. They care nothing about those they offend.

Modern day liberalism embraces freedom only for its own ideals while denying the ideals, philosophies, and thoughts of any opposing view. Liberalism that was once the champion of "tolerance" has now become the most intolerant political ideology imaginable. Modern day secular progressive liberalism personifies the evil of hatred toward those who fail to share their views and these liberals would outright do harm if they could. This secular progressive liberalism is mean-spirited, scary, and very dangerous.

Conservatism was once viewed as the inclination in politics to maintain the existing traditional order. Political conservatives urged caution or moderation, as a behavior outlook. They were strict constitutional constructionists and were strong on national defense issues and staunch supporters of the military and military veterans. They were devout American patriots, almost to a spiritual level. Conservatives clearly embraced the free market ideal and the entrepreneurial spirit. They believed in fiscal responsibility in government to include limiting spending and taxation. They were strong on faith issues and supporters of religious freedom and expression. They deemed themselves to be the "champions of family." Conservatism was a political philosophy and attitude that emphasized respect for traditional institutions, and distrust of government and governmental activism. Conservatism was in strong opposition to sudden change in the established order. Conservatism had a heart. Now let's take a look at modern day conservatism.

Modern day conservatism could be better defined as "progressive fascism." Not in terms of a governmental system led by a single dictator but rather by a "powerful elite" that I call the "fascist elite." One person may appear to be in charge but he or she is responsive to the facist elite. One must go through a "rights of passage" to gain membership in this highly select "fascist elite" inner circle. The "fascist elite' is comprised of select and influential lobbyists, corporate elitists, and the conservative governmental inner circle. The trilateral commission members clearly fit in to this inner "fascist elitist" inner circle.

Modern day conservatives buck the traditional order as much as they embrace it. They abhor secular progressive Supreme Court decisions that overturn traditional values pertaining to marriage and life, which is a reasonable and defendable argument. However, they would happily out law individual freedom if it would advance their fascist conservative cause and further empower them. They are much more "pro-war" then they are "pro- military" and they wrongly think of them as being one in the same. They prefer a "military offense" to "military defense" and I'm not speaking in terms of military tactical or strategic maneuvering. I am speaking to a philosophical and ideological ideal.

They are quick to send Americas soldiers in to harms way provided they themselves, or their family members, never have to lead the charge. Modern day conservatives are quick to raise the flag but slow to serve it. Certainly there are exceptions but this is mostly a normal and usual dynamic of the modern day conservative movement. Most modern day conservatives are merely "military cheer leaders" that would fight only to stay our of a soldier's uniform. Most of them define the word "coward."

These modern day conservatives think nothing of turning their backs on America's military veterans once they have been spent and are no longer useful. They point to passed veterans' appropriations but neglect to mention that they themselves fought most of those appropriations tooth-and-nail through the legislative process. Had they had their way, our nations veterans would be penniless and without adequate healthcare.

Modern day conservatives abhor social welfare for the poor but embrace corporate welfare with frenzy. They are not just supporters of the entrepreneurial spirit and the capitalistic ideal, which is good, but they'll also surrender the nation and its people to that a gross aberration of that ideal in the interest of corporate greed, which is bad. They are not just against taxation in general, they devise laws and methods to ensure corporations and the wealthiest among them can completely avoid taxation, especially in off shore accounts and through creative accounting.

Most of our nation's wealthiest people are in these modern day conservative ranks and they have gotten greedier then the human psychic can comprehend. They have wholly forsaken the "middle class" and, believe it or not, with their secular progressive "give away everything "liberal cohorts, they are on the verge of turning America in to a two class "rich and poor" society. The American middle class is truly at risk of collapse.

Modern day conservatives speak a good line about being against "illegal immigration" but when they owned the presidency and both houses of congress they did absolutely nothing to prevent it. Instead they opened the avenues to illegal immigration and unlawful entry in to our country more then doubled. Cheap exploited labor for the modern day conservative ranks of the rich and greedy has become a mainstay for them, and America's immigration laws, and the American worker, are damned because of it.

Modern day conservatives are content in transferring once secure and good paying jobs to distant foreign shores. There desperate, exploited, and often abused workers who are willing to work for a pittance await these once lucrative American jobs. The modern day conservatives thought nothing of leaving their loyal and hard working American employees stranded, destitute, unemployed and having to fed for themselves and their families in an increasingly competitive market that offers only little more then minimum wage to even college graduates. So, they gather to the unemployment lines and the welfare system, without health and dental insurance, both of which modern day conservatives are reluctant to fund. Then they call their once proud American workers "lazy freeloaders." Modern day conservatives lost its compassion in an abyss of economic quicksand where it can't be retrieved.

Modern day conservatives have turned fiscal responsibility in to a tax-and-spend extravaganza that makes the most ardent liberals proud. They are still strong on family and faith issues as long as they get to decide the dogma and doctrine of what is acceptable. I'm not talking about defending bible scripture, which is good, but living outside the dictates of what they preach, which is bad. For example they are against premarital sex, sexual promiscuity, adultery and "lusting in the mind," but many among them are known to have done some or all above with a fever. Yet, they hypocritically attack an immoral Hollywood, which really is immoral. They rile about sodomy and gay marriage, which is their right if faith and scripture based. Yet they would imprison a gay couple, consenting adults, who engage in gay sex in the privacy of their own home. To be against sodomy is defendable religious belief but to want to discriminate and bring harm to those who don't conform to your belief system is in no manner a Christian principle. That's judgmental, playing God, and I think God would object. It's an "extreme" conservative position that falls outside traditional mainstream conservatism.

The modern day American politic has evolved in to a mean-spirited bastion of political extremes. The political center that was once the mainstream of American political society was slightly right of center. Some had liberal tendencies but nothing extreme. Some had more conservative tendencies but again nothing extreme. They were both patriots and they liked each other even when they disagreed. They worked together for the good of the nation and each other. Their was seldom any polarization. That is now a distant memory of our better days.

Both parties have been hijacked by the political extremes, the democrats on the left and republicans on the right. They offer only candidates that embrace one extreme or the other. Candidates that must "sell out" to extremist ideologies before the American people get the chance to decide. America desperately needs a third party. A party of moderation and atonement. A party of patriotism. A party that supports fee enterprise, capitalism and the entrepreneurial spirit without embracing the evil of greed. A party that cares more about the powerless then the powerful. A party of Judea-Christian values. A party of tolerance but not so tolerate as to embrace the extreme. A party that is slightly right of center and embraces traditional American values and morals but is not afraid of change. A party that will not lose its direction and sense of compassion. A party that will never stop caring about its people and one which reward hard work instead of good market guesses.

By: Ed Coet
Author/Poet Biographical Sketch: Ed Coet is a retired US Army officer and professional educator. He is a widely published freelance writer and poet. Ed has had numerous articles published on a variety of topics.

Visit with Ed Coet at "The Coet Blog" at http://thecoet.blogspot.com

How did terrorism, which has been around for centuries, go from a sporadic, often localized, atrocity to a global threat in the 21st Century. Are terrorists recruiting more vigorously? Do terrorist have more reasons to hate? Or have terrorists gotten more support than ever before?

A close look at some events in recent years seems to indicate it's the latter. What's most disturbing, though, is that the greatest motivational support has come not from internal sources or Arab countries, but from a somewhat unexpected source -- the United Nations.

To understand the progression of events leading up to global terrorism, it would help to look at the motives of some mass killers in the U.S., which are somewhat similar to those of international terrorists.

On December 5, 2007, Robert Hawkins, 19, walked into a Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska, and killed eight people and himself. His suicide note read, in part, "Everyone will remember me as some sort of monster. ... [But] just think ... I'm gonna be ... famous."

Michael Welner, an associate professor of psychiatry at NYU School of Medicine, pointed out, "'My fame is more important than your life,' that's basically what he said."

An FBI investigation into the infamous 1999 Columbine massacre showed that Hawkins demented yearning for fame and recognition was not unique. The public perception of the Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, was they were lonely outcasts out for revenge on those who bullied them. But three months after the massacre, the FBI convened a summit in Leesburg, Va., that included world-renowned mental health experts, as well as Supervisory Special Agent Dwayne Fuselier, the FBI's lead Columbine investigator and a clinical psychologist. They're conclusion was disturbingly different from public perception.

Not lonely outcasts at all, Klebold and Harris regularly hung out and partied with a circle of friends. They laughed at petty school shooters and bragged about dwarfing the Oklahoma City bombing. Klebold boasted on a video about inflicting "the most deaths in U.S. history." Rather than being an angry man being picked on, Harris, according to Fuselier, had a messianic-grade superiority complex and was out to punish the human race for its appalling inferiority.

So, on April 20, 1999, after a year of planning, Harris and Klebold walked into Columbine High School in Jefferson County, Colorado, and killed 12 students, a teacher, and wounded 23, before committing suicide. This became the fourth-deadliest school killing in U.S. history.

Had their wiring functioned properly, they would have wiped out 600 people in a massive propane bombing of the cafeteria. In addition to gunning down fleeing survivors, they planned on setting off car bombs to finish off rescue workers and reporters.

According to Agent Fuselier, it wasn't just fame they were after. They were after infamy of global proportions. Their aim was to create a nightmare so devastating and horrendous that the entire world would shudder at their power.

Now, try to imagine this: The parents of Hawkins, Harris and Klebold are asked about their sons' atrocities and respond that they're very proud of their sons and hope their siblings would some day do the same. Then, schools around the country hang up pictures of the three murderers, hailing them as heroes and role models.

Imagine further, one shooter survives, is brought to justice, and the judge finds his "grievances" plausible. And not only does the judge not convict him, but reprimands the cops and security personnel for using excessive force.

How do you suppose such an insane scenario would impact mass killings? If people are willing to die and murder others for infamy, it's pretty safe to say that honoring such monsters as heroes and restraining law enforcement personnel with censures would in all likelihood cause mass killings to skyrocket.

Unfortunately, you don't have to imagine all this. This scenario has been played out in real life, although not (yet) in the U.S. And the results have been devastating.

It's a well documented fact that Palestinian parents have often spoken proudly of their suicide-murderer children and openly implored their other children to follow suit. Palestinians customarily hang up pictures of suicide murderers in schools and laud them as heroes and role models. Palestinian murderers are often promised bliss in the hereafter. And, to top it all off, families of Palestinian terrorist have for years received cash rewards from some Arab leaders for the very act of murder-suicide.

How well have these incentives and encouragements worked? From September 2000 to September 2005, over 26,000 (average of 14 a day) terrorist attacks were perpetrated against Israeli targets. While playing down the plethora of incentives they showered upon mass murderers to perpetuate carnage, Palestinians perfected the art of spouting "grievances" for public consumption -- things like "oppression" and "occupation," which caught on like the Columbine "being bullied" rumors. And, thus, terrorism in the Middle East grew into more than a cottage industry.

It then took the ingenuity and creativity of an international "peacekeeping" organization -- the UN -- to bring this deadly game to the world arena.

How?

The intifada that began in September 2000 was trumpeted by the Palestinians as a response to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's walk on the Temple Mount, a Holy site for Muslims and others. The UN convened in October of that year and passed Resolution 1322, the opening lines of which read, in part:

"Reaffirming the need for full respect by all of the Holy Places of the City of Jerusalem, and condemning any behaviour to the contrary,

"[the UN] Deplores the provocation [Sharon's walk] carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif and the subsequent violence ... ;

"[the UN] Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life;"

This Resolution placed violence and total anarchy on the same level as an "offending" walk, which is absolutely mind-boggling. According to the UN, if you walk into a house of worship where "your kind are not welcome," that's the same as going into someone's neighborhood and attacking anyone and everyone in sight. How many civilized people do you know who subscribe to this logic?

The Resolution, in effect, gave Palestinians the right to savagely butcher people for the slightest provocation, and restrained a victimized party from defending itself no matter how brutal the attacks against her. With the gist of this Resolution expressed repeatedly throughout the years of the intifada, the Resolution became a downright sanction of terrorism.

What's worse, Israel's use of force to defend its citizens from deadly violence is referred to in the Resolution as "excessive" and is, in the UN's view, worthy of condemnation. This is like telling Columbine security personnel that they're use of force against would-be mass killers is excessive. Exactly how much force is excessive when you're defending yourself against being killed?

Furthermore, with the UN's definition of excessive, wouldn't Palestinian barbarism in response to a "walk" be far more excessive? But this is never even mentioned, let alone condemned. The green-light to terrorism couldn't have been more blatant if the UN had told Palestinians, "Go ahead, kill whomever you want, we've got you covered."

I've heard people remark, "Who cares what the UN says?" Personally, I don't, and wish others didn't. But the fact is the UN's utterly depraved and perverted messages were carried across the globe by the news media in what would be the equivalent of a multi-billion dollar ad campaign. There's little need to elaborate on how mass media bombardment makes an impression on the public. Just ask Coca Cola, McDonalds, Honda and many others.

One thing's for sure, it made an impression on the Palestinians. In the 12 months after Resolution 1322 was passed there were, according to the most conservative estimates, over 100 Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israel (the previous 12 months, less than a dozen).

Over the next five years, over 1000 Israelis were savagely murdered and over 6000 maimed and wounded. And, to add insult to injury, throughout this massacre of Israelis, Israel was unjustly and continually held in contempt by the UN. The Palestinians, on the other hand, despite unleashing the most inhumane carnage upon Israelis, were never condemned even once by the UN.

How do you think all this played to all the terrorist wannabes around the world? As great encouragement, no doubt.

It is in this period that, I'm convinced, terrorism got its big "whitewash." With such unfaltering support from the UN, terrorism was no longer a dirty word or the diabolical tool of yesteryear. Terrorism had now become an acceptable and even "respectable" way to express real or imagined grievances. And the world was made very aware of this, over and over.

It took Osama bin Laden only one year to capitalize in a major way on this new-found license to butcher people. Not that he needed anyone's permission before. But now he could massacre as many totally innocent people as he wanted and, as long as he had a "grievance," he could blame his victims and even come out with dignity and respect.

So on September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden became the most "respected" name in some parts of the Muslim world and to who knows how many terrorist wannabes and terrorist now-decided-to-be -- all with the tacit endorsement of Kofi Annan, then-Secretary-General of the UN, and the rest of his corrupt enterprise.

By July 7, 2005, with the ripping of people on the street to shreds already redefined by the UN as being no different from protesting or striking, it's with little wonder that the London Bombers were seemingly ordinary citizens. "I certainly think this is a new dimension," said Peter Newman of London University's War Studies Institute. "These are people who grew up in Britain ... a novelty we haven't seen in this country so far."

On September 20, 2006, at the 61st UN General Assembly, Kofi Annan had the audacity to make this insulting understatement: " ... supporters of Israel feel that it is harshly judged by standards that are not applied to its enemies, and too often this is true, particularly in some UN bodies." In an honest and contrite speech, he would have said, "I feel shame and regret for unjustly vilifying Israel and the United States in the eyes of the world, and unleashing global terrorism for the foreseeable future."

The phoniness of Annan's statement became apparent only two months later at the annual "Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People," by the screening of a film encouraging children to glorify death and murder. In one scene, small children in a classroom shout, "Jerusalem, I sacrifice myself to you, land of my grandfather, we will return." (The previous year, they had a moment of silence to honor suicide murderers.) This was not a Hamas training camp -- this was the UN!

As of January 2008, we've seen several terrorist plots around the world by "ordinary" people. And authorities fear it's only the beginning.

The damage wrought upon the world by the UN, and Kofi Annan in particular, by sanctioning terrorism is incalculable. To find another country or entity in modern history that generated so much racism, bigotry and anti-semitism on such a massive scale, you'd probably have to go back to the days of the Third Reich. If we're going to take fighting terrorism seriously, we must prosecute all those responsible for it's proliferation, regardless of what physical or legal barriers they hide behind. One step in the right direction would be to try Kofi Annan for crimes against humanity.

By: Josh Greenberger
Josh Greenberger: A computer consultant for over two decades, the author has developed software for such organizations as NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, AT&T, Charles Schwab, Bell Laboratories and Chase Manhattan Bank. Since 1984, the author's literary works have appeared in such periodicals as The New York Post, The Daily News, The Village Voice, The Jewish Press, and others. His articles have ranged from humor to scientific to topical events. Visit his site: shopndrop.com.

Submitted by:
Gene Hurtz
Pasadena City Guides And Directories

It seems that the Hollywood Writer's strike is costing billions to Hollywood and hurting the industry. Worse, the writers themselves have taken to the streets to strike without pay. In the evenings they write on the Internet for free, which is kind of silly considering that part of their dispute is about not being paid when their writing ends up on the Internet.

So, what are all the Hollywood Writers doing on their days off, three months worth now? Well, some say they are out getting stoned as they watch their personal debt rise to record levels. Real Estate folks in LA say that many are being foreclosed on and some property managers tell us that they are behind in their rents and about to be out on the street?

Why do they persist in this strike? "Are they on drugs?" asks one homeless person in West LA on Doheny St, Starbucks. Hmm? Now that is an interesting question, are they on drugs he asks. Well, could be, I do not know, but they do say many maniac depression victims are doing some sort of illegal substance. If so, should there be mandatory drug tests as a condition of their employment, shouldn't that be written in the new contract?

A few parents we talked to outside of LA seemed to believe that the stuff they have been writing is not good enough to be on TV and only someone on drugs would write stuff like that. Whether or not the Hollywood Writers are all on drugs or most of them are on drugs, or whether they are not is a tough question to answer.

There is only one way to find out, we must test them for drugs, and if they are not on drugs they will be vindicated, if they are, they should be fired, that is after they are re-hired with a new contract that subtracts Hollywood's losses from their future earnings. Something to Contemplate in 2008.

By: Lance W.
My name is Lance Winslow and I am a semi-retired entrepreneur, retired Franchisor and now I am a consultant brain-4-hire, internet writer and author. I got bored in retirement so I founded the Online Think Tank - http://www.worldthinktank.net.

If you would like to send me an email just to say hi, discuss an article, send me hate mail or need some advice you can find me at; http://www.carwashguys.com/history/founder.html - Have a great day and thanks for reading - tell me about you?

Submitted by:
Rebecca Thornton
Law - USA

I have a notion about our country; there are no American left in America, and the point behind why I say this is quite simply this, you hear people all the time saying I will never buy an American built product, they are inferior to imported products, hmmm we have the Chinese using lead in their painted products, and that is unsafe for your kids, hmmm better built; cheaper is what you meant to say, and then we have imported clothes, and toys, almost everything is being imported these days, and none of it is superior in quality to a product built in the United States Of America.

The fact is that people just don't give our country a chance any more, I was talking to a Canadian guy the other day about cars and he brought up the ZO6 corvette, and was telling me how inferior it was to German cars, I brought up the 24 hours of Daytona when the corvette was racing against Porsche, BMW, Jaguar, and other imports, and how the inferior C6 corvette came in first and second in the race, it is not less of a car then a German built import, or a Japanese built import, or English, it's at least equal, if not better.

The United States is the greatest country on the earth, and if you live here, and claim to be an American it's about time that you showed it, start to support our country by buying things that are built in the United States, not Mexico, Germany, China, or any other country, be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem, be an American, you don't have to buy things that are imported from other countries to get a quality product, support America, and be an American.

Just because a person tells you that another country is building a better product then the USA doesn't mean that it's true, it means that they heard it from somebody else, and now they believe it to be true, they never really checked in to what they heard, they just sold out, and are now bagging on American built products, I have owned all kinds of things that were built in other countries, and none of them were better that the same thing built in the USA, so before you sell out check it out, at least give our American built products a chance.

Compare the products that you want to buy from another country against the same product built here in the USA, if it's a car your buying compare apples to apples, you state that German cars are better built, don't compare a Mercedes that costs $80,000 to a $30,000 Dodge, Ford, or Chevy, you compare things that are in the same price range, of course if you compare a $10.00 item to a $1.00 item the $10.00 item will be of higher quality then the $1.00 item, it's just common sense.

They say that the technology used by other countries to build their products is better then ours, but that's not the case either, it's just another excuse to sell out, if you compare quality for quality, you'll see that I'm telling the truth here, you get what you pay for, I'm sure that you've heard that saying before, it's the honest to god truth, so please just do some research before you insist on selling out to another country.

By: Woody Johnson
It's about time that the people in our country become Americans again, it's time to support our country.
http://usa-homeland.org

Submitted by:
George Snedrow
Free Reverse Address Directory