Tuesday, October 31, 2006
I'm Part of the "Republican PR Machine"?? So Says ABC News
Well, I posted my story on Newbusters on this John F'n Kerry flap in Pasadena this morning, went to bed (I work graveyard shift) and woke up to find my posting was on ABC World News Tonight!
ABC Highlights Role of NewsBusters In Getting Kerry Story Out
This evening's edition of ABC's World News Tonight highlighted the role NewsBusters played in getting out the story of John Kerry's controversial comments on education and "getting stuck in Iraq."
NewsBuster Warner Todd Huston was among the first in the blogosphere to break the story. As ABC senior national correspondent Jake Tapper described how "the Republican PR machine mov[ed] into high gear . . . and conservative blogs and talk radio had a field day" two images of NewsBusters appeared on-screen, including one showing Huston's story.
I guess my thought that the MSM would sweep this story under the rug was thwarted by that "Republican PR Machine", eh??
John F. Kerry Thinks US Soldiers Are Uneducated
The Pasadena Star News yesterday reported on a rally for failing California Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Phil Angelides, at which John Kerry warned students in the audience that if they didn't get an education they would have no other alternative than to be forced into the US Armed Forces.
Kerry then told the students that if they were able to navigate the education system, they could get comfortable jobs - "If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq," he said to a mixture of laughter and gasps.
Obviously, Kerry feels that all our soldiers are uneducated louts with no other opportunities.
So, how many news outlets do you think will bother to cover this gasp inducing claim from former Democratic Party presidential candidate, John F. Kerry?
Let's see if this is picked up by anyone. It's been a day already and only Drudge and Neil Boortz seems to have caught it thus far.
Any takers on a bet that it is ignored otherwise?
Ohio Voter ID Law Stands... for Now
In a never ending attempt to thwart what the electorate through their elected representatives want implemented, the state Courts and leftist activists are dong anything they can to cancel, halt or stay voter ID requirement laws. Fortunately, several Federal Courts have reversed the state court rulings and allowing the ID laws to stand... for now. but, various extreme democrat activists will continue their efforts to eliminate ID requirements to vote.
Ohio voting law is back in action
CINCINNATI — A federal appeals court on Sunday put on hold a decision that suspended Ohio's identification requirements for absentee voting, meaning voters applying for the early ballots must continue giving proof of their ID.
It simply makes good common sense to require voters to present an ID upon entering the polling place. Then only reason anyone would have to oppose this requirement is that they want people who are NOT eligible to vote in the first place to be able to vote illegally.
The left wants to pretend that this is some effort by the GOP to "disenfranchise" voters, but it is merely a sensible attempt to eliminate ineligible voters. Of course, the left wants to get as many illegal votes as it can as this has always been a great resource for them. And this is the only reason they are fighting ID laws.
It SURE as heck isn't because they care about voters' rights!
NYT- 'A Silent Disenfranchisement ' of Voters?
The New York Times is sure that voters are losing their rights the country over, in essence yelling "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" for voters this year. They have been ballyhooing that voters are being "disenfranchised" all across the country by voting machines and voting law changes -- their biggest worry being ID requirements. The Times points in horror to the continuing effort of the States to nail down who is eligible and a proliferation of new laws assuring that eligibility before casting a ballot claiming this is proof of such "disenfranchisement". Ridiculously, the Times has decided proving you are eligible to vote is a threat to democracy.
Funny how they don't consider people who vote illegally as being any threat to democracy... of course that is because illegal voting benefits the Democrats, their favored party.
In an editorial titled Remember to Vote, Hope It Counts, the Times moans about these new requirements to present IDs at the polls in order to cast a ballot in states such as Ohio, Arizona, Indiana and others.
Michael Waldman, the executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, has penned an opinion in today's Times without offering much by way of proof for his contentions. But, he is sure that it is the end of our rights! Well, maybe just the rights of Democrats... his only real concern.
The piece is so filled with assumptions, guesses and wild what-ifs that it boggles the mind. Of course, it is all some grand conspiracy as far as the good director is concerned. It couldn't just be that new conventions, practices and laws will have their glitches and might be in need of adjustment! Mr. Waldman expects perfection the first time out, apparently.
As primaries earlier this year demonstrated, local officials and poll workers are overwhelmed by all the changes -- some of them engineered by mischievous partisans who have passed laws and rules that would block many eligible citizens from voting.
I guess it also couldn't be that people are sick and tired of illegal voting, gerrymandered vote totals and dead people shuffling to the polls in their dusty burial clothes to cast that favored Democratic ballot? No, it MUST be a grand conspiracy of the eeeevil GOP to suppress those poor Democrat's votes.
But, wait. Mr. Waldman tips his hand showing us his real concern.
There is a silent disenfranchisement afoot -- one that could affect hundreds of thousands of voters. That’s bad for democracy. In the 2004 presidential election, some states were decided by less than 1 percent of the vote. This year, dozens of Congressional races could be close enough that vote suppression would affect them.
(Bolded emphasis mine)
Ah, there you have it. It never mattered that illegal votes were being cast in the past, but now that elections are being decided by such slim margins, Waldman wants his illegal votes protected!
Conjecture on my part, you say? No, not really.
Looking forward, Congress and state legislatures should spurn partisan attempts to manipulate elections by imposing new voting requirements, like proof of citizenship and identification.
And that isn't the only time he gnashes his teeth and rends his clothes over this terrible thought that it might be a good idea for voters to present some proof that they are eligible to vote in the first place.
In a graphic connected to the story, Waldman mentions ID requirements as a worry or an outright outrage several times. He claims that Ohio, Arizona, Indiana, Florida and many other states are somehow "disenfranchising" voters with this "partisan" mischief.
He also reveals a desire to take away more power from the states and institute overarching Federal voting laws in contravention to our American system.
Taken together, they show just how urgent it is that the country move toward a system of universal voter registration, in which the government takes responsibility to ensure that all citizens are on the rolls, with real protections.
Just another big government, liberal idea, there. Obviously Waldman hopes to have but one, national voting law for him to gerrymander instead of worrying about so many different laws in as many states that his folks have to keep track of in which to gerrymander the vote. Much easier to steal the votes, that-a way, eh Mr. Waldman!
His graphic is filled with fear mongering and guesswork, so much so that it is hard to take it seriously. Here are a few of them:
Under a proposed Ohio law, naturalized citizens who couldn't produce naturalization papers at the polls could not cast regular ballots -- just provisional ones, which are counted only in recounts. This would require these voters to carry documents that cost more than $200. A federal judge recently permanently blocked this discriminatory law.
Boo hoo. Seems to me that a naturalized citizen should take the responsibility to be sure he has all the records he needs to vote. But to Waldman, just showing up should be enough to vote. Who needs to be a legal voter? Who needs to prove anything? Obviously just wanting to vote should be enough. Vote early, vote often!
This year, Hoosiers can't vote unless they show state-issued photo ID's with expiration dates. But up to 10 percent of Americans lack drivers' licenses or accepted alternatives.
Again, shouldn't they take responsibility to be sure they meet requirements if they want their vote cast? Is having a photo ID so out of the question?
In South Dakota, Florida, North Carolina, Texas and other states this year, you can't vote unless your voter registration record precisely matches personal information on some other list -- say, of drivers' licenses. Typos and common glitches could keep up to 20 percent of registrants from voting.
"Could keep up to 20 percent" from voting? Where does that conjecture come from? Maybe it could keep only 2 percent from voting… maybe no percent? It’s easy to just say any old number, after all.
New laws impose harsh requirements on voter registration groups and expose them to criminal penalties for harmless mistakes, including errors in collecting forms.
And why does one think such a new requirement has been imposed? Because of Democrats' decades old penchant of rounding up felons, the un-registered, mental patients and long lists of dead people to fill out voters rolls, that's why. And people are sick of it, Mr. Waldman. And, what, exactly, is wrong with trying to make sure voter registrations are legal and above board, anyway?
Since last year, Arizona has required voters to bring a birth certificate or passport to register, and then to bring a different set of government documents to vote. ... no doubt thousands more will be turned away on Election Day
"No doubt thousands more will be turned away"? Pure conjecture and a conjecture based on biased assumptions.
There is no doubt that we have many troubles with our systems of voting. But Waldman's ideas of just forgetting about trying to tighten requirements and to solidify registrations rolls and to allow just any one to cast a ballot whether they can legally do so or not is merely a recipe to continue allowing the kind of Democrat vote fraud that has been going on for decades.
But, then again, that would be his ultimate goal. Looser requirements, no checking for legal votes, and rampant neglect of the law would assist vote fraud far more than otherwise. And obviously the New York Times agrees with Waldman.
A.D.D.S. (American Democrat Dhimmitude Suicide)
It is quite amusing to see the way the Democrats have so carefully shaped the debate and prepared the battlefield with salvo after salvo of "Quagmire!" "Bogged down!" and "No exit strategy!" in spite of the fact that they know they voted almost unanimously for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But like anyone who is a slow opportunist they have been miraculously distracted at the absolute last moment. They have accidentally reshaped the debate and turned the spotlight on that one area where they dare not cast a spotlight. I'm inclined to say they don't have a learning curve but that wouldn't be very fair. Their learning curve is more like a loop. Anyone who has ever tried to write a program for a computer knows what that is. There is usually only one thing that you can do when you get caught in a loop and that is shut down. Fortunately for us the only way to shut them down is by not letting them back into office.
This dreaded area for the Democrats is the Foley case, which seems to have brought the spotlight back on their lack of a forward moving learning curve. We now have Jim Webb who says that oral sex between a father and son such as he wrote about in his book 'Lost Soldiers' 'is' not sex. He said it was inappropriate to read the excerpt on the radio. He also said that he saw this happen with a father and a four-year-old son in Bangkok and that the excerpt 'is' illuminative. Unfortunately he 'is' right about that. We have another Democrat saying that this particular act 'isn't sex. He went on to say that his opponent has nothing to say about the war in Iraq and the country was breaking itself into pieces economically. He didn't explain exactly what he meant however. The important part for him was not providing anything that resembles a solution. He just felt it necessary to spew more of that liberal nihilism for which they are all so famous..........................................
Click HERE To Read On
Monday, October 30, 2006
What the Democrats Have in Store for US...
If so, here is a little taste of what Democrats have in store for us if they take control of Congress. (Courtesy of the PatriotPost.com)
Charles Rangel (D-NY) proposed the "Crack-Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act" (HR 2456) to eliminate mandatory sentencing for crack-cocaine convictions. California Barbara Lee (D-CA) put forward the "Justice for the Unprotected against Sexually Transmitted Infections among the Confined and Exposed (JUSTICE) Act" (HR 6083) to permit the distribution of prophylactics in prisons. Another New York Congressman, Jerrold Nadler, proffered the "Antibullying Campaign Act" (HR 3787) to institute a federal-grant program against bullying in schools. In a bit of bullying of her own, the recently retired Cynthia "Slugger" McKinney (D-GA) drew up the "Tupac Shakur Records Release Act of 2006" (HR 4968) to create a special collection of the gangsta rapper's government records at the National Archives.
On the subject of entitlements, Democrats don't hold back. Robert Wexler (D-FL) offered the "Social Security Forever Act" (HR 2472) to create a new tax on workers, employers and the self-employed to keep Social Security afloat. John Dingell (D-MI) offered up a pair of bills, the "National Health Insurance Act" (HR 15) and the "Medicare for All Act" (HR 4683), each raising taxes to promote socialized health care. Dingell's efforts weren't enough for Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, however, who proposed the bill "To provide for coverage under the Medicare and Medicaid Programs of incontinence undergarments" (HR 1052) for taxpayer-funded adult diapers.
Then there's Iraq. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), in the spirit of Lennon, offered the "Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act" (HR 3760) to establish a U.S. Department of Peace and Nonviolence to... well, act peacefully and non-violently, we suppose. Jim McGovern (D-MA) didn't beat around the bush with his "End the War in Iraq Act" (HR 4232), which sought to defund the war in Iraq immediately and force a complete troop withdrawal. Ever angling to put rich kids in their place, the aforementioned Charles Rangel wants his "Universal National Service Act" (HR 4752) obligating U.S. citizens between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform two years' service in the Armed Forces or civilian elements of national defense.
Also in the mix during the past two years were bills to legalize medical marijuana (HR 2087), grant voting rights to ex-cons (HR 663), create a right to unrestricted late-term abortion (HR 5151), and provide gas to the poor at taxpayer expense (HR 3712). Proposed amendments to the Constitution include one guaranteeing equal public education (HJ Res 29) and equal health care (HJ Res 30), as well as constitutional rights to housing (HJ Res 40) and full employment (HJ Res 35).
... Just a little reminder from your friends at Publius' Forum!
BBC Claims it ISN'T Biased... uh, huh, riiiight!
A few weeks ago, the BBC complained that one of my Newsbusters pieces unfairly criticized them as horribly biased. Then a recent report emerged wherein Andrew Marr, a BBC staffer, said at an internal seminar that the Beeb had gone too far in pursuit of multiculturalism.
It seems that the BBC is getting tired of these so-called mischaracterizations...
BBC 'not crammed full of soft liberals' says deputy chief
One of the BBC's most senior executives has defended the corporation against accusations that it is "crammed full of soft liberals" obsessed with pushing a politically correct agenda.
In an exclusive interview, Mark Byford, the deputy director-general, has hit back at suggestions that the broadcaster is too sensitive to the feelings of Muslim viewers and that it has an inbuilt anti-Christian bias.
But this claim seems disingenuous after a week were the BBC announced a consideration of allowing Veiled Muslim news presenters and has featured an embedded reporter with the Taleban allowing the Taleban free and unfettered access to a platform from which they can disseminate their anti-British and anti-western propaganda.
The internal BBC seminar was revealing, too.
Andrew Marr, the presenter, told an audience at an internal seminar that the organisation had an abnormally large number of young employees, ethnic minorities and gay people.
At the same event, executives including Alan Yentob agreed that while kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bible could be consigned to Room 101 – the BBC's fictitious depository of pet hates – the Koran could not.
In any case, the BEEB is obviously feeling the heat. Let's hope it makes them begin to put an end to their hatred for Christians and western morals. And I am proud to say that Newsbusters has been one of the many voices calling the BEEB to account.
Workshop of the Second Self: A Book Review
We increasingly live in a society where everyone is a victim; and just one step from everyone having a disability. We have gone far beyond the physical handicaps, or the obvious mental illness, that were normally and traditionally defined as disabilities. Now it encompasses alcoholism, being shy, being ugly, anxieties of all sorts, phobias of every strip, fear of crowds, fear of open spaces, and of aliens abducting you in the middle of the night. Nearly everything that might conceivably or conjecturally "hold one back" or make it more difficult to be successful is an automatic gateway to victimhood. It has reached into race, religion, social and economic class, and even just being born as anything less than the stereotypical upper class WASP so vilified by modern political ideologies.
The social engineers of the day have declared that the old notion of opportunity is not good enough. Those who start at a higher disadvantage than others are no longer encouraged and praised to overcome the obstacles beyond their control or bestowed upon them by birth, but to declare "victimhood" and "disability". And with such designations comes the expectation of exceptional accommodation and "just compensation" from society at large. The burden of success and achievement is shifting from the individual to an obligation that must be provided by the government and the culture at large................
Click HERE To Read On
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Gov't 'Spying' on Peace Activists... NOT!
On ABC 7 News tonight a local Chicago "peace" Wacko was briefly interviewed during which time he claimed the Chicago police were "spying" on him.
OK, black helicopter stuff, right? We can just laugh it off as the rant of a nutcase. It would be funny, but this particular nutcase's assumptions cost the city of Chicago "tens of thousands of dollars" this weekend!
Hundreds of police officers show up for canceled protest
Police: Mix-up was waste of resources
By Dan Ponce
October 28, 2006 - Hundreds of police officers showed up to keep the peace at what was supposed to be an anti-war rally Saturday afternoon. Police are now calling it a waste of resources after the protesters did not show.
It's a mix up that will cost tax payers tens of thousands of dollars. The anti-war demonstration at Washington Square was supposed to start at noon and the Chicago Police Department was ready. But the protesters were a no show, and police say it was a big waste of time and money.
OK, hardy, har, har. The cops showed up for a protest that had been canceled and the "peace" activists had not bothered to inform the city that all the security wouldn't be needed.
Easy to laugh, I suppose. But the police had a real reason to organize this overwhelming force because in 2003 there was a "peace" protest that went wild, during which many were injured and damage was done to property. The police had an obligation to make sure this would not happen again.
Here is the excuse given by the nitwit who organized the non-protest...
John Beacham, Illinois Anti-War Coalition... had one more theory as to why the police department should have known protesters weren't showing up.
"The city is usually spying on us and watching us carefully, so we just figured they understood there wasn't a demonstration today," said Beecham.
Um, no, Johnnie boy. Not only do American governments NOT make it a habit to "spy" on "peace" activists, but YOU, sir, are not important enough for government to surveil in the first place! And, if this isn't proof that Johnnie and his little pals were NOT being "spied" upon, what would?
The tin foil on his head is too tight, it appears.
The very last line of the story gave me hope, though.
But the deputy superintendent says the department will look into recouping some of its costs.
I hope Johnnie boy and all his little half-wit buddies get sued by the city for the costs incurred for the organization of this police presence for the cancelled "peace" protest.... PLUS court costs!
Cheney's Wife - NO Pushover
Vice president Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne, is no pushover. She proved that by taking on CNN's Wolf Blitzer as the TV personality interviewed her for her newest book, Our 50 States.
Earlier in the week, CNN showed an outrageous video of an Islamofascist. terrorist shooting at U.S. Soldiers. Blitzer began to badger the nation's 2nd lady and she responded with spunk and vigor:
LC: But what is CNN doing running terrorist tape of terrorists shooting Americans? I mean, I thought Duncan Hunter asked you a very good question, and you didn’t answer it. Do you want us to win?
WB: The answer, of course, is we want the United States to win. We are Americans. There’s no doubt about that. You think we want terrorists to win?
LC: Then why are you running terrorist propaganda?
WB: With all due respect, with all due respect, this is not terrorist propaganda.
LC: Oh, Wolf…
WB: This is reporting the news, which is what we do. We’re not partisan…
LC: Where did you get the film?
WB: We got the film…look, this is an issue that has been widely discussed, this is an issue that we reported on extensively. We make no apologies for showing that. That was a very carefully considered decision, why we did that. And I think, and I think, of your…
LC: Well, I think it’s shocking.
WB: If you’re a serious journalist, you want to report the news. Sometimes the news is good, sometimes the news isn’t so good.
LC: But Wolf, there’s a difference between news and terrorist propaganda. Why did you give the terrorists a forum?
WB: And if you put it in context, if you put it in context, that’s what news is. We said it was propaganda. We didn’t distort where we got it. We didn’t distort anything about it. We gave it the context. Let’s talk about another issue in the news, and then we’ll get to the book.
Good for you Mrs. Cheney. These people act against our culture with impunity. It's about time some one calls them to account!
(Here is the full transcript of the interviewLynne Cheney interview)
FEMA To Turn Nation's Churches Into The Whore Of Revelation
The Department of Homeland Security has opened an office referred to as the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives which will be part of the Preparedness Directorate responsible for channeling relief funds. Secularists such as those at Americans United for the Separation of Church and State are critical of the program for fear that churches and religious ministries will withhold federal aide from disaster victims until they've had a chance to catechize a captive audience. However, the groups themselves likely to seemingly benefit from such apparent largesse should also be leery of the tempting apple set before them.
It has been said that he who pays the piper calls the tune. Thus, anytime funds are distributed, those handing them out are going to say how they are going to be dished out even if what they are now handing out wasn't originally theirs to begin with.
Before churches rush out and sign up to be the government's stooge, they would do well to reflect upon the plight of Sheriff Bill McGee of Forrest County, Mississippi. McGee is facing charges such as interfering with, intimidating, and impeding a federal officer for commandeering an idling FEMA relief truck transporting ice.
The proponents of Marxist-style class warfare enamored with the unbridled pillaging that transpired after Katrina hit New Orleans ask, "What makes the Sheriff any different than any of the other looters?" Well, for starters, he did not help himself to gold chains and plasma screen TV's. Furthermore, such a comparison fails to take into account ultimate ownership of the items under consideration..................................
Click HERE To Read On
Saturday, October 28, 2006
NYT- Having Trouble Defining GOP 'Moderates'
The New York Times is moaning the supposed loss of the "Republican Moderate" in Congress with their latest piece, Moderate Republicans Feeling Like Endangered Species.
Amusingly, some of the names they use to define a "Republican Moderate" are Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. They also mention Mike DeWine of Ohio, but the three they focus on are Snowe, Collins and Chafee... these are the people they call "moderate".
Let's take a look at how the ACU rates the conservative voting record of these three (0 being least conservative and 100 the most conservative).
Susan Collins - 32
Olympia Snowe - 32
lincoln Chafee- 12
These three are FAR from being "moderate". They are more like Democrats -- and far left ones at that -- than Republicans and rarely vote with their national Party on any issue. But, to the NYT "moderate" means voting with Democrats, apparently.
At least DeWine got a 56. Now he could really be claimed a moderate with that kind of voting record.
But, the Times' confusion on what a "moderate Republican" is aside, the most amusing thing about the report is that it pegs this presumed GOP veer to the far right on "party leaders" who are "pursuing a strategy dominated by conservative themes".
Not once in the story, however, does the Times seem to recognize that political parties have voters and it is voters who usually drive the agenda of a party. American voters have been drifting more and more toward center right issues since Ronald Reagan, but the Times seems to think that it is the party that is forcing voters to vote a certain way instead of voters pushing the party that way by the support they give to candidates with certain ideologies.
"Moderate" Republicans are losing, not because the Party is forcing its candidates to be conservatives, but because voters are rejecting these left leaning candidates. For good or ill, Republican voters are not voting for these so-called moderates. The GOP's drift right (if it is, indeed, happening) is a response to what wins them votes, not something forced from the top down.
Of course, the Times realizes this fact. But, their own agenda is to discourage GOP votes, sour people on the Party and the proceedings and elect their own candidates to office. What better way to do that than to undermine support for the GOP with stories that lures readers into believing that the Party is conspiratorially eliminating the "moderate's" voice? What better way than to make it seem as if the GOP is becoming some outrageous, right-wing juggernaut forcing its out-of-the-mainstream opinions down everyone's throats?
Anyway, with "Moderates" like Collins, Snowe and Chafee, who needs Kennedy, Durbin or Kerry?
American Ideals and Same-Sex Marriage
Words remain the same, but lose their meaning when twisted to fit ideological aims. One such word is equality.
A New York Times editorial dated October 26, 2006, proclaims, "The New Jersey Supreme Court brought the United States a little closer to the ideal of equality yesterday when it ruled that the state’s Constitution requires that committed same-sex couples be accorded the same rights as married heterosexual couples."
The Times editorial implicitly presumes that the "ideal of equality" means entitlement to actual equality in all respects. Same-sex marriage is just the latest in a long list of socialist intellectuals' demands that judicial pronouncement, if not statute law, mandate equality of condition, rather than equality of opportunity.
Of course, even for the Times, equality has limits. There is no thought to equal protection of an infant's right to life, when weighed against the "right" to sexual promiscuity implicit in the pro-choice advocacy of abortion. .............
Click HERE To Read On
Friday, October 27, 2006
Muslim Mutilation of Little Girl In Atlanta, Georgia
(This is part two of my women and Islam discussion)
If you are one who is squeamish, do not read this story of this common Muslim practice of the mutilation of a little girl's private parts. However, if you want to learn of yet one more barbaric Muslim practice, read on. Again, I apologize for the graphic nature of this report, but it is a very important thing for westerners to hear about and understand.
There is a practice among many African Muslims (rarely African Animists, as well) that is euphemistically called "female circumcision". It is not, though, anything like the safe and common --though often considered needless-- operation that males go through in this country. No, it is a brutal mutilation of a girl's vagina.
This "circumcision", more properly called a mutilation, is not done by a Doctor nor is it done in a hospital. It isn't even done with precision instruments and in sterile conditions. Sometimes it is done with shards of broken glass, sometimes with belt knives or scissors. Those who perform this mutilation are mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles or local tribesmen or village "specialists”. Paradoxically, it is done by those who are supposed to love the child being mutilated. And it is done in the name of religion.
The practice differs slightly in levels of brutality from one Muslim region in Africa to another and can range from the removal of the labia, the outside of the vagina, to a cutting out of the entire clitoris along with the labia. This practice is forced upon prepubescent girls to "prove" their virginity.
In some regions, the mutilated vaginal opening is then sewn shut with a needle and thread to "prove" the girl is a virgin by preventing penetration the “proof” being that the ragged opening will heal together leaving the vagina closed. The tradition is observed that, upon marriage, the man will forcefully slice open his new wife's vaginal scaring and show the village the bloody knife to prove that she was still a virgin at the time of their marriage.
This virginity assurance is one reason that this outrage is done, but there is another, even more oppressive, reason. Once a female's labia and clitoris are removed, she can never experience sexual satisfaction. She is simply physically incapable of deriving any pleasure whatsoever from the act of intercourse.
Imagine a culture that desires to destroy the God given ability of a woman to enjoy the sensations of sexual intercourse? Imagine the hatred for women such a culture exhibits? Imagine the oppression and brutality experienced by women in such a barbaric culture?
This disgusting practice has been made illegal in the USA by act of Congress in 1996. However, not every state in the US has followed through with similar rules in their own legislatures. Additionally, until now, no prosecution for violating this law has ever occurred, due most likely to the fact that such a thing is not so easy to discover.
A Prosecution in Georgia
Dad stands trial over daughter's mutilation
A father stands accused of the unthinkable: brutally cutting his daughter's genitals.
The girl was only 2.
Khalid Adem is accused of circumcising his 2-year-old daughter with scissors.
For the first time a Muslim has been arrested in the USA for perpetrating this brutal attack upon his own child. I am not prepared to say, from the report I cite in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, that this father is necessarily the one who mutilated this poor child. The story reports that there was a messy divorce and that the father is claiming the mother did this crime.
I have no desire to necessarily attack the father for this crime, but we must to get to the truth of the matter and discover who was responsible for this barbaric attack on such a young child. My desire is to discover the perpetrator of this crime and send them to jail for a long, long time regardless of who did it. We need to see a conviction for this shameful Muslim practice to set the precedent of the illegality of this monstrous, barbarity.
News Report Fails to Mention Islam
On a side note, the Journal-Constitution went weak in the knees on the fact that this is a Muslim practice mostly in Africa but one that exists throughout the Muslim world. Once again, an American newspaper refuses to delineate clearly that this is just one more brutal, barbarity of Islam.
Neither the word "Muslim" nor "Islam", nor any permutation thereof, appears even one time in the Journal-Constitution's story.
Instead of defining this as a common Muslim practice the Journal-Constitution calls it an "African custom they call genital mutilation". Unfortunately, this is a very misleading explanation. It is not merely an "African custom", but a practice of Muslims the world over in varying degrees.
In any case, we need to understand just how brutal Islam is in how it treats its most vulnerable members: girls and women.
If we are ever to get past the era of Islamic terrorism being visited upon the world today, Islam needs the same sort of reformation that Christianity experienced several hundred years ago. Islam needs to most especially reform its treatment of women and minorities to step into modernity and bring safety, prosperity, and advancement to its peoples.
Pressure from the west cannot but help to bring this reformation about. But we will not be able to assist such a reformation by constantly turning away from these brutal Islamic failings in the name of "tolerance" and politically correct considerations. A spotlight on these brutal, inhuman practices must be realized to help Islam confront its worst failings.
Islam needs introspection but with western excuse making for Islam we do nothing but help them ignore such failings and keeps reform a distant possibility.
We can only be hopeful that this prosecution in Georgia can help bring about Islam's reformation and, in the meantime, save untold young girls the horror of genital mutilation.
See part One of my Women and Islam discussion: Is Muslim Veil Issue Western Intolerance
Thursday, October 26, 2006
The BBC's Support of the Taleban
Once again taking "tolerance" to the level of societal self-destruction, the BBC has decided that showing the human side of the Taleban is an important story to cover.
They have ridiculously embedded a reporter with the Taleban in Afghanistan. Reporter David Lyon has been reporting from the Taleban and has filed a report filled with laudatory terms and brimming with respect for his subject.
Travelling with the Taleban
There is no army on earth as mobile as the Taleban.
I remember it as their secret weapon when I travelled with them in the mid-1990s, as they swept aside rival mujahideen to take most of the country.
Along with his wonderment at their "secret weapon", Lyon calls them "hardy" and gives them the opportunity to pass on this little bit of Taleban propaganda...
The Taleban deny British claims that hundreds of their soldiers have been killed.
They say that since they wear only the loose long cotton shirts and trousers - shalwar kameez - of any local villager, then the British cannot easily tell them apart.
In a village damaged by a British attack on the night of 7 October, some people were too angry to talk to me because I was British.
One merely pointed to the torn and bloody women's clothing left in the ruins of the house and said bitterly, "Are these the kind of houses they have come to build - the kind where clothing is cut to pieces?".
Why does the BBC feel it such a great idea to give an enemy of civilization a forum to dispense their message?
It was once said of the U.S. Constitution that it isn't a suicide pact. Much can be said of a culture, western culture in particular. Our laws and principles, our ideals and systems are specifically set up to further liberty, freedom and equality. Our democracy is the most enlightened in history.
Unfortunately, when faced with systems that are specifically set up to be a direct opposite of freedom and liberty, like the Taleban, socialism, communism, or other oppressive and regressive systems, societies based on freedom of expression cannot seem to understand the simple concept of self-preservation.
The BBC, with this embedded reporter, is holding the razor to the throat of western society. Giving excuses to enemies of liberty and providing cover for their depredations by making them seem reasonable and aggrieved is what they end up doing with this reporter's efforts. Putting doubt in the minds of fellow westerners and making them feel that their own society is what is at fault here is the end product.
And, that, in the end, will do nothing but assist in the tearing down of our own confidence in our society and ideals at a time when we face enemies who want to destroy us root and branch.
But, is it surprising that the BBC is filling this helpful role for our enemies? In light of recent BBC history, it shouldn't.
University Professor: Muslim Veil Issue is Western Intolerance
In another example of Western societal immolation, the University of Toronto is allowing a professor to teach his class that westerners who stand against the use of the veil by Muslim women living in western societies are but intolerant, bigots standing against Islam. He is claiming that being against the use of the veil is merely a western "fear" that is grounded solely in ignorance.
Westerners face up to their fear of the veil
As European politicians these days denounce the Muslim veil as inappropriate, University of Toronto Islamic legal scholar Anver Emon gives his students an exercise to show why the veil ignites fear in Western society.
He asks them to imagine a woman standing on a fashionable downtown Toronto street corner wearing a burka, the Afghan garment that covers a woman from head to toe. Or wearing a niqab, the more common face-veil. "Who is she?" he asks them. "Who is the woman?"
Invariably, Prof. Emon says, his students -- whether they're 10th-graders in the high-school workshops he conducts or his law students at U of T -- describe the woman as an uneducated immigrant under her husband's control. In other words, as an "other" and an "outsider."
When he tells them she could just as well be a Toronto-born lawyer, "suddenly the reason for the veil is not clear to them," he said. "Thus, to what degree is our response to the veil based on our assumptions of who is the woman?"
That was a pretty smooth obfuscation of what the purpose of the veil is on the part of professor Emon. You have to hand it to him for his ability to lie convincingly, at least.
Islamic apologists are the only sources for this story, naturally. No western theory is offered and this leaves unchallenged the position that westerners are merely bigoted against these innocent Muslims because westerners are so hateful of any other culture. It is simply the only option to explain being against the veil left us in the story.
Islamic scholars say the hostility rests with Western difficulty in embracing cultural difference. They say it stems from ignorance of historic reasons for the veil in Islamic society as well as ignorance of women's religious head-coverings in Western Christian culture.
But, just what do many westerners have against the usage of the veil? Is it just intolerance against other cultures? Or is there a good reason to stand against the use of the veil, the hijab, niqab, or the burka?
To answer that, one must understand the level of oppression faced by women in Islamic cultures. The veil is but a method of control, a method to remove freedom and liberty from Muslim women. The various coverings forced upon women is part and parcel to a system of forcing them into a subservient, hidden role, a role as second-class citizens to Muslim males who have no such restrictions.
Ostensibly, these coverings are supposed to guard a woman’s “chastity” or “modesty”. But, what it really does is eliminate the women’s ability to even address their chastity and modesty in their own minds as the veil serves to mask any need for introspection as much as it hides the woman away from the view of others. Worse, the veil teaches women that they should be ashamed of themselves, that they must remain unseen, unheard. Such coverings teaches women to be ashamed of their sexual feelings, even though such feelings were given to us by God, our maker. Additionally, it shows them that they should be faceless, shadowy entities without an identity or individuality.
In fact, sex itself is an imagined evil by Islam, especially the feminine half. Don’t take my word for it. The "Grand Mufti" of Australia, Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, recently blamed Australia’s women and their supposedly suggestive dress as the cause of a notorious gang rape perpetrated by a gang of Muslims there.
The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."
He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men.
"It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."
Of course, the veil is but one aspect of how women are oppressed by Islam. Along with coverings with the supposed purpose of guarding a woman’s "modesty", women are not allowed freedom of movement, freedom to travel, to hold jobs, or to educate themselves. These along with so many other restrictions, the purpose of which is to keep Muslim women in subservient roles, forms the basis of how Muslim women are treated by the religion and men.
Such oppressive notions are entirely against the western ideals of liberty and freedom, the ideals upon which we have built our entire ideology. The west has evolved away from such restrictive ways of treating our women and there is no reason to allow a minority to violate those principles under the precept of freedom of religion. It is a violation of our very base ideals to allow a religious minority to oppress their women so in western societies.
Of course, freedom of religion is also a bedrock western principle, but freedom of religion cannot supersede basic liberties for all citizens. After all, we could not allow slavery merely because it might be a religious tenet. And, forcing women to wear restrictive coverings is just as immoral as forcing them to endure female circumcisions, beatings, or other oppressive cultural "traditions".
The last point in the report tried to use history to soften western resistance to the veil.
Barry Levy, dean of the faculty of religious studies at McGill University and a scholar on Christian, Jewish and Islamic relations, says the veil's origin lies far deeper in history than Islam. Both Jewish and Arab women in medieval times were veiled. Christian nuns until recently exposed only their faces and many orders still retain the head scarves and, until a few decades ago, no Christian lay woman would have turned up in church without a hat.
The fact that it happened that women were not allowed certain liberties in the past, even in western nations, is no reason to allow it to continue now. In America, for instance, we had a time when women were not allowed to own property and this was true in many western nations. If we were to return to such an unfair restriction the past implementation of it would not make a re-implementation any more legitimate.
Of course, the question becomes one of choice, too. What if Muslim women chose to wear a burka or hajib in the west? What if many women want to restrict themselves to this practice? In fact, many Muslims say that their women do, indeed, want to observe the tradition without being stopped. However, this claim rings hollow when one discovers that enforcement of this dress code in most Muslim countries is usually done by roving gangs of toughs that beat people in the streets if it is thought they are violating this code. If adhering to such a dress code was so voluntary, Muslim cultures would have no need of these violent, roving gangs of terror inducing hooligans to enforce the rules.
Still, allowing such a dress code should be observed in private lives even in the west – though it should be heavily discouraged by our own culture. In public service, however, the state has an obligation to observe western cultural and ideological precepts, so restrictions on the veil for teachers, government workers, etc. should be enforced. After all, a distaste of the Muslim veil in the west is no mere religious bigotry as the veil is an assault on our very principles of equality, freedom, and liberty. It's just that simple. Oppressing females should not be tolerated.
Sadly, in the name of being politically correct, many leftists are willing to support this creation of second-class citizenship for Muslim women, something they’d never support for a second for their own.
In the end, what we end up with in this story is just another example of western self-hatred, another example of westerners allowing their advanced culture to be attacked and destroyed by backward thinking minorities.
Next thing you know, liberals will be turning their faces to look away allowing barbaric Sharia laws to be implemented in a western nation.
Australia's Top Muslim Leader Blames Women for Rape
Women are oppressed, second-class citizens in Islam. It's really just that simple. The abuse and hatred that Islam shows its women is one of Islam's most disgusting, backward, and evil aspects ... among so many such evils.
The Muslim Veil, for instance, is just one of Islam's many oppressions of women. But, the hate they display of women in general is endemic in the religion. And, Australia's supposed Muslim leader, Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, has displayed this fact once more by blaming women for the notorious gang rapes perpetrated by a gang of Muslims there.
Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks, by Richard Kerbaj
While not specifically referring to the rapes, brutal attacks on four women for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and immodest dress ... "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years".
"But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he asked.
The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."
He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men.
"It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."
Disgusting... but all too common a sentiment in Islam. Men are too stupid to control themselves and women are merely the "tools of Satan" because of that "igraa" all about them!
This kind of hatred expressed toward women is a concept so against the moral concepts of freedom, liberty, and equality that all forward thinking people hold dear and such hatred should be universally condemned. Unfortunately, too many will turn a blind eye to this and other examples of Muslim hate in the misguided name of "tolerance".
It is just one more reason that Islam needs a reformation to come into modernity.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
As the EURO Ruins Europe...
Just a little about how Europe's EU and Euro experiment is closer to collapse every day...
What we see in Eastern and Southern Europe today are the consequences of the EU’s transformation from a union of democratic countries into a sort of supra-national financial empire in which the most important decisions affecting EU citizens are no longer subject to democratic control.
There is now almost no chance of Hungary, or any other new European country, being admitted to the euro-zone in the foreseeable future. This was demonstrated over the summer when Lithuania and Estonia was refused permission to join the euro on the flimsiest of grounds. This EU decision attracted little attention in Britain but was hugely controversial in Eastern Europe. It effectively meant that the accession countries would continue to have their economic policies set in Brussels and Frankfurt without even being able to enjoy the modest benefits of using the single currency.
These simultaneous fiscal blunders in Italy, Germany and Eastern Europe will almost mean another “lost year” for the euro zone, with economic performance falling far behind America, Britain and Japan. But the long-term consequences could be more far-reaching.
The EU is an authoritarian nightmare and it won't be long before it fails utterly.
Personally, I think they deserve it. Every single way socialism has been tried on such a large scale has FAILED miserably.
Star Struck by Michael J. Fox
-By Warner Todd Huston
The AP appears to be star struck by Michael J. Fox with the debut of his campaign ad for Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill and several other Dems this week. So star struck that the AP has pronounced him a great success in a puff piece today. But how can they possibly know for sure if his ads are working?
Michael J. Fox Makes Stem Cell Vote Push, by Jake Coyle.
The symptoms of Parkinson's disease that all but ended Michael J. Fox's acting career are making him a powerfully vulnerable campaign pitchman for five Democrats who support stem cell research.
"Powerfully vulnerable campaign pitchman"? But, what is this assessment based on?
Seemingly, it's based just on the AP's being star struck because the elections haven't happened yet to see if Fox's ads even worked! Worse, they have claimed Fox so successful but a few days after the ads debuted. By what measure are they proclaiming this "powerful" impact?
AP offers that Fox's Youtube.com ad has been seen by "more than 1 million people", making that seem a big number presumably. But there are more than 5 million voters in Missouri alone, so the percentage who have seen this ad must be small, indeed. Is that success? And, remember, this one million viewers number is from the whole country, not just Missouri. (It has also shown on TV during the World Series -- a new low for viewership at only just over 8 million nation wide -- making a possible total of around 10 million viewers or so)
The AP quotes Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director for the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center to the effect that Fox is a "powerful" spokesman.
"The reason that he's powerful is that he's comparatively young,"...
Jamieson notes that the issue of stem cell research has the potential to be an advantage to Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections since polls have shown the majority of Americans favor some form of stem cell research.
Now there is another problem with this puff piece. Stem cell research is going strong in this country if you are talking adult stem cell research. Yet, this AP report makes it seem as if there is a battle against "stem cell research", not making clear exactly what the issue is.
Now, it's true that embryonic stem cell research has been restricted by the Bush administration and is opposed by Conservatives and religious Americans. And it is embryonic stem cell research that people like Fox and politicians like McCaskill are trying to get approved.
But, embryonic stem cell research has not seen a single successful cure or even a possible cure as the Family Research Council reports.
With increasing frequency, American citizens and others from around the globe are experiencing newfound freedom from disease, affliction, and infirmity. Individuals' lives are forever changed with the strengthened faith and renewed hope that arise from healed bodies and physical restoration. These seemingly miraculous cures are the result of adult stem cell treatments. Yet the debates in the popular media tend to ignore and obscure the medical breakthroughs made by adult stem cell research--success that has conspicuously eluded embryonic stem cell treatments.
While the potency and success of adult stem cell treatments are becoming evident, treatments using embryonic stem cells have not produced any clinical successes. Rather, embryonic stem cell treatments tend to create tumors in numerous animal studies. The public should ponder these issues and ask why the media do not cover such results. In a world with limited funds for research, why are we arguing about unproven and often dangerous embryonic stem cell treatments when treatments using adult stem cells are today producing real results for real patients?
So, why does the AP report a story without revealing the utter lack of success of the type of research that Fox is advocating for? If the research he is advocating for has proven entirely unsuccessful, why did that go unmentioned in this discussion of how "powerful" Fox's campaign pitches are?
Of course, if they mentioned any of that, they might be tarnishing their beloved star's reputation!
And we can have that from such great fans, I suppose.
Why are the Dems Already Claiming Victory?
Testing a Theory...
By now, we have all seen this business where the Media Dinosaurs are touting the upcoming midterm elections as already in the bag for the Democrats. But, we are also starting, just this week, to see stories disputing that assumption.
Rove and Bush are said to be strangely buoyant and upbeat about the chances of the GOP keeping their majorities. Several pundits and magazines as well as some pollsters are beginning to say that, while the GOP will lose some seats, the Party won't lose all power in some great midterm Democratic landslide.
So the question becomes, how could all the leftist pundits, poll skewers and Democratic Party fellow travelers be so far off with their predictions for a total Demo take over?
Maybe they aren't. Well, not in private anyway. Maybe they have known all along that this is going to be but a mildly successful Democrat Party election, with the Dems taking a few seats in both houses of Congress. But maybe they know full well that this won't be a tidal wave of Demo success.
And, maybe they are misreporting it all on purpose?
Why would they do that, you ask? To further the false claims they have spouted since the 2000 election that the system is "rigged" against them, that's why. They know full well that the American electorate has been leaning centrist to moderately conservative since 1980 and they also know full well that their ideas are dragging them further left every year.
So, how do they reconcile their steady decline as a leading Party in the country? Do they alter their stance and drive to the middle to try and satisfy the electorate? No, they drive further to the left and then try to blame the system for rigged elections.
So, perhaps this whole mantra of a Demo landslide is being misreported so that when it doesn't actually occur the left can then come back and claim that it is all just more "proof" that the system is rigged against them.
Again, why do that? Well, if the Dems can undermine the trust people have in the system, this will alienate moderates -- or swing vote -- who might stop voting out of disgust (taking part of the GOP's votes with them in the process) and they can anger their base enough to come out full force to "get even" with the evil Republicans who are rigging the vote.
Scotching the centrist vote in a time when elections are so often won by 3 and 4 percentage points is quite an interesting and possibly successful strategy. Get rid of the people that could vote either way and gin up your base with inflammatory claims of GOP vote fraud and you get a won election as well as the elbow room to continue your drift left without being slapped by the electorate for it.
And who can doubt that the mainstream media would fall all over themselves to assist such a plan? Or, if they aren't necessarily in on the plan from the beginning, who can doubt they will at least be inclined to slavishly report Democratic Party happy-talk since they so lovingly root for their pals in the DNC anyway?
So, there goes my theory. The MSM and the Demos are over reporting a success in November so that they can then come back afterwards, after it doesn't pan out, and say they have further proof that the system is "broken" and "rigged" against them in order to drives centrist or moderate voters out of the electorate. This, in turn, will eliminate enough GOP votes and pump up their own base enough to win close elections in the future.
The Dems are trying at their own concept of a "Rovian battle plan". Unfortunately it is a plan that doesn't deal honestly with the electorate. But who could be surprised at that?
Hillary stuck between Barack and a hard place
Mrs. Clinton is not a sympathetic figure. Although there may still be a residue of public empathy because of her husband’s bad behavior, many people view her as an enabler, aware of his philandering from the start. As the song goes, she knew he was a snake before she took him in.
There must be, however, a modicum of compassion for her now. With the sudden emergence of Barack - make that Barack! - Obama as a likely candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, she's gone from Hillary the inevitable to Hillary the unenviable.
Senator Obama says he's thinking of running. What he really means is he wants Democratic voters to think of him running. And to ask, nay beg, him to accept their coronation.
There's Obama on Oprah. There's Obama on the cover of Time. There's Obama persistently being hyped on cable news show as serious presidential timber.
On one program the other day, the media's excitement was conspicuous. Chris Matthews told viewers that Senator Obama "can stand before a crowd and make them feel magic." A Time reporter noted that the Illinois senator "really is really good." Not to be outdone, a BBC correspondent expressed her opinion that Barack "has all sorts of charisma. He is ridiculously good looking!"
Assuredly, his pals in the mainstream media are doing what they can to peddle Obama. Yet there's no doubting his appeal to rank-and-file Democrats as well.
Why? In a word, baggage............................................
Click HERE To Read On
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Elect Dems and Elect High Taxes
'Green' Celebs Who GUZZLE Gas!
I usually couldn't care less what J-Lo or Brad Pitt do. Sure, I watch an occasional movie they are in but when it comes to their empty headed blather on matters they know nothing about (that would be just about anything other than clothes designers and high class restaurants) I find their prattle nothing but an annoyance. So, when I see celebrities unleashing their hot-air about the environment, I tune out rather quickly.
But this story is just too funny...
The website TMZ.com has done a revealing little survey of the amount of fuel that self-proclaimed "green" celebrities waste at the same time they are claiming to be so environmentally friendly.
-On the Road
Drives a Prius (60 miles to the gal.- nice savings)
-In the Air
In a private jet, just once, flew Chicago to LA, 1,749 miles (2,100 gallons of jet fuel- WOW!)
Julia could drive her Prius 30,000 miles, or once around the whole globe, to match her one plane trip!
Remember, that was only ONE of Julia's fancy flights. Her Prius ownership seems a bit pointless if she is going to fly all about the planet wasting many thousands of times more fuel than her little Prius could ever save.
They also find similar findings with Jennifer Lopez, George Clooney, and Brad Pitt.
Conservatives Who Won't Vote GOP Deserve Lost Influence!
"Judges do not cease to be human beings when they go on the bench. In important cases, it is my humble opinion that finding the right answer is often the least difficult problem. Having the courage to assert that answer and stand firm in the face of the constant winds of protest and criticism is often much more difficult... The Founders warned us that freedom requires constant vigilance, and repeated action. It is said that, when asked what sort of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin replied that they had given us 'A Republic, if you can keep it.' Today, as in the past, we will need a brave 'civic virtue,' not a timid civility, to keep our republic."
-- Justice Clarence Thomas
Many of us are quite mad at the GOP today. And we are 100% right to be mad. Republicans today have become worse spenders than the Democrats, seem to have walked away from the Conservative principle of smaller government, and have had a difficult time pushing their political agenda at a time when they are in a majority.
We have every reason to want to scream bloody murder at them for these failings at a time when they have the power and capabilities to do better.
On the other hand, this teach-them-a-lesson type of thinking going around Conservative circles, where Conservatives are saying not to vote GOP, is the most stupid campaign tactic I have ever witnessed in my life.
Only a Conservative could be so stiff necked, so self-defeating, as to advocate for his own removal from the process.
Here is the best analogy I can think of to describe how foolish this don't-vote-GOP thought process is...
Imagine you are starving.
Then imagine that you are told you may come to the diner table, but may only have half a meal.
Then imagine how STUPID you'd be to turn down the invitation on the grounds of not being allowed to gorge yourself!
That is what you get when you refuse to vote GOP this Fall. As a conservative, you have a seat at the political table with Republicans. You may not get all you want -- in fact you WILL not get it-- but at least you can get the proverbial "half a loaf" by sticking with the GOP and pushing your agenda. However, with the Democrats in power you will get absolutely nothing whatsoever.
Democrats won't give you a single scrap from their table, Conservatives. And, as you are peering into their kitchen from the street, they will laugh at you as your ideas and policies are starved to death.
Nice going, Conservatives.
One of the reasons that Conservatives have become such a power since the Goldwater campaign and the Reagan revolution is that we’ve became engaged in the process. We’ve written, thought, and advocated. We’ve elected grassroots candidates and brought together the disparate Conservative groups, working with each other to build a viable coalition.
Coalition building is necessarily done by compromise. Sometimes that means not getting your way. But it also means having the possibility of getting it, if not now, perhaps later. As the saying goes, Politics is the art of the possible.
Allowing your enemy to win, though, means you get nothing and deserve nothing.
All that being said, one must necessarily weigh the factors in a vote for a Party. The benefits must outweigh the negatives, naturally. And there are three things that a vote for the GOP will affect, two things that outweigh all other factors at this time.
One is security -- and the first of the two that outweighs all others. Nearly every major Democratic Candidate and leader is advocating for a withdrawal from Iraq, a dampening of our capabilities to conduct surveillance on terrorists and gather intelligence on them, and a retreat from the war against Islamofascism.
The GOP, while sporting a somewhat spotty record, will at least make a good faith effort to resist those dangerous and stay clear of the kind of self-defeating policies Democrats want. That's a half-a-loaf we can work with.
The second is that a vote for the Democrats is a vote to raise taxes. Bush's tax cut is one of the main reasons our economy stayed strong in the face of Sept. 11, 2001 and Katrina, but the Democrats would erase that boost and raise taxes to the detriment to the economy.
Thirdly, and this is the second point that outweighs all others, a Democratic Congress or a Democrat president in 2008 will turn back Bush's trend of placing constructionist judges on the bench. From the Supreme Court to the lower Courts, we will be right back to the efforts of Democrats and other leftists of attempting to put judges who will be "progressive" (meaning socialist) on the bench. We will be right back to judges that treat the Constitution like so much toilet paper, if you’ll excuse my vulgarity?
Despite his less than stellar conservative bona fides otherwise, Bush has done a good job with his judicial appointments. But, electing a Democratic Congress will instantly put an end to that. Further it should be noted that Bush never was a strict Conservative in the first place and his style of governance should be no surprise at all.
So, Conservatives, unless you want to damage our security, raise taxes and turn our courts into a socialist social experiment once again, you'd best vote GOP. Stay with the Party. Stay seated at that table where we can at least have some impact on policy and the debate in the public square.
Otherwise, you deserve to get nothing for all your efforts. And that IS what you will get.
So, despite the many problems between Conservatives and the GOP it makes more sense to continue voting GOP and try to work from within to affect the policies to get we want.
Africa and China's Future (Morals Serve A Purpose)
Last week I ran across an article that didn't get much press or discussion. China has crossed the threshold into the realm of self-destruction again. Their first step in that direction was turning to communism. If you think back a little you'll remember the 'one family one child' policy and the fall out from that. In a society such as theirs boys are worth more than girls so the girl babies had a tendency to disappear or die. The end result of this is that there will be a lot of young men over there with very few young ladies. There simply won't be enough to go around. This will drive China to put them to use for things such as wars in order to get them out of the country. If China doesn't decide on that course of action there will still be a lot of very frustrated young men over there. More than likely this will lead to an explosion of young men pursuing alternative lifestyles, not that I view it as an alternative lifestyle. I'm just being nice here.
That is but one of their many problems. The threshold that they have crossed is that the majority of their AIDS cases are now heterosexual and not from intravenous drug use. They are now on the same threshold that Africa once stood on. Africa has had entire regions almost completely die out and it didn't start to spiral out of control until it crossed over into the mainstream of their society. Only one nation in Africa was able to turn the tide in a noticeable manner and it was through the reinstatement of morals and a 'just don't' attitude. Everyplace where they have tried handing out needles and condoms it has done nothing but make the stupid behavior seem safer. The end result has always been the same thing: No tangible results.........................................
Click HERE To Read On
Monday, October 23, 2006
Wash. Post- 'U.S. Power' Finished
In a column by Sebastian Mallaby, the Washington Post today has announced the "nadir" of U.S. power.
Mr. Mallaby goes on a long diatribe that contradicts itself so many times that an informed reader would get whiplash from the experience. And all those head turing points are attacks against the effectiveness, sincerity, and well-meaning of American policy.
He begins his screed by negatively invoking a Ronald Reaganism, saying "It's not exactly morning in America", after which he regales us on how nothing worthwhile has come from Iraq, "a special Rumsfeldian screw-up".
It isn't just Iraq policies he attacks, but the entire Bush doctrine and all our military efforts connected to it. Obviously he thinks they are failing miserably calling them "faltering" efforts and saying that our "tough talk" on terror has backfired.
Then, inexplicably, he leads into the current reversal from democracy being indulged in by Russia's Valdimir Putin, the Islamic militants taking over in Somalia, and the genocide in Darfur, as if America caused each of these calamities by somehow NOT using our might to stop them.
So, which policy are you against, Mr. Mallaby? American intervention or LACK of American intervention?
But, after talking about some of the worst human abuses in the world (not mentioning China, of course), Mallaby then ridiculously goes on to scold Bush on our "decline of empire" because of our "economic frailties".
Someone should point out to Mr. Mallaby that under Bush we have one of the strongest economies we have had in a long, long time. Someone should also tell him that, since Ronald Reagan's Republican revolution, we have had one of the longest streaks of strong economies that the country has ever experienced.
Finally, after his many finger waggings, Mr. Mallaby insists that he isn't saying the USA is finished.
I'm not predicting the end of the American era, not by a long shot... But has there been a worse moment for American power since Ronald Reagan celebrated morning in America almost a quarter of a century ago? I can't think of one.
Mr. Mallaby has another little problem with his late claim that he isn't "predicting the end" of America, however. The piece is called "A Nadir of U.S. Power". Unfortunately for Mr. Mallaby, "Nadir" means just such an "end" as the word means "directly opposite of a zenith", or "the lowest point".
Sounds like the end to me!
Too bad Mr. Mallaby is neither honest with his assurances nor informed of just how far off his analysis really is. It's also too bad that the Washington Post is so pessimistic about our country and sad that they used one of our most optimistic presidents ever as a springboard to their disrespect.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Calif. Judge Pushes Gender Issues
Here is the perfect description of an "activist judge" if I ever saw one...
Judge: Exposure Law Is Gender Specific
A (Riverside, CA) judge dismissed an indecent exposure charge against a woman accused of disrobing in front of a 14-year-old boy, saying the law only applies to men. Superior Court Judge Robert W. Armstrong said earlier in the week that the law only mentions someone who "exposes his person... It's gender specific," Armstrong said.
Doesn't sound so odd, you say? Seems as though he is truly adhering to the letter of the law, you think?
Try this on..
Prosecutor Alison N. Norton said the decision to throw out the case will be appealed because another section of state law says that "words used in the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter."
And there is the activism. This "judge" is attempting to gerrymander language to gender specific in order to further push specific gender issues at a later date. After all, if the state Constitution uses the common language convention where the term "man" simply means humans as opposed to just males, then laws centering on homosexuals, women, "trans genders" and other unnecessary specifics will be harder to create.
If "men" or "man" just means human, then the other labels are unnecessary.
No, what we have here is just this judge's attempt to further splinter the law into gender classifications so that special cases can be crated from the differences and this cannot but come to the assistance of activists who base their activism on gender or sexual oddities. The more splintering of the law the easier for them to craft special legislation or bring lawsuits for their cause.
Worse, this judge knows better. The convention of using "man" as a euphemism for people (and not necessarily meaning just male) is a common one going back to the founding of the English language. We have a long standing grammatical usage of "men" meaning humanity in general and it is well understood by everyone who is not an activist seeking to further balkanize our language and laws.
This judge is merely trying to get another nose under the tent of our laws and societal norms to undermine them in order to further gender issue activism.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Ariz. Voters to Show Photo ID... THIS time
Seems like a victory... but not quite.
The US Supreme Court has said that the current law requiring Arizona voters to present photo ID cards must be observed this coming election cycle. Voters in Arizona will have to preset a photo ID with their names and addresses on it to be eligible to cast a ballot.
Supreme Court upholds Arizona's photo ID law for elections
That is good. But, the Court did NOT rule to the question of the Constitutionality of requiring a photo ID to vote. They merely said that the lower Court ruling preventing it in Arizona at this time was invalid.
...the court decided that the 9th Circuit made a procedural error by granting an injunction to put the new rules on hold without waiting for the district court to explain its reasons for not granting an injunction.
So, the SCOTUS booted the whole question back to the state courts to rule on the initial Constitutionality of requiring a photo ID to vote. Meaning that the question is not anywhere near settled. The SCOTUS will still have to rule on the issue eventually as it wasn't even directly addressed this time 'found... but at least it wasn't an idea shot down.
We still have a battle ahead of us to institute voter ID requirements nation wide.
The wheels of justice are slow, indeed.
Brits Realizing it IS a War on Islamic Extremism
Well, we have two good stories out of England that should be heralded, proving that the Brits are "getting it" that this is a war on extremist Muslims and that means that ALL Muslims must be looked at askance. Not because all Muslims are somehow guilty, but that one cannot tell the guilty ones from the innocent ones without investigation. The Brits are realizing that Muslims are going to have to have some restrictions, are going to have to prove their innocence, and just cannot be allowed to roam freely without suspicion upon them in this day when ANY of them could be hiding terrorist plans.
Our freedoms should not be used as a shield to hide terrorist activities in the west. As the famous quote about the Constitution goes - our laws are not a "suicide pact". Muslim's finances must be scrutinized more closely than are other citizen's. Certain Muslim practices must not be allowed, like the veil. And their Mosques and schools must not be allowed total autonomy and practice without a wary eye upon them.
The Brits are starting to see that this is true and beginning to understand what it takes to safeguard the public from the threat of Islamofascism.
Muslim architecture student quizzed by police over Canary Wharf photo project
In this one, police detained and questioned a man dressed in traditional Muslim garb for walking about a wharf shooting photos.
Turns out his efforts were for a school project and it was all innocent. Naturally, he complains about being "singled out" and abused by the police.
I say, good on the police for at least trying to stop what could have been a terrorist casing the Wharf for an attack.
This student's troubles can be turned against his own people. Islam takes the blame for this, not western "fascism" or authoritarianism. If his people were not acting the way they do all across the globe, such suspicion would not be warranted. But, since they DO act that way, they should expect to find themselves under suspicion anywhere they go.
Heal your own house, Islam. THEN expect to be treated with respect.
UK teacher loses veil discrimination case
Here we have a London teacher who has been told by the government that she cannot wear a veil that covers her entire face, except for her eyes, and remain a teacher of English for children.
Also naturally, she complains that she is being attacked for her religion, but British officials say her veil creates "visible statement of separation and difference." Meaning, she is creating a segregated society by wearing a veil.
The Brits are right. The veil is a way to discriminate against women. The fact that it is a tradition among Muslims is meaningless when it comes to equal treatment under the law. It should be remembered that genital mutilation of females is a "tradition" in Islam, too. We don't want to sanction THAT barbaric practice on the grounds of "religious expression" do we?
Islam is an enemy to civilization and cannot be expected to join the 21st century until it has its own reformation. But, until then, it must be viewed with suspicion. Every Mosque is a probable terrorist's haven. Every Muslim a potential murderer.
The sooner we realize that the safer we will be.
What a Democratic victory will mean
Media analysts and other deep thinkers are touting polls that point to a Democratic sweep next month. Democrats have progressed from thinking in terms of what if to when.
Republicans can still win. To do so, they need to nationalize the election.
Most voters believe, understandably, that Congress is doing a lousy job. Simultaneously, they think their own member is doing OK. But who is your Congressman going to vote for to lead the House?
Archliberals will be running things if Democrats take over. The GOP needs to constantly argue that case.
A Democratic majority means Californian Nancy Pelosi will become the House speaker. Most citizens don't know much about Ms. Pelosi. They will learn plenty in a hurry when she pushes her radical agenda.
Ms. Pelosi has said she doesn't "really consider ourselves at war" with terrorism, that it's actually just a struggle. Moreover, she's claimed this year's election "shouldn't be about national security."
Maybe she's trying to cover up her votes as the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. In the years prior to 9/11, despite her having inside knowledge of the threats confronting the U.S., she regularly voted against intelligence funding...........................................
Click HERE To Read On
Thursday, October 19, 2006
How the BBC Got Mad at Me -- Still Say it isn't a 'War on Terror'
On the 30th of September I wrote a post on Publius' Forum and also posted the same on Newsbusters about how the BBC is using their reporting on the Global War on Terror to advance their ideological bias against the war instead of merely reporting the facts of the news.
On the BBC website a segment called "The Editors" appeared on Oct. 2nd and raises this very posting of mine and makes an attempt to refute it.
Alistair Burnett (editor of "The World Tonight") made a weak attempt to nay say my point.
Is the BBC trying to make a political point when it uses the expression 'so-called War on Terror' or 'The Bush Administration's War on Terror' or 'the American-led War on Terror'?
Some bloggers certainly think so, but is it true? Well you wouldn't expect me to say it is, so I won't, because it isn't.
I should mention that the Beeb was calling ME the "some bloggers".
My point was that since the BBC used the words "so-called war on terror" they obviously had revealed their anti-war bias.
Obviously the BBC is conveying that this war is a sham, or a fake war and using president Musharraf's comments as cover to get that message across.
Here was Mr. Burnett's weak explanation:
The BBC usually qualifies or attributes the expression 'war on terror' for several reasons. The main reason is that the concept in itself is disputed.
Wow. The "concept is disputed"? THAT is their reason? So, since some people still think the Earth is flat, should we not call the Earth a "globe" because there is some "dispute" about its relative roundness???
Now, I have a question. Is it the duty of a news source to "qualify" terminology or is it their duty to just report things. If Bush calls it the war on terror shouldn't they just report it? And if someone else says it isn't a war, shouldn't they just report that?
Their full explanation is hardly convincing me that the Beeb is but doing their duty to report...
We believe we need to use the expression because it has become such a familiar part of the political and dilplomatic debate which we report on regularly, however, because the expression in itself is so hotly contested, we believe it is better to qualify it, so as not to give the impression to our global audience that we are endorsing it or opposing it.
Such a "familiar part of the political and diplomatic debate"? Didn't they just say it's all in dispute but a few sentences before? And, if it is such a "familiar part" of the debate, why, then, do they have to constantly qualify it?
Me thinks they doth protest too much!