...about good news coming out of Iraq.
The French strike over a law that will increase youth employment but would allow...(the horror)...employers to fire without cause workers under the age of 26 during their first two years of employment. Our "pro- (illegal) immigration" activists parade and protest over a law which...(the horror)...would require persons to enter this country legally before obtaining its myriad benefits. All the result of the liberal/socialist mindset.
I'm caught up in a jury trial, don't have much free time, so need to keep it short and sweet. 700 Muslims protested the impending release of Abdul Rahman, quite apparently A-OK with the concept of death sentences for converts from Islam. Where were all the Muslim protests against the implementation of this medieval and barbaric "law"?
...This time starring the "peace activists" from the Christian Peacemaker Teams whose kidnapped members were recently rescued by coalition forces. They now refuse to cooperate and provide information during de-briefings. One of these nutters is quoted as follows: "We make clear that if we are kidnapped we do not want there to be force or any form of violence used to release us." What idiots. Speaking of idiots...here's the latest from Charlie Sheen. The apple has definitely not fallen very far from the tree. I wonder if Emilio was perhaps adopted.
The city of Costa Mesa, California (coincidentally, the city in which Tony Soprano has found himself during his coma induced hallucinations) has instituted a policy which would allow police to check the immigration status of suspected violent felons. The response of those opposed is typically moderated: "What we need is a national immigration policy," said attorney Chris Blank. "We don't need a cowboy sitting in the mayor's seat in Costa Mesa saying, `I'm going to round them all up and send them away.'" Why should anyone be concerned about being "rounded up" unless you are a violent felon or here illegally anyway? What am I missing here? The debate over illegal immigration is so confoundedly untruthful. The issues are rather simple and can be summarized by a few questions: 1. Do citizens of a foreign country have the right to enter this country at the time and place of their choosing and without any restrictions or do we have the right to exercise control over our borders? 2. Do we have the right to return to their countries of origin those who have entered this country without having gone thought the proper channels? The question of whether illegal immigrants are, on balance, good people only looking for a better life for themselves and their families (which I believe to be the case) is not particularly relevant to the threshold issues. We wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) be having this debate unless this were in fact the case. Casting in a xenophobic light anyone who advocates against illegal immigration is simply the (typical) liberal debate technique of using ad hominem attacks in place of facts. Just like the "If you are against affirmative action, you must be a bigot" line of attack. Most Americans do not have a problem with immigration per se and recognize that the welcoming of immigrants from throughout the world is what we're about and is what made this country the beacon that it has always been. On the other hand, most of us are resentful of the notion that we are obligated to accept anyone and everyone who wishes to come here irrespective of who and what they are. That's why the idea of a coherent policy coupled with insuring our ability to keep out those who will not follow the rules makes sense to most clear thinking Americans.
I now have the photo I wanted to post earlier with my link to Michelle Malkin's post.
In a pre-emptive move to avert rioting and hostage-taking (OK...I added that last part) a cloth Easter bunny, pastel-colored eggs and a sign with the words "Happy Easter" were removed from St. Paul city hall for fear of offending non-Christians.
(A) Scientists are saying that, if current trends continue, sea levels could rise up to 20 feet by the end of this century. The culprit is, of course, global warming which will raise the average temperature of the earth by four degrees in that same time frame. The report goes on to say that this temperature increase will render the earth as warm as it was nearly 130,000 years ago when a significant portion of the Greenland ice sheet melted causing the same effect. So my common sense question is this: If the earth's temperature rose enough to melt northern hemisphere ice sheets and cause sea level rises 130,000 years ago--when there were no human generated greenhouse gases produced--why are some so certain that this eon's temperature rise is not also a natural, cyclical event? (B) A "moderate" Afghan cleric has called for the death of Abdul Rahman, the man who converted from Islam to Christianity in violation of sharia law, even if the governmental authorities succumb to worldwide pressure and spare him. He and other clerics have said they will incite people to "pull him into pieces." So my common sense question is this: If the only Muslim clerics saying anything about this situation are calling for the death of Rahman for his conversion to Christianity, and that it is likely true that they will be able to incite other Muslims to murder this poor man, why do many continue to say that this barbarity is only reflective of the sensibilities of a small minority of Muslims. Does anyone really think that if you polled Muslims in Afghanistan (or Pakistan, or Iran, or Algeria, or in any other Muslim controlled country) most would express outrage at this man's fate at the hands of religious authorities? Or would you think that the majority would have little problem with his sentence?
An Afghan man faces the death penalty for converting to Christianity from Islam. How is it again that this sort of medieval behavior is practiced only by a "small minority" of Muslims, even though the government of an Muslim dominated country applies these principles. Oh yeah, I forgot the "Let there be no compulsion in religion" quote [Qur'an 2:256] that Muslim apologists like to trot out. True only if you are Muslim apparently. UPDATE: Algeria has passed a law calling for imprisonment of "anyone urging or forcing or tempting, to convert a Muslim to another religion." Remember, kids, there's no compulsion in Islam. [Hat tip: Dhimmi Watch]
"A new and highly illuminating article in Foreign Affairs draws on hundreds of Iraqi documents to provide a look at the Iraq war from the Iraqi perspective. The picture that emerges is that of an Iraqi regime built on a foundation of paranoia and lies and eager to attack its perceived enemies, internal and external. This paragraph is notable: The Saddam Fedayeen also took part in the regime's domestic terrorism operations and planned for attacks throughout Europe and the Middle East. In a document dated May 1999, Saddam's older son, Uday, ordered preparations for "special operations, assassinations, and bombings, for the centers and traitor symbols in London, Iran and the self-ruled areas [Kurdistan]." Preparations for "Blessed July," a regime-directed wave of "martyrdom" operations against targets in the West, were well under way at the time of the coalition invasion." Read all of Stephen Hayes' piece.
Saddam Hussein supported an al-Qaeda linked terrorist group in the Phillipines. Will the MSM care?
Guillermo Fariñas Hernández began the above mentioned hunger strike last January 31, in protest, demanding of the Cuban government to install free access to the Internet from his home. As we all know, the Cuban Government forbids its citizens to have free access to the Internet, as part of the political censure imposed on its citizens for over four decades. In a letter addressed to Fidel Castro, doctor Fariñas has raised his voice, at the risk of loosing his life, demanding his inalienable right to access cyber space freely. This is an ongoing story that gets absolutely no traction in the MSM and certainly no sympathy from the left wing bloggers. Why is that exactly when these same people light their hair on fire over the Patriot Act and eavesdropping on terrorist communications with their American operatives?
Liberals are so freakin' wacked out, it's frightening!! Read about what some L.A. schools are doing for their 7th and 8th grade girls. Sponsoring "Glove Affair" condom, sex education "parties" where nifty little gifts are handed out. Read closely the following: The truth is, when Emma arrived home the previous Saturday night clutching a goody bag from Glove Affair, my liberal credentials were instantly tested. One by one I pulled the following from her white plastic sack: a condom; pamphlets on masturbation, oral sex and intercourse; the "Rubber Bible," featuring alternative names for prophylactics, such as "gent tent" and "peenie beanie"; and an information wheel labeled "Condom Comebacks," which included a list of excuses boys might make for not wearing a condom and possible rejoinders a girl could offer. Him: "It doesn't feel good." Her: "I've got moves rubbers can't stop." What in the name of all that is holy is going on in our educational establishment? This crap is being delivered to, and sexualizing, thirteen year olds! What kind of parent wants their kid's school to be teaching her about sexual "moves"? It's a new world.
1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day. 2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car. 3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this. 4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine. 5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads. 6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light. 7. The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying. 8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna. 9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car. 10. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off. [Hat tip: Mrs RTH!]
I was at a dinner this weekend during which a brief discussion took place regarding the same subject matter as this piece by Lionel Shriver of the UK's Guardian; South Dakota's attempt to ban all abortions. There is much to discuss here, but right now my interest is with respect to the following statement in the piece, which echoed a comment made at dinner: The term "pro-life" could not be less apt. (Enjoy the irony that many a "pro-lifer" also supports capital punishment.) I am curious. How many out there truly see no moral distinction between taking the life of a murderer, and taking the life of a soon-to-be-born baby? I mean, really. Forget about the other considerations on both sides of this argument for the time being and tell me, if you are pro-choice, do you agree that it is "ironic" (read: "hypocritical"?) that one can support capital punishment and also be anti-abortion?
"What a coincidence that Lou Gehrig died of Lou Gehrig's disease." -- actor Michael Imperioli "If your nose runs and your feet smell...you were made upside down." -- actor Stephen Van Zandt "Your mother tried to have you killed... ...yeah well what's wrong with that...doesn't your mother get mad at you?" -- actors Lorraine Bracco and James Gandolfini
One day a fourth grade teacher asked the students what their father did for a living. All the typcial answers came up -- fireman, mechanic, businessman, lawyer, salesman, etc. But little Justin was uncharacteristically quiet so when the teacher prodded him about what his father did, he replied. "my father is an exocitc dancer in the gay cabaret and takes off his clothes in front of other men and they put money in his underwear. Sometimes if the offer is really good, he will go home with a guy and make love with him for money." The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other children to work on some exercises and then took little Justin aside to ask him..."Is that really true about your father?" "No," the boy said, "He really works for the Democratic National Committee and is helping to secure the nomination of Hillary Clinton, but I was too embarrassed to say that in front of the other kids."
This has become apparent to all but leftist, multicultural, moral relativist types, but it bears repeating. "Free speech" is not free when Muslims are offended but, ironically and hypocritically, it is absolute when Muslim imams spew their usual hate-filled rhetoric. [Hat tip: The Counterterrorism Blog]
This reminded me of something the Lone Ranger would send me... OK Here's the Plan... Back off and let those who want to marry men, marry men, Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women, Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, abort their babies, In three generations there will be NO Democrats!!! Man...I love it when a plan comes together!!
It's difficult to listen to people who have nothing substantive to say, hence the fact that liberal talk radio network Air America is about to go belly up as it loses it flagship station. It's equally difficult to read the words of authors who have nothing to say, as is evident by the sales figures for "Daily Kos" guy Markos Zuniga's book...253 volumes since its release. I can probably sell that many when mine comes out...that's what extended families are for.
Believe it or not, the general population is developing a more jaundiced view of Islam. Of course, the apologists continue to assert that it is the result of xenophobic politicians rather than the never ebbing violence seen in the Muslim world-wide community. But I would expect nothing less from them.
Hamas has a website for kids encouraging them to become suicide bombers.
This is off topic from the usual posts but hopefully Ric and anyone who might read this won't mind...but I felt compelled to post and say Bush's prescription drug program is pretty darn good. I take care of my 76 year old dad who had a stroke 6 years ago and when I came back from being away for several months I had to deal with setting him up on his prescription drug program. I pay all his bills and the majority of his costs are spent on medication and health insurance. It was nice to see a program that actually benefited an actual tax payer and the middle class. I had a lot of options but I first chose AARP for my dad and mother. I also looked at Humana's program too, but AARP has been good so far. Bush did good here...or at least so far so good. First, it was easy to apply for. I did it right over the phone and the benefits are extremely noticeable. My father and mother pay $700 for Blue Cross coverage a month to pay for what Medicare doesn't cover and then $750 a month in prescription drugs for my dad alone for all the medication my father needs. I returned just two weeks ago from being away and signed him up. I have just received our pharmacy bill and it is less than HALFf!!! Some medications were just $1.00. I am impressed. I do not know the ins and outs of this program and how it is paid for and organized or even if it will last, but it has made a difference in the lives of my parents. What I appreciate most is that this program not only helps the least among us, but the ordinary middle class who worked hard for over 30 years to care for themselves in their old age, and yet they are still able to benefit and not pay most of their retirement income to medication. Normally with any new programs that is not the case. My hats off to Bush! I do not know how he did it but so far I like it!!!
Great collaborative piece by Bill Bennett and Alan Dershowitz: The Boston Globe, speaking for many other outlets, editorialized: "[N]ewspapers ought to refrain from publishing offensive caricatures of Mohammed in the name of the ultimate Enlightenment value: tolerance." But as for caricatures depicting Jews in the most medievally horrific stereotypes, or Christians as fanatics on any given issue, the mainstream press seems to hold no such value. And in the matter of disclosing classified information in wartime, the press competes for the scoop when it believes the public interest warrants it.
I have been slow to post these days because the limited time I have to sit down and write is being spent on another project (I'm being intentionally mysterious in order to generate even a modicum of interest). However, do check out these two stories: The entirety of the reporting about the Katrina video, and the attempt to resurrect another "Bush Lied" firestorm, is intentionally false. See Patterico's post on this. The guy who intentionally drove a rented SUV into a group of students at UNC-Chapel Hill did so in retribution for the treatment of Muslims throughout the world. See Michelle Malkin on this one. I am repeating myself, but the question needs to be asked and re-asked until we wake up to the reality. What is it about Islam that leads so many of its adherents (including those who have spent most, if not all, of their lives in the West) to believe they have the right and responsibility to seek "retribution" against innocents? I'm only an amateur psychologist but it seems to me that it must at least in part come from the cultivation of an "us against them" mentality with "them" being the Dar al-Harb. When you are taught that all those that do not believe as you do are "infidels" rather than "brothers" who simply believe differently, and when you are taught that your people are destined to rule the world, you need not leap very far to reach the shore of intolerance and hate.
10th grade high school geography teacher tells students that Bush and Hitler eerily use the "same tones." [Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt]
Only one in four Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. But more than half can name at least two members of the Simpsons cartoon family, according to a survey. Best quote: "About one in five people thought the right to own a pet was protected..."
I've always liked actor James Woods, probably because he is not the run of the mill Hollywood left winger and, based upon hearing several interviews, because he is highly informed and thoughtful. I like him even more now that he has vowed to stop making "douche bag, feminist movies." [You'll need to scroll down a bit to find the reference]
Now I understand. Muslims riot and demand retribution when their sacred images are supposedly defiled, but have no hesitation publishing images and words insulting to other religions and peoples. Muslims become outraged when U.S. forces damage a mosque being used as a staging area for terrorists, but have no hesitation to level the holy places of their co-religionists. Muslim hypocrisy knows no bounds.