I believe the War on Terror is the opening battle in an outright ideological war between radical oppressive Islam and free Western society. This blog series is an attempt to explain the motivations and key issues involved. A lot of these assertions are very severe and could be seen as very controversial or provocative, but if you look into the details, every one of them is justified by evidence and real life examples. I'll link to the full blogs in the series so you can check out the details if you want, but hopefully the short version will be much easier to digest.
Read on, fearless reader! :)
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Radical Islam Revealed (The Short Version), Part 1: Who Are They?
Terrorists have various backgrounds, from poor families to Saudi princes. There really aren't any economic, status, or career links - it's all about Islam. Islam begins brainwashing their children at a very early age to hate America and the West with a murderous passion. Where children in the West are banned from recess competition (to avoid hurting the feelings of those who lose, of course), children of Islam chant about dying for the sake of Allah. It's an ideology of hate, it's the core of their being, and it's their mission in life. By comparison, the West -- as it is right now -- is woefully unprepared to meet this challenge.
Link to full blog.
Link to full blog.
Radical Islam Revealed (The Short Version), Part 2: Why Do They Do This?
There is some controversy about why these terrorists are so motivated to hate America and the West. The main reason is that Islam requires it. It's all about the religious fervor, and is plainly called for -- repeatedly and explicitly -- in the Koran. By ignoring the root cause of their motivations, the West is going to have an extremely tough time fighting it. Why treat the symptoms of a disease when you don't touch the root cause? It just doesn't work.
Link to full blog.
Link to full blog.
Radical Islam Revealed (The Short Version), Part 3: What Do They Want?
The mission is simple: convert or die. It's not fancy, and it's not complicated. All non-Muslims are faced with the choice of either converting to Islam (or agreeing to live as second-class non-Muslim citizens obeying Sharia law) or being killed in jihad. The leaders of radical Islam -- including Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- are quite clear in their own writings and words, so there's no reason we shouldn't believe them. One of the most important pieces of information you should read in this series is the report In Their Own Words, which clearly outlines how Islam itself dictates the atrocities committed by these radical terrorists. Read it and be informed.
Link to full blog.
Link to full blog.
Radical Islam Revealed (The Short Version), Part 4: What Happens If They Win?
The goal of radical Islam is to control the world under Sharia law. Some of the changes that America and the West will suffer as a part of Sharia law include:
- sanctioned wife-beating
- beatings or stoning (to death) for adultery
- cutting off fingers for smoking
- honor killings (of family members, especially young girls/women)
- women are not educated, and must have guardians and forced marriages
- outright control of female sexuality
The West is already capitulating on a number of Sharia-related issues:
- Muslims get special bank holidays
- German judge allows wife-beating according to Sharia law
- tax-payer funded foot baths for Muslims
- taxi cab restrictions - Muslim drivers don't have to accept fares with animals (seeing eye dogs), people carrying pig products (ham sandwich), or alcohol
- dress codes dictated by Muslims
- Winston Churchill, one of the beacons of strength in WWII and one of the reasons the Nazis were defeated, is being removed from British education to avoid offending Muslims
- British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has ordered his government to avoid the use of "Muslim" when discussing Muslim terrorism, the generic "war on terror", or "Islamic terrorism" when referring to Islamic terrorists
- schools in England are no longer teaching about the Holocaust, for fear of offending Holocaust-deniers (Muslims); similarly, many teachers are refusing to teach about the Crusades, where Christians fought (and defeated) Muslims
We've got to realize what's happening and put a stop to it. Religious tolerance is one thing; this is a takeover. In a related note, Right Truth posts that the federal investigation into the Holy Land Foundation has revealed documents of written plans to replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia law.
This is real, people, and it is war. One ideology will win, and one will lose.
Link to full blog.
- sanctioned wife-beating
- beatings or stoning (to death) for adultery
- cutting off fingers for smoking
- honor killings (of family members, especially young girls/women)
- women are not educated, and must have guardians and forced marriages
- outright control of female sexuality
The West is already capitulating on a number of Sharia-related issues:
- Muslims get special bank holidays
- German judge allows wife-beating according to Sharia law
- tax-payer funded foot baths for Muslims
- taxi cab restrictions - Muslim drivers don't have to accept fares with animals (seeing eye dogs), people carrying pig products (ham sandwich), or alcohol
- dress codes dictated by Muslims
- Winston Churchill, one of the beacons of strength in WWII and one of the reasons the Nazis were defeated, is being removed from British education to avoid offending Muslims
- British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has ordered his government to avoid the use of "Muslim" when discussing Muslim terrorism, the generic "war on terror", or "Islamic terrorism" when referring to Islamic terrorists
- schools in England are no longer teaching about the Holocaust, for fear of offending Holocaust-deniers (Muslims); similarly, many teachers are refusing to teach about the Crusades, where Christians fought (and defeated) Muslims
We've got to realize what's happening and put a stop to it. Religious tolerance is one thing; this is a takeover. In a related note, Right Truth posts that the federal investigation into the Holy Land Foundation has revealed documents of written plans to replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia law.
This is real, people, and it is war. One ideology will win, and one will lose.
Link to full blog.
Radical Islam Revealed (The Short Version), Part 5: What Happens To People Who Attack/Question Islam?
High-profile people who attack (or even question) Islam are often made the targets of vicious assaults. Some are forced to go into exile to survive, some are tortured, some are killed. Any insult to Islam (real or perceived) often results in riots all over the world. Some such incidents in the recent past include cartoons, inadvertent misunderstanding in attempted kindnesses, or blatant misinformation. It's ridiculous that these barbarians go ballistic at the smallest hint of an insinuation of an implication of a potential insult.
Link to full blog.
Link to full blog.
Radical Islam Revealed (The Short Version), Part 6: Is Islam Really The Religion Of Peace?
Islam is anything but peaceful. This, in my opinion, is one of the most vile myths perpetuated about Islam. I believe it is exactly the opposite - it is probably the most brutal, barbaric, evil religion in the history of the world. The Koran repeatedly calls for violence against non-Muslims. Some evidence of real-world actions by this so-called 'religion of peace':
- Muslims call for the beheading of Salmon Rushdie and place a $150,000 price on his head; the death warrant is renewed when he is knighted in 2006
- during the recent violence between Hamas and Fatah, several Fatah leaders were dragged into the street by Hamas and executed
- administering 80 lashes for drinking and having sex outside of marriage
- general gratuitous torture (the real kind) and murder, including children
- public executions and 'disappearances'
- public stoning for adultery
- 150,000 arrests were made due to people not wearing proper Muslim clothing
- school children on buses are taken hostage
- schools are bombed
- a 6-year old Afghani boy was tricked by the Taliban into being a suicide bomber (he figured it out before his bomb went off)
- four men and one boy were found in an Al Qaeda stronghold, tortured: they were inside a padlocked room and had been beaten with chains, cables, and hoses; the boy said electrical wires had been connected to his tongue and he'd been shocked
- women are suspended by their hair as their families were forced to watch
- men are forced to watch their wives get raped
- Al Qaeda cuts off people's faces with piano wire to 'teach a lesson' to those watching
- Christians and Jews in Iraq are crucified: some are nailed to the crosses, some are tied; the ropes of those who are tied are set on fire
- a 5-year old boy is doused with gasoline and set on fire
- people are dumped into a shredding machine (some head first, some feet first)
- women are beheaded for unspecified 'immoral activities', which could be anything from not having their heads covered to wearing nail polish
- a 20-year old woman is raped, stomped on, kicked, strangled with a bootlace, stuffed into a suitcase, and buried in a garden...by her father and her uncle! (for leaving her abusive forced marriage and falling in love with someone else)
- Al Qaeda kidnaps boys around 11 years old, then invites the family of the boys over for lunch and serve the boy as the main course -- baked, with an apple stuffed in his mouth -- to persuade the family to their way of thinking
Are these isolated incidents, or just part of the war against the U.S.? Hardly. In my original blog about this topic, I posted a list of the terrorist attacks carried out by the 'religion of peace' over the previous 30 days; I won't reproduce that list here, but suffice it to say that there were well over 200 attacks, killing almost 1,700 people and injuring another 3,200. Remember, that's in just 30 days! That averages over 50 deaths and 104 injuries per day! For a much more comprehensive list, go check out my source.
Religion of peace? You decide.
Link to full blog.
- Muslims call for the beheading of Salmon Rushdie and place a $150,000 price on his head; the death warrant is renewed when he is knighted in 2006
- during the recent violence between Hamas and Fatah, several Fatah leaders were dragged into the street by Hamas and executed
- administering 80 lashes for drinking and having sex outside of marriage
- general gratuitous torture (the real kind) and murder, including children
- public executions and 'disappearances'
- public stoning for adultery
- 150,000 arrests were made due to people not wearing proper Muslim clothing
- school children on buses are taken hostage
- schools are bombed
- a 6-year old Afghani boy was tricked by the Taliban into being a suicide bomber (he figured it out before his bomb went off)
- four men and one boy were found in an Al Qaeda stronghold, tortured: they were inside a padlocked room and had been beaten with chains, cables, and hoses; the boy said electrical wires had been connected to his tongue and he'd been shocked
- women are suspended by their hair as their families were forced to watch
- men are forced to watch their wives get raped
- Al Qaeda cuts off people's faces with piano wire to 'teach a lesson' to those watching
- Christians and Jews in Iraq are crucified: some are nailed to the crosses, some are tied; the ropes of those who are tied are set on fire
- a 5-year old boy is doused with gasoline and set on fire
- people are dumped into a shredding machine (some head first, some feet first)
- women are beheaded for unspecified 'immoral activities', which could be anything from not having their heads covered to wearing nail polish
- a 20-year old woman is raped, stomped on, kicked, strangled with a bootlace, stuffed into a suitcase, and buried in a garden...by her father and her uncle! (for leaving her abusive forced marriage and falling in love with someone else)
- Al Qaeda kidnaps boys around 11 years old, then invites the family of the boys over for lunch and serve the boy as the main course -- baked, with an apple stuffed in his mouth -- to persuade the family to their way of thinking
Are these isolated incidents, or just part of the war against the U.S.? Hardly. In my original blog about this topic, I posted a list of the terrorist attacks carried out by the 'religion of peace' over the previous 30 days; I won't reproduce that list here, but suffice it to say that there were well over 200 attacks, killing almost 1,700 people and injuring another 3,200. Remember, that's in just 30 days! That averages over 50 deaths and 104 injuries per day! For a much more comprehensive list, go check out my source.
Religion of peace? You decide.
Link to full blog.
Radical Islam Revealed (The Short Version), Part 7: Where Are The Moderate Muslims?
Another oft-repeated myth about Islam is that there are a lot of moderate Muslims, and that these terrorists are a very small percentage of the Islamic faith. This is untrue. The Muslim population in the world is well over 1 billion. If even 1/10th of 1 percent of those were radical extremists, that would still be well over 1 million radical extremists. At the very least, experts estimate several hundred thousand who could be considered jihadists. Here are some startling statistics about the supposed moderate Muslims in America:
* 31% -- almost a third -- of young American Muslims (ages 18-29) support suicide bombings.
* 26% of American Muslims (aged 18-29) support Al-Qaeda.
* Of all American Muslims, only 58% have a very unfavorable view of Al-Qaeda.
* 32% of American Muslims either openly like Al Qaeda or don't want us to know what they really think.
* 60% of Muslims under the age of 30 consider themselves "Muslim first"; only 25% consider themselves "American first."
* 60% of American Muslims claim Al Qaeda was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Experts are now beginning to acknowledge these facts. One way for Muslims in America to prove that they're different is to internally clean house. I used the Catholic pedophile scandals as an example - when the news blew up about these horrible acts, the Catholic people themselves stood up in outrage and demanded that these evil men be expelled from their positions. Until the Muslim people similarly stand up and demand radical Islamists cease their activities (and actually get involved in stopping them), you cannot convince me (nor any other logically thinking person) that these 'moderate' Muslims truly exist in large numbers.
Link to full blog.
* 31% -- almost a third -- of young American Muslims (ages 18-29) support suicide bombings.
* 26% of American Muslims (aged 18-29) support Al-Qaeda.
* Of all American Muslims, only 58% have a very unfavorable view of Al-Qaeda.
* 32% of American Muslims either openly like Al Qaeda or don't want us to know what they really think.
* 60% of Muslims under the age of 30 consider themselves "Muslim first"; only 25% consider themselves "American first."
* 60% of American Muslims claim Al Qaeda was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Experts are now beginning to acknowledge these facts. One way for Muslims in America to prove that they're different is to internally clean house. I used the Catholic pedophile scandals as an example - when the news blew up about these horrible acts, the Catholic people themselves stood up in outrage and demanded that these evil men be expelled from their positions. Until the Muslim people similarly stand up and demand radical Islamists cease their activities (and actually get involved in stopping them), you cannot convince me (nor any other logically thinking person) that these 'moderate' Muslims truly exist in large numbers.
Link to full blog.
Radical Islam Revealed (The Short Version), Part 8: What Should You Do?
In my opinion, three things. First, be informed. You have to understand what's going on (and why) before you can do anything about it. And this is something that is too important to be ignorant on. Second, plug in. Find resources you trust (my blog, or many others) and check them regularly. The MSM is on the side of these terrorists, and cannot be trusted to report accurately, so you have to find alternative sources of information. They're out there, but you have to find them. Let me help you through this blog - you're already reading this blog, so you're already plugged in. Keep it up! Finally, be active. Once you understand the root of the problem and get plugged in to real information, do something about it. Be active in the political process, supporting those who stand up for America and opposing those who capitulate. Don't remain silent when your friends, family, or co-workers repeat these myths about Islam and terrorism.
In closing, I want to reiterate that this is an ideological battle that will be won by one side or the other; there will be no tie or negotiation. Those following radical Islam are dedicated to taking over the world, so much so that they're willing to kill themselves and their families to achieve their victory. We in the West need to engage in this battle or we will lose. Personally, the thought of leaving my children and grandchildren in the hands of these evil fanatics makes me nauseous, so I will do everything I can do prevent that from happening.
There's my two cents.
Link to full blog.
In closing, I want to reiterate that this is an ideological battle that will be won by one side or the other; there will be no tie or negotiation. Those following radical Islam are dedicated to taking over the world, so much so that they're willing to kill themselves and their families to achieve their victory. We in the West need to engage in this battle or we will lose. Personally, the thought of leaving my children and grandchildren in the hands of these evil fanatics makes me nauseous, so I will do everything I can do prevent that from happening.
There's my two cents.
Link to full blog.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Fun & Frivolity: Seagulls And Short Books
Two items for your enjoyment this weekend. First is a link to one blogger's attempt to name the world's shortest books. Minor language and decency warning on this site...
For a total departure from politics, check out this video of Sammy the shoplifting seagull. He likes his chips, doesn't he?
Have a great weekend!
For a total departure from politics, check out this video of Sammy the shoplifting seagull. He likes his chips, doesn't he?
Have a great weekend!
Friday Quick Hits
Quick Hit #1: Fight SCHIP!
SCHIP has passed both houses of Congress. Bush has pledged to veto it. There is likely a veto-proof majority in the Senate, but not in the House. Both sides are gearing up for some arm-twisting when the veto comes back to Congress. It's not too late to call your reps and let them know this bill sucks. It's NOT about the children, it's about government-mandated universal health care!
Quick Hit #2: The game has changed.
The War on Terror has shifted dramatically in recent weeks. France has become a lightning rod for European leadership now, with Sarkozy taking the lead in the fight against terror (and Iran). Even the American Left has flipped (or flopped, depending on how many iterations back you want to go) and is now more concerned with holding off Iran than in surrendering in Iraq. It's a crazy world, and proof that you should never give up hope.
Quick Hit #3: Kennedy's defense priorities.
Byron York writes at The Hill about Ted Kennedy's priorities when it comes to defense funding: domestic hate crimes are the most important thing. HUH?! If you're trying to figure out where that came from, so is everyone else. Yet more proof that Kennedy is willing to put the funding of the troops in jeopardy just to win a domestic social policy battle. Shameful.
Quick Hit #4: Liberal cannibalism.
The latest victim of liberal cannibalism is Rep. Brian Baird. Since reporting the truth of the situation in Iraq a few weeks ago, the wacko anti-war crowd (i.e. MoveOn.org) has been mercilessly attacking him. They can't win on their ideas, so anyone who disagrees with them should just be silenced. It's a classic play taken from Stalin's playbook.
Quick Hit #5: Speaking of the wacko anti-war left...
A student paper at the University of Wisconsin-Madison ran an op-ed saying that terrorists in Iraq have the right to kill American soldiers. Hate America above all else!
Quick Hit #6: Got another one!
Abu Usama al-Tunisi, a Tunisian described as in line to succeed Abu Ayyub al-Masri, Al-Qaeda in Iraq's Egyptian leader, was killed in a U.S. airstrike today. He was a biggie in Al Qaeda's organization, and this one should hurt them big-time. More proof that we've got the momentum.
Quick Hit #7: More ACLU treason.
Right Truth links to StopTheACLU: The ACLU is now actively working to find free attorneys for Gitmo detainees. Can Bush declare the ACLU an enemy combatant?
Quick Hit #8: Another Clinton entitlement.
Hillary Clinton's latest scam for raising taxes is to provide $5,000 to every child born in America. The idea is to allow people to start out with some savings, but there are just a few small details she glosses over: how much do we all pay in tax hikes? how would the program be monitored to prevent fraud? would money be given to illegal alien parents? That big sucking sound you hear is the government attacking your pocketbook.
That's it for now. Stay tuned this weekend for the short versions of my "Radical Islam Revealed" series.
Happy Friday!
SCHIP has passed both houses of Congress. Bush has pledged to veto it. There is likely a veto-proof majority in the Senate, but not in the House. Both sides are gearing up for some arm-twisting when the veto comes back to Congress. It's not too late to call your reps and let them know this bill sucks. It's NOT about the children, it's about government-mandated universal health care!
Quick Hit #2: The game has changed.
The War on Terror has shifted dramatically in recent weeks. France has become a lightning rod for European leadership now, with Sarkozy taking the lead in the fight against terror (and Iran). Even the American Left has flipped (or flopped, depending on how many iterations back you want to go) and is now more concerned with holding off Iran than in surrendering in Iraq. It's a crazy world, and proof that you should never give up hope.
Quick Hit #3: Kennedy's defense priorities.
Byron York writes at The Hill about Ted Kennedy's priorities when it comes to defense funding: domestic hate crimes are the most important thing. HUH?! If you're trying to figure out where that came from, so is everyone else. Yet more proof that Kennedy is willing to put the funding of the troops in jeopardy just to win a domestic social policy battle. Shameful.
Quick Hit #4: Liberal cannibalism.
The latest victim of liberal cannibalism is Rep. Brian Baird. Since reporting the truth of the situation in Iraq a few weeks ago, the wacko anti-war crowd (i.e. MoveOn.org) has been mercilessly attacking him. They can't win on their ideas, so anyone who disagrees with them should just be silenced. It's a classic play taken from Stalin's playbook.
Quick Hit #5: Speaking of the wacko anti-war left...
A student paper at the University of Wisconsin-Madison ran an op-ed saying that terrorists in Iraq have the right to kill American soldiers. Hate America above all else!
Quick Hit #6: Got another one!
Abu Usama al-Tunisi, a Tunisian described as in line to succeed Abu Ayyub al-Masri, Al-Qaeda in Iraq's Egyptian leader, was killed in a U.S. airstrike today. He was a biggie in Al Qaeda's organization, and this one should hurt them big-time. More proof that we've got the momentum.
Quick Hit #7: More ACLU treason.
Right Truth links to StopTheACLU: The ACLU is now actively working to find free attorneys for Gitmo detainees. Can Bush declare the ACLU an enemy combatant?
Quick Hit #8: Another Clinton entitlement.
Hillary Clinton's latest scam for raising taxes is to provide $5,000 to every child born in America. The idea is to allow people to start out with some savings, but there are just a few small details she glosses over: how much do we all pay in tax hikes? how would the program be monitored to prevent fraud? would money be given to illegal alien parents? That big sucking sound you hear is the government attacking your pocketbook.
That's it for now. Stay tuned this weekend for the short versions of my "Radical Islam Revealed" series.
Happy Friday!
Free Health Care Is NOT Free!
A recent poll showed that 44% of Americans say that health care services should be free to everyone.
Here's the thing I don't understand - this is not a complex subject, but there is apparently a LOT of misunderstanding here. Where do these 44% think the money is going to come from to pay for their 'free' health care? Do they think the doctors, nurses, and hospitals are just going to start treating EVERYONE for free? Are clinics going to provide check-ups and tests to EVERYONE for free? Are drug companies going to hand out prescription medications to EVERYONE for free?
No, of course not - they'd all go out of business! The government is going to pay for it, and guess what that means?
YOU WILL PAY FOR IT!!!
The government will fund this 'free' health care with YOUR TAXES.
Idiots like Michael Moore hold up socialized health care (like you find in Canada, England, or Cuba) as some model of superior perfection, but they are completely wrong. Sure, you don't have to pay anything for each specific visit, but you pay higher taxes all year round, you wait much longer to see physicians, and the quality of care is much lower because there is no incentive to pioneer new techniques or technology.
Ask just about anyone who has worked in the health care systems in Canada, England, or Cuba, and you'll find they are far worse than what we've got here, even with all our problems.
Universal (or 'free') health care is pure socialism - the re-distribution of wealth based on an arbitrary determination of what's 'fair'. The key thing to remember is that the problems here are the result of government interference and regulation (see John Stossel's extensive research on the topic: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7). If the government is the cause of the problems we have now, what do you think that turning over complete control of the system to government is going to do to the system?
It will be a disaster.
Not surprisingly, 59% of Democrats support free health care, while only 25% of Republicans support it. The Democrats are, after all, the party of entitlement.
Unless you are truly rich and can afford to pay cash for private health treatments directly from physicians, you need to fight this legislation every step of the way.
There's my two cents.
Here's the thing I don't understand - this is not a complex subject, but there is apparently a LOT of misunderstanding here. Where do these 44% think the money is going to come from to pay for their 'free' health care? Do they think the doctors, nurses, and hospitals are just going to start treating EVERYONE for free? Are clinics going to provide check-ups and tests to EVERYONE for free? Are drug companies going to hand out prescription medications to EVERYONE for free?
No, of course not - they'd all go out of business! The government is going to pay for it, and guess what that means?
YOU WILL PAY FOR IT!!!
The government will fund this 'free' health care with YOUR TAXES.
Idiots like Michael Moore hold up socialized health care (like you find in Canada, England, or Cuba) as some model of superior perfection, but they are completely wrong. Sure, you don't have to pay anything for each specific visit, but you pay higher taxes all year round, you wait much longer to see physicians, and the quality of care is much lower because there is no incentive to pioneer new techniques or technology.
Ask just about anyone who has worked in the health care systems in Canada, England, or Cuba, and you'll find they are far worse than what we've got here, even with all our problems.
Universal (or 'free') health care is pure socialism - the re-distribution of wealth based on an arbitrary determination of what's 'fair'. The key thing to remember is that the problems here are the result of government interference and regulation (see John Stossel's extensive research on the topic: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7). If the government is the cause of the problems we have now, what do you think that turning over complete control of the system to government is going to do to the system?
It will be a disaster.
Not surprisingly, 59% of Democrats support free health care, while only 25% of Republicans support it. The Democrats are, after all, the party of entitlement.
Unless you are truly rich and can afford to pay cash for private health treatments directly from physicians, you need to fight this legislation every step of the way.
There's my two cents.
Nancy Pelosi: Completely Out Of Touch With Americans
Some interesting points for your consideration regarding American voters:
This is why this Democrat-controlled Congress is literally the worst in history - they are completely, utterly, hopelessly out of touch with the American people.
There's my two cents.
Sources:
- 58% favor cutting off federal funds for "sanctuary cities" that offer protection to illegal immigrantsNow, hear the words of Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Speaker of the House, regarding the building of a border fence:
- 71% favor a proposal that would require all foreign visitors to carry a universal identification card
- 74% favor the creation and funding of a central database to track all foreign visitors in the United States
- 79% favor strict measures requiring employers to fire workers who provide false identification documents
- 71% say the federal government is not doing enough to secure the border and reduce illegal immigration
- 68% believe it is "Very Important" to improve border enforcement and reduce illegal immigration
- 56% want the government to (specifically) continue building a fence along the Mexican border
"[It's a] terrible idea. I have been against the fence, I thought it's a bad idea even when it was just a matter of discussion."She also supports the DREAM Act, which would grant illegal aliens in-state tuition at universities and amnesty for those under a certain age (which would also provide amnesty to their entire families).
This is why this Democrat-controlled Congress is literally the worst in history - they are completely, utterly, hopelessly out of touch with the American people.
There's my two cents.
Sources:
Rasmussen poll, 8/18/07
Rasmussen poll, 8/12/07
USA Today, 9/28/07
Hate Crimes Becoming Reality
I've warned you about this before (here, here, and here), but it's now in process - Ted Kennedy has attached a hate crimes amendment (S.A. 3035) to the House Defense Authorization Act for 2008 (H.R. 1585).
When Sen. John McCain questioned him about attaching this amendment to a defense bill, Kennedy blathered about defense spending dealing with terrorism, and that hate crimes is essentially domestic terrorism.
Sadly, the Senate passed the amendment 60-39 (Bond, Roberts, and Brownback voted NO, McCaskill voted YES).
As I understand it, the bill (with the hate crimes amendment) now goes to the Senate Committee on Armed Services. Members of the committee are here, if you want to contact them. I'll do some more poking around to see what can be done to stop this from becoming law, but for now, I'd say contact these committee members and ask them to strip this amendment out of the bill because it has nothing to do with defense spending.
More details to come as I find them...there should still be some options available, once we know what they are.
There's my two cents.
***UPDATE***
It sounds like Bush is planning to veto the bill because of this amendment, but the problem is that this could cost our military men and women currently fighting to keep America safe. Yet another instance of the Left disregarding our troops and playing despicable politics.
More updates as I find them...
When Sen. John McCain questioned him about attaching this amendment to a defense bill, Kennedy blathered about defense spending dealing with terrorism, and that hate crimes is essentially domestic terrorism.
Sadly, the Senate passed the amendment 60-39 (Bond, Roberts, and Brownback voted NO, McCaskill voted YES).
As I understand it, the bill (with the hate crimes amendment) now goes to the Senate Committee on Armed Services. Members of the committee are here, if you want to contact them. I'll do some more poking around to see what can be done to stop this from becoming law, but for now, I'd say contact these committee members and ask them to strip this amendment out of the bill because it has nothing to do with defense spending.
More details to come as I find them...there should still be some options available, once we know what they are.
There's my two cents.
***UPDATE***
It sounds like Bush is planning to veto the bill because of this amendment, but the problem is that this could cost our military men and women currently fighting to keep America safe. Yet another instance of the Left disregarding our troops and playing despicable politics.
More updates as I find them...
Questions That Should Be Asked About Iraq
Lorie Byrd writes a good piece at Townhall.com about how Petraeus' report has made a world of difference in the debate over the Iraq war. She also highlights a few great questions that people need to answer before they decide who to vote for in next year's elections:
There's my two cents.
At Right Wing News, John Hawkins makes a good point with the following question: "So, if Hillary, Barack, and Edwards now have the same position as Rudy, Fred, Mitt, & McCain, you have to ask, who should America trust more to handle Iraq in 2009? The candidates who took that position early on because they thought it was the right thing to do, even though they knew the Democrats could use it against them at the polls, or the Democrats who've taken that position because they feel it's a political necessity after David Petraeus' testimony?"This is a great way to frame the presidential debate, and one that the Republicans -- if they're competent -- should hammer home relentlessly.
In addition to the point Hawkins makes about those allowing war policy to be driven by political considerations, voters should ask another question about the way their potential leaders have approached the issues surrounding the Iraq war. Who should Americans trust more to handle Iraq in 2009? Those who thought we should act on threats, those who believe we should act on threats until the polls change, or those who believe such things should be left to the UN?
Which category of candidate makes the most sense to hold the office of president?
The first group consists of those who made the tough decision that knowing what we knew then, we needed to act against a brutal leader most every intelligence agency in the world believed to possess WMD and a willingness to use it. Those in the first category refused to cut and run when the news was less than good and polls had turned against the war. Instead, they chose to support making adjustments and doing the hard work necessary to find a way to win.
Those in the second group supported the tough decision that knowing what we knew then, we needed to act against the brutal leader most every intelligence agency in the world believed to possess WMD and a willingness to use it, but when public opinion turned against the war they refused to accept the hard work of finding a solution.
Those in the third group decided not to act against a madman leader of a country with an open hatred of the United States believed to possess enough WMD to kill thousands, if not millions, of people. Those in this group decided that in spite of the attacks of September 11, and in spite of information from Russian intelligence that "Saddam’s special forces were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States ‘and beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets."
The leading GOP candidates for President fit into the first category, while the leading Democrats running for President fall into the second and third.
There's my two cents.
Experts, Unemployment, And Illegal Immigration
Just another incident to reinforce the reality that these mysterious financial 'experts' almost always expect doom and gloom, and are thus almost always 'surprised' by good news:
Fox News reports that jobless claims fell to the lowest point since late July.
Remember, overall unemployment is less than 5%, which is considered (in economic terms) to be full employment.
If these so-called experts are constantly wrong (and surprised), why does anyone listen to them anymore?
Here's another idea that could kill two birds with one stone. If we're still worried about unemployment, and if we're worried about what would happen if we had a mass exodus/deportation of illegal aliens, there's a very simple solution. The number of illegal aliens is somewhere around 15 million, right? Well, 5% of 300 million people is 15 million.
What a coincidence!
If all 15 million illegal aliens suddenly left, we could plug those who are unemployed straight into their jobs. We'd have a healthy, happy, completely-employed economy of legal U.S. citizens.
In fact, looking at these numbers...does this mean that illegal aliens are taking jobs that Americans should have? Hmmm...
There's my two cents.
Fox News reports that jobless claims fell to the lowest point since late July.
Remember, overall unemployment is less than 5%, which is considered (in economic terms) to be full employment.
If these so-called experts are constantly wrong (and surprised), why does anyone listen to them anymore?
Here's another idea that could kill two birds with one stone. If we're still worried about unemployment, and if we're worried about what would happen if we had a mass exodus/deportation of illegal aliens, there's a very simple solution. The number of illegal aliens is somewhere around 15 million, right? Well, 5% of 300 million people is 15 million.
What a coincidence!
If all 15 million illegal aliens suddenly left, we could plug those who are unemployed straight into their jobs. We'd have a healthy, happy, completely-employed economy of legal U.S. citizens.
In fact, looking at these numbers...does this mean that illegal aliens are taking jobs that Americans should have? Hmmm...
There's my two cents.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Huckabee And Gingrich
The Washington Times posts an article about former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee taking aim at Hillary Clinton:
I've said it before, but I'm not sold on any of the major Republican candidates at this point. All have great strengths, but all have some serious baggage, too. Huckabee seems to me to be the best conservative candidate at this point, but until proves that he can play with the big boys, he'll never get the press he needs to gain the national name recognition.
Another wrinkle that will be smoothed out soon is that of Newt Gingrich. He is launching his American Solutions campaign today, and he has been steadfast in refusing to speculate on a White House run until after this point in time. In an interview with Sean Hannity today, he said he would spend the next three weeks determining how much pledge money he would be able to raise, and if he reached $30 million in pledges, he would make a run. Otherwise, he would focus on his American Solutions organization.
Personally, I'd love a Gingrich/Huckabee team. I think both are solid conservatives, and would present a powerful team to counter another Clinton run.
A lot of time remains, so it's still a wide open ballgame.
There's my two cents.
"If you can't get your lips off the backside of George Soros long enough to use those lips to say it's wrong to declare a sitting general ... guilty of treason," the 2008 Republican presidential hopeful said, "how would you ever expect to have the support of the very military you might have to send into deadly battle?"I think he hits the nail on the head. Huckabee is still a second-tier candidate at this point, but he's within a very small step of breaking into the first-tier huddle. If you look at his position right now in comparison to Bill Clinton's presidential bid in 1992, they are in a very similar place. And, Huckabee is gaining momentum, placing second in the Iowa straw poll despite spending almost $28 million less than Mitt Romney.
I've said it before, but I'm not sold on any of the major Republican candidates at this point. All have great strengths, but all have some serious baggage, too. Huckabee seems to me to be the best conservative candidate at this point, but until proves that he can play with the big boys, he'll never get the press he needs to gain the national name recognition.
Another wrinkle that will be smoothed out soon is that of Newt Gingrich. He is launching his American Solutions campaign today, and he has been steadfast in refusing to speculate on a White House run until after this point in time. In an interview with Sean Hannity today, he said he would spend the next three weeks determining how much pledge money he would be able to raise, and if he reached $30 million in pledges, he would make a run. Otherwise, he would focus on his American Solutions organization.
Personally, I'd love a Gingrich/Huckabee team. I think both are solid conservatives, and would present a powerful team to counter another Clinton run.
A lot of time remains, so it's still a wide open ballgame.
There's my two cents.
Congress Debates North American Union
This is something that has flown somewhat under the radar, but it is a big potential problem. There have been some closed meetings between Bush, the Canadian government, and the Mexican government. We don't really know what was discussed, but there is suspicion that talks of a North American Union have begun. This would be very bad for America. Fortunately, it looks like Congress is standing up for America for a change.
Both the House and Senate have taken steps to prevent Mexican trucking companies free access to American highways, stopping that piece of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). WorldNetDaily reports on the efforts to stop the SPP, which is part of the NAFTA treaty that was passed in the 1990s. Measures in both houses of Congress have been passed with broad bipartisan support, which is great, but this is still something that Americans need to be aware of as it gets debated in Congress.
I think the potential problems in creating a North American Union are fairly obvious, especially in regard to Mexico. Hopefully Congress will act accordingly, but we all know their track record, so we have to pay attention.
There's my two cents.
Both the House and Senate have taken steps to prevent Mexican trucking companies free access to American highways, stopping that piece of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). WorldNetDaily reports on the efforts to stop the SPP, which is part of the NAFTA treaty that was passed in the 1990s. Measures in both houses of Congress have been passed with broad bipartisan support, which is great, but this is still something that Americans need to be aware of as it gets debated in Congress.
I think the potential problems in creating a North American Union are fairly obvious, especially in regard to Mexico. Hopefully Congress will act accordingly, but we all know their track record, so we have to pay attention.
There's my two cents.
Another Recap Of SCHIP
Investor's Business Daily runs an op-ed piece about the SCHIP bill that just passed the House that's a good summary of the issue. I hate to sound like a broken record, but this is a terrible piece of legislation, so I'm going to keep chanting about it until it goes down in flames.
Let's review. The State Children's Health Insurance Program was intended to provide insurance coverage for children of low-income families that couldn't afford it on their own. No one in their right mind would oppose that.
But SCHIP has become something entirely different.
The new bill would be funded through a huge new tobacco tax, and would expand the program to make more people eligible for benefits. Some points of note:
- more low-income families are smokers than high-income families
- families earning as much as $83,000 per year would be eligible
- illegal aliens would be eligible
- almost 700,000 adults are already covered by this 'children's' program, and more would be added
- the advertised price tag of the program would be $60 billion, but it would end up being far, far higher in the long run
- for every 10 children enrolled in SCHIP, six drop their private insurance
The summary: this is a huge new tax increase that will hammer low-income families to provide coverage to upper-middle class families and illegal aliens in the first step toward government-controlled universal health care.
Bush has pledged to veto it, and it will likely come down to that. The Senate is likely to have a 2/3 vote to override the veto, but the House looks much shakier on the override. This latest version passed 265-159 (290 are needed for the 2/3 override), whereas the last time around it was much, much closer. While IBD suggests some Republicans are now supporting the bill because they don't want to have to defend charges of being "against the children" next year. My hope is that some Republicans are calculating that a veto will not be overridden and are therefore trying to maintain their seats in relatively liberal congressional districts. The Democrats play that game all the time, so it seems logical that Republicans do, too. Only time will tell.
Regardless, the American people need to understand that this bill is NOT 'for the children', and voice their opposition.
There's my two cents.
Let's review. The State Children's Health Insurance Program was intended to provide insurance coverage for children of low-income families that couldn't afford it on their own. No one in their right mind would oppose that.
But SCHIP has become something entirely different.
The new bill would be funded through a huge new tobacco tax, and would expand the program to make more people eligible for benefits. Some points of note:
- more low-income families are smokers than high-income families
- families earning as much as $83,000 per year would be eligible
- illegal aliens would be eligible
- almost 700,000 adults are already covered by this 'children's' program, and more would be added
- the advertised price tag of the program would be $60 billion, but it would end up being far, far higher in the long run
- for every 10 children enrolled in SCHIP, six drop their private insurance
The summary: this is a huge new tax increase that will hammer low-income families to provide coverage to upper-middle class families and illegal aliens in the first step toward government-controlled universal health care.
Bush has pledged to veto it, and it will likely come down to that. The Senate is likely to have a 2/3 vote to override the veto, but the House looks much shakier on the override. This latest version passed 265-159 (290 are needed for the 2/3 override), whereas the last time around it was much, much closer. While IBD suggests some Republicans are now supporting the bill because they don't want to have to defend charges of being "against the children" next year. My hope is that some Republicans are calculating that a veto will not be overridden and are therefore trying to maintain their seats in relatively liberal congressional districts. The Democrats play that game all the time, so it seems logical that Republicans do, too. Only time will tell.
Regardless, the American people need to understand that this bill is NOT 'for the children', and voice their opposition.
There's my two cents.
Senate Urges Bush To Designate Iran Guard As Terrorist Organization
The New York Times reports that the Senate is urging Bush to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. I have to admit this one throws me for a loop for a couple of reasons. First, I thought the Bush administration had already done that. Maybe the first report was simply a statement of intent, and this report is the actual official step in the process. I'm not sure, but it's clear this is a move being made by the U.S. government.
Anyway, I also find it curious that the Senate (with a broad majority, since the resolution passed 75-23) is urging Bush to take this action that some consider "a declaration of war". The idea here is that by declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, we would then be allowed to go after them (i.e. attack them militarily).
And yet, despite the fact that the Senate is urging this action, if Bush actually does commence action against Iran, don't be surprised if the Democrats suddenly pop up all over the media calling Bush a war-monger, etc.
This isn't the first time it's happened. After the first resolution to invade Iraq, the Democrats who voted against it wanted Bush to come back to Congress for a second resolution authorizing it all over again (because at the time it was politically expedient to be viewed as in favor of the action). And yet, how many times since then have we heard about how this is "Bush's war" and how Bush has screwed this all up? Shameful, and predicatable.
There's my two cents.
Anyway, I also find it curious that the Senate (with a broad majority, since the resolution passed 75-23) is urging Bush to take this action that some consider "a declaration of war". The idea here is that by declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, we would then be allowed to go after them (i.e. attack them militarily).
And yet, despite the fact that the Senate is urging this action, if Bush actually does commence action against Iran, don't be surprised if the Democrats suddenly pop up all over the media calling Bush a war-monger, etc.
This isn't the first time it's happened. After the first resolution to invade Iraq, the Democrats who voted against it wanted Bush to come back to Congress for a second resolution authorizing it all over again (because at the time it was politically expedient to be viewed as in favor of the action). And yet, how many times since then have we heard about how this is "Bush's war" and how Bush has screwed this all up? Shameful, and predicatable.
There's my two cents.
Dems Won't Commit To Troop Withdrawal
In a Democrat debate last night, all of the major presidential candidates backpedaled from their previous rhetoric on getting out of Iraq. Why? Again, they're getting closer to an election, so they're being forced to get closer to the will of the American people. That means winning in Iraq.
They'll still blame all the problems on Bush, but the fact of the matter is that they've caught themselves in their own words LYING about their intentions!!! These people say whatever is politically convenient at the moment, despite the reality of the situation. Are these the people you want in the White House? What happens when the winds of political convenience change direction while they control the full military might of the United States?
It's a disaster in the making.
There's my two cents.
They'll still blame all the problems on Bush, but the fact of the matter is that they've caught themselves in their own words LYING about their intentions!!! These people say whatever is politically convenient at the moment, despite the reality of the situation. Are these the people you want in the White House? What happens when the winds of political convenience change direction while they control the full military might of the United States?
It's a disaster in the making.
There's my two cents.
Amnesty Is Killed Again!!! (For Now...)
Michelle Malkin reports that the latest round of amnesty, the DREAM Act, has been pulled from the Defense spending bill. This is because the American people once again overwhelmed the Senate with calls, e-mails, and faxes demanding it.
Don't rest too long, though. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pledged to bring it back up in the next few weeks.
We'll be ready.
There's my two cents.
Don't rest too long, though. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pledged to bring it back up in the next few weeks.
We'll be ready.
There's my two cents.
Church Pressure For Illegal Immigrants Hits Home
I blogged about a related topic just two days ago, so when I came across an article this morning on the KC Star's website, it seemed very appropriate to pass it along to you. The nation-wide New Sanctuary Movement has come to KC, and local illegal immigrant advocates are planning to use churches to hide illegals from the authorities.
Several local church leaders have sponsored a billboard advertising the fact on I-70, although none of these churches has yet harbored an illegal (as far as we know).
The issue here is not 'ripping' families apart; it's an issue of the integrity of American law. This could turn out to be a very divisive issue for many churches, as there will be some heated debates on where churches should stand.
That means churches shouldn't knowingly harbor illegal aliens.
There's my two cents.
Several local church leaders have sponsored a billboard advertising the fact on I-70, although none of these churches has yet harbored an illegal (as far as we know).
"It is the very soul of our nation that is at stake" in how we treat families in which one or both parents are illegal immigrants but the children are American citizens, said the Rev. Rick Behrens of Grandview Park Presbyterian Church. "We are losing our soul as we separate children from parents."Baloney. If they're so worried about keeping their families together, what's stopping the kids from going back to Mexico to live with the parents? Why is that question never asked of people whining about families being separated?
The issue here is not 'ripping' families apart; it's an issue of the integrity of American law. This could turn out to be a very divisive issue for many churches, as there will be some heated debates on where churches should stand.
Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor, said federal law prohibits harboring an illegal immigrant with knowledge the person is in the U.S. illegally.Here's what I think. I think that churches are bound to follow Biblical teachings above secular government laws, so there are times when a church should condone (or at least tacitly allow) the breaking of secular laws. If it weren't for this idea, the Christian church wouldn't exist today because initially it was more or less illegal. BUT...that should only be done when those secular government laws clearly violate the teachings of the Bible. This is NOT one of those times. Show me a Biblical teaching that supports allowing illegal aliens guilty of breaking the law to continue breaking the law simply because their children are U.S. citizens, and I'll happily revise my opinion. Until that happens, I'll maintain that this is simply a political/emotional issue rather than a doctrinal one. Since the secular law doesn't violate Biblical principles, churches are bound to obey the secular laws (see Romans 13:1-2).
"There are many points of view about the role of churches in our society and how much civic engagement there should be," said Kobach. "But I think one area that until very recently has been pretty clear is, churches shouldn’t themselves violate federal law."
That means churches shouldn't knowingly harbor illegal aliens.
There's my two cents.
The Reason We Want Iraq Stable And America-Friendly
The New York Times ran a story today about how the growing international pressure being put on Iran has opened up a new opportunity for the U.S. The U.S.'s economic sanctions have been largely ineffective (other than being politically symbolic) because the U.S. isn't that heavily invested in Iranian companies. But, the increasing international pressure in Europe, led by new French President Nicolas Sarkozy (a staunch conservative), has allowed much greater economic power to be wielded against Iran.
Without going into the sticky details, the scenario is basically this: the U.S. could take out Iran's nuclear capabilities very, very easily, but managing the global response afterward would be very, very difficult. Having Europe get involved changes the equation a lot, since several European countries are far more involved with Iranian economics - it is far more likely that Iran could be stopped without military intervention.
The Bush administration is planning for military action against Iran, although it is very reluctant (with good reason) to actually implement those plans. One idea is to attempt some sort of 'six party talks' similar to what were used with North Korea. The idea there is to have Iran's neighbors -- those most directly affected by any military action in the region -- apply pressre on Iran to get them to behave. The problem there, though, is that none of Iran's neighbors are willing and able to play such a decisive role alongside the U.S.
And there we have it - this is precisely why we need a strong, stable, and America-friendly Iraq!
There's my two cents.
Without going into the sticky details, the scenario is basically this: the U.S. could take out Iran's nuclear capabilities very, very easily, but managing the global response afterward would be very, very difficult. Having Europe get involved changes the equation a lot, since several European countries are far more involved with Iranian economics - it is far more likely that Iran could be stopped without military intervention.
The Bush administration is planning for military action against Iran, although it is very reluctant (with good reason) to actually implement those plans. One idea is to attempt some sort of 'six party talks' similar to what were used with North Korea. The idea there is to have Iran's neighbors -- those most directly affected by any military action in the region -- apply pressre on Iran to get them to behave. The problem there, though, is that none of Iran's neighbors are willing and able to play such a decisive role alongside the U.S.
And there we have it - this is precisely why we need a strong, stable, and America-friendly Iraq!
There's my two cents.
Intolerance In The Name Of Tolerance
Cal Thomas wrote an outstanding column at RealClearPolitics.com earlier this week. I don't usually post full articles like this, but I didn't want to mess with it at all:
I would not be as bothered by Columbia University's decision to host Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if Columbia and other universities had a consistent policy toward those they invite to speak and the rules applied equally to conservatives and liberals; to totalitarian dictators and to advocates for freedom and tolerance.
Any conservative who has ever tried, or actually succeeded, in speaking on the campus of predominately liberal academic institutions knows it can resemble to some extent the struggle experienced by African Americans when they attempted to desegregate lunch counters in the South during the civil rights movement.
In the 1980s, I spoke at universities from Smith College in the East to the University of California at Davis in the West. At Smith, lesbians sat in the front row kissing each other while the rest of the crowd shouted so loud no one could hear me (NPR's Nina Totenberg witnessed the riotous behavior, prompting me to remark, "I hope you're getting this on tape, Nina, because this is what liberals mean by tolerance.").
Former U.S. News and World Report columnist John Leo has been among the chroniclers of the demise of free speech on many college campuses. Writing in last winter's issue of the publication City Journal, Leo noted that Columbia University officials prevented a large crowd from hearing Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist who is now an anti-jihadist. The reason given was security, which as Leo pointed out is a frequent excuse for restricting speech. Had Shoebat remained a PLO terrorist, Columbia might have allowed the students in, because anti-Jewish rhetoric of the kind Ahmadinejad delivers always seems welcome on too many campuses. Only Columbia students and 20 guests were allowed to hear Shoebat speak.
Why would Columbia expect Ahmadinejad to answer what they promised in advance would be "tough" questions? Have they not seen him interviewed by America's best reporters? He doesn't answer questions. He uses the interviews to lecture America and make his propaganda points. The exercise is useless, except to him because he scores points at home for standing up to "the Great Satan," or whatever the preferred term du jour for the United States is at the moment.
Last October at Columbia, a mob of students stormed a stage, curtailing speeches by two members of the anti-illegal immigration group known as the Minutemen. The students shouted "They have no right to speak," which was revealing, given the "academic freedom" argument that is used to defend liberal professors and their frequent anti-American rants when conservatives attempt to shut them up.
As John Leo wrote, "Campus opponents of (Rep.) Tom Tancredo, an illegal immigration foe, set off fire alarms at Georgetown to disrupt his planned speech, and their counterparts at Michigan State roughed up his student backers. Conservative activist David Horowitz, black conservative Star Parker, and Daniel Pipes, an outspoken critic of Islamism, frequently find themselves shouted down or disrupted on campus." The number of instances involving censorship of conservatives on college campuses and denial of honorary degrees to people who don't toe the liberal line could fill a book.
There is something else about Columbia's decision to admit Ahmadinejad and that is the notion that by exposing a tyrant and religious fanatic to a liberal arts campus -- a man who believes he has been "called" to usher in Armageddon -- might make him less genocidal and students and the rest of us more understanding. We understand he and his legion of murdering thugs wish to kill us and are contributing to the death of Americans in Iraq. What part of mass murder do they not understand at Columbia, or don't they have time to study history these days?
Ahmadinejad is probably using his visit to case our country, like a bank robber does before a big heist.
Before we allow more of our enemies into America and give them a freedom unknown in their own countries, we should at least demand reciprocity. Their president gets to speak in America? Our president gets to speak in Iran.
Their president has access to our media? Our president should have access to their media. And while we're at it, how about for every liberal who gets to speak on campus, the school must also invite a conservative.
What a great illustration of the double standards that are so prevalent throughout the Left! This is one of the biggest reasons to fight against liberalism - there are different rules for different people, and there is simply no recourse if you find yourself on the wrong side of the coin toss. Liberalism is inherently unfair, unjust, unreliable, and unAmerican.
There's my two cents.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Ethics 'Reform' Bill Already Blown Away
David Freddoso reports on the first major failing of the so-called ethics 'reform' bill passed -- to much triumphant fanfare from both parties -- by Congress just a couple weeks ago.
The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 passed the Senate with a $14 billion price tag in May, then went into conference with the House. Coming out of conference last week, the same bill had a price tag of $23 billion - a 64% increase! How did this happen, you may ask?
Earmarks, both old and new.
Up to $2 billion of earmarks were added in the committee itself, which means there was no debate or opportunity for amendments on them. It was a blank check made out by Congress and paid by you, the American taxpayer.
What about disclosure? The ethics 'reform' bill was supposed to provide better 'transparency', wasn't it? Well, the 20 earmarks involved were discovered only through tedious research of Senator Jim DeMint and the non-partisan group Taxpayers for Common Sense, not a transparent process of full disclosure.
Both parties are guilty of supporting this out of control spending, but the Democrats appear to have absolutely no desire to change it, whereas at least a few Republicans (such as DeMint) do. Regardless, the collective flip-flops of these people are astounding. For example, Freddoso recounts:
Your Congress in action.
There's my two cents.
The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 passed the Senate with a $14 billion price tag in May, then went into conference with the House. Coming out of conference last week, the same bill had a price tag of $23 billion - a 64% increase! How did this happen, you may ask?
Earmarks, both old and new.
Up to $2 billion of earmarks were added in the committee itself, which means there was no debate or opportunity for amendments on them. It was a blank check made out by Congress and paid by you, the American taxpayer.
What about disclosure? The ethics 'reform' bill was supposed to provide better 'transparency', wasn't it? Well, the 20 earmarks involved were discovered only through tedious research of Senator Jim DeMint and the non-partisan group Taxpayers for Common Sense, not a transparent process of full disclosure.
Both parties are guilty of supporting this out of control spending, but the Democrats appear to have absolutely no desire to change it, whereas at least a few Republicans (such as DeMint) do. Regardless, the collective flip-flops of these people are astounding. For example, Freddoso recounts:
Recall that as they debated that ethics bill on the floor Aug. 2, Democrats praised their own handiwork as something that would make a real difference in the way Washington’s business is done. "You go through the process, and then after the process is concluded, in the dead of night, something is stuck into a conference bill," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, complaining about the "old" way of doing things. "This practice will end...No more dark of night additions to bills."When DeMint shed the light on Boxer's actions in conference, Boxer simply got angry at him. Sadly, 81 Senators voted in favor of the bill (including Bond and Roberts; McCaskill opposed -- good for her! -- and Brownback didn't vote). Another example:
That must be news to Feinstein’s California colleague, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.), who managed the WRDA bill on the floor Monday. In conference, Boxer had inserted a $685 million earmark into WRDA for a California flood-control project.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had to be dragged kicking and screaming toward including any earmark reforms in the Democrats’ ethics bill, has already managed to circumvent his own law just ten days after it was signed. In a lengthy, technical letter to DeMint, his legal staff opened and exploited loopholes to provide an argument that goes something like this: Because WRDA merely authorizes federal projects, and does not actually provide the funding for them, its "earmarks" aren’t actually "earmarks" at all.Get this for arrogance, especially in light of the previous paragraph:
Reid’s legal team has a very different approach to this than his press staff, which, when WRDA originally passed in May, wrote a release taking credit for all the earmarks he put in the bill for Nevada, using the headline: "Reid Secures Funding for Important Nevada Water Projects."So, let's recap. The ethics 'reform' bill that was supposed to reduce earmarks and create transparency did neither, and we, the American taxpayers got screwed.
Your Congress in action.
There's my two cents.
Who Does America Trust?
Powerline posts on a recent survey done by BIGResearch, which asked about the 'trustworthiness' of various institutions in America. The result? Americans don't trust anyone very much. Some notable items:
- President Bush: 14%
- the Media: 4%
- Congress: 3%
- bloggers: 6%
Just more proof that people should get their news from the blogosphere rather than the MSM. This is also further proof that the U.S. government is totally out of touch with the American public. This is a golden opportunity for anyone who can make that connection with the public - the 2008 White House is theirs.
There's my two cents.
- President Bush: 14%
- the Media: 4%
- Congress: 3%
- bloggers: 6%
Just more proof that people should get their news from the blogosphere rather than the MSM. This is also further proof that the U.S. government is totally out of touch with the American public. This is a golden opportunity for anyone who can make that connection with the public - the 2008 White House is theirs.
There's my two cents.
Profiling And Monitoring Of Mosques
LittleGreenFootballs posts about Former White House and Pentagon official Douglas MacKinnon, who maintains we should monitor mosques much more carefully. He reports that Congressman Peter King is coming under fire for voicing concerns about the lack of observation on Muslim mosques. He said:
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: we could use a little bit of profiling in America. We'd have to be careful not to allow a new wave of McCarthyism, of course, but a little common sense would go a long way toward securing America. Unless political correctness wins the day, of course.
There's my two cents.
"There are too many people sympathetic to radical Islam...We should be looking at them more carefully and finding out how we can infiltrate them...I think there has been a lack of full cooperation from too many people in the Muslim community...too many Mosques in this country do not cooperate with law enforcement...85 percent of Mosques in this country are controlled by extremist leadership."MacKinnon goes on to show that nothing in King's statement was inaccurate (a fact conveniently ignored by those attacking him). He cites recent studies:
According to that recent Pew Center survey, a quarter of younger Muslim-Americans support suicide bombings in some circumstances. That’s right. They support suicide bombings. 25% of Muslim-Americans refused to give an answer when asked if they had a favorable or unfavorable view of Al-Qaeda. 5% of Muslim-Americans said they had a favorable view of the group that attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and tried to attack the White House or Capitol building.He also states that at least 80% of U.S. Mosques follow or are influenced by the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia (which is the sect to which Osama bin Laden belongs), which believes it is a "religious obligation" to hate Christians and Jews and to think of the United States as "enemy territory."
If we accept the Pew Center’s estimate that there are 2.35 million Muslims in the United States, then 5% of that number would be 117,500 Muslim-Americans who have a favorable view of Al-Qaeda. A number that should not only send chills down our spines, but cries out for eternal vigilance.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: we could use a little bit of profiling in America. We'd have to be careful not to allow a new wave of McCarthyism, of course, but a little common sense would go a long way toward securing America. Unless political correctness wins the day, of course.
There's my two cents.
A Rare Moment Of Decisive Action In Congress
In a rare moment of bipartisan cooperation in America's best interest, Congress voted to tighten sanctions against Iran yesterday. The main thrust of the sanctions is to block any foreign investment in Iran. This is a very good thing.
It also reveals that Congress truly does understand the danger posed by Iran and its crazy president. If that is the case, then why is one party in Congress singularly dedicated to ignoring that threat most of the time? Pure politics. The Democrats are so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they're willing to risk damage to America simply to damage Bush and his policies.
So, why are they starting to tighten up now? The elections are coming, and the American people don't like partisan politics, so they have to moderate their stances at election time. And, they fully anticipate winning the White House in 2008. Practically speaking, whatever problems don't get resolved now (and thus can be blamed on Bush) will have to be addressed by the presumptive Democrat president (though you can bet any amount of money you'll still hear about things being Bush's fault years from now). After all, it wouldn't look good to have Bush fight through Democrat opposition to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, only to have the next Democrat president allow Iran to get nukes which then get used on us. No one could spin their way out of that.
There's my two cents.
It also reveals that Congress truly does understand the danger posed by Iran and its crazy president. If that is the case, then why is one party in Congress singularly dedicated to ignoring that threat most of the time? Pure politics. The Democrats are so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they're willing to risk damage to America simply to damage Bush and his policies.
So, why are they starting to tighten up now? The elections are coming, and the American people don't like partisan politics, so they have to moderate their stances at election time. And, they fully anticipate winning the White House in 2008. Practically speaking, whatever problems don't get resolved now (and thus can be blamed on Bush) will have to be addressed by the presumptive Democrat president (though you can bet any amount of money you'll still hear about things being Bush's fault years from now). After all, it wouldn't look good to have Bush fight through Democrat opposition to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, only to have the next Democrat president allow Iran to get nukes which then get used on us. No one could spin their way out of that.
There's my two cents.
The War On Christianity Gets Nastier
A recent advertisement for the San Francisco Folsom Street Fair has gone way over the line. The ad, sponsored by Miller Brewing Co., depicts a clear mockery of The Last Supper, but replaces Jesus, the disciples, and the bread and wine on the table with drag queens, clear celebration of sado-masochism, and sex toys.
Yesterday, in response to the outrage from Christians, Miller asked for their logo to be removed from the ad. I would take it one step further - if you're a Miller drinker, switch brands. Call them and tell them that you'll refrain from purchasing their product until they totally withdraw their support of such hate-filled and tasteless actions with a clear anti-Christian intent.
This is not the first time such a thing has happened, nor will it be the last. But, as Christians, we need to stand up and say enough is enough! Don't let this stuff slip past you. Don't riot in the streets, but do take action with your dollars and voices.
There's my two cents.
Yesterday, in response to the outrage from Christians, Miller asked for their logo to be removed from the ad. I would take it one step further - if you're a Miller drinker, switch brands. Call them and tell them that you'll refrain from purchasing their product until they totally withdraw their support of such hate-filled and tasteless actions with a clear anti-Christian intent.
Miller Brewing CompanyAs Conservative Thoughts points out, it is doubtful this insulting outrage will get the same level of play in the MSM as the Danish cartoons that caused rioting throughout the Muslim world. Why? Because the MSM is fully on board with the anti-Christian movement.
P.O. Box 482
Milwaukee, WI 53201
or
Miller Brewing Company
3939 W. Highland Blvd, Milwaukee, WI 53208
(414) 931-2000
call between hours are 8am-5pm
no email address to be found
This is not the first time such a thing has happened, nor will it be the last. But, as Christians, we need to stand up and say enough is enough! Don't let this stuff slip past you. Don't riot in the streets, but do take action with your dollars and voices.
There's my two cents.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Who Does Ahmadinejad Remind You Of...?
In an interview with Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a number of statements; Faultline has the details and the full transcript here.
Here are just a few of his comments:
Yep. The Democrats.
They've so thoroughly aligned themselves with the enemies of America that they're even using the same talking points. Now, who do you think will do the best job of protecting America from radical Islamic terrorism and third world dictators?
There's my two cents.
Here are just a few of his comments:
"The American people are very much against and opposed what certain American officials are saying and their points of view. And they're also, the way that the people have voted in the American elections is very telling."You know what's amazing to me? Take a moment and re-read those statements. Who else is saying things like that?
"I think that President Bush needs to correct his ways."
"I think Mr. Bush, if he wants his party to win the next election, there are cheaper ways and ways to go about this. I can very well give him a few ideas so that the people vote for him. He should respect the American people. They should not bug the telephone conversations of their citizens. They should not kill the sons and daughters of the American nation. They should not squander the taxpayers' money and give them to weapons companies. And also help the people, the victims of Katrina."
Yep. The Democrats.
They've so thoroughly aligned themselves with the enemies of America that they're even using the same talking points. Now, who do you think will do the best job of protecting America from radical Islamic terrorism and third world dictators?
There's my two cents.
A Warning To All Christians
This could be a bit of a dicey topic, but read on with an open mind. It's important.
FaultLine USA has begun organizing Christians Against Leftist Heresy. A simplification of the idea is that Christian churches in America (especially denominations belonging to the National Council of Churches, of which the United Methodist Church -- which I regularly attend -- is a member) are being hijacked by leftist ideals, and most Christians don't even realize it. This blogroll is an attempt to bring awareness to the issue, as well as to network bloggers who are committed to fighting this leftification of American Christians.
One of the opening salvos could come in the next few weeks or months in the form of these churches asking their congregations to sign a pledge to take "a public, moral stand for immigrant’s rights."
More information:
There are some significant questions to ponder here:
There's my two cents.
FaultLine USA has begun organizing Christians Against Leftist Heresy. A simplification of the idea is that Christian churches in America (especially denominations belonging to the National Council of Churches, of which the United Methodist Church -- which I regularly attend -- is a member) are being hijacked by leftist ideals, and most Christians don't even realize it. This blogroll is an attempt to bring awareness to the issue, as well as to network bloggers who are committed to fighting this leftification of American Christians.
One of the opening salvos could come in the next few weeks or months in the form of these churches asking their congregations to sign a pledge to take "a public, moral stand for immigrant’s rights."
More information:
Most church attendees have no idea of what’s actually going on behind the scenes in their particular denominations. There’s a certain comfort in knowing that you are worshiping in the same faith tradition as your parents and grandparents. Unfortunately, the only intact part of that traditional faith may be the denominational name. Few Christian parishioners have any idea where the money they donate actually ends up. Here’s a clue:Here's an excerpt from this pledge:
The money sent to ministries sponsored by the NCC go to support a variety of Social Justice values – many of which are clearly Marxist/socialistic values: communal salvation (as opposed to individual salvation), open borders, sanctuary for illegal aliens, an immediate end to the war in Iraq, and eradicating America’s Whiteness (White Privilege) once and for all. Warfare conducted by a nation (bad) is not viewed in the same light as a revolution (good). Social Justice, born of Marxist Liberation Theology, promotes the view that Jesus was a revolutionary leader and any revolution by an oppressed people against the established order is considered a Christian duty.
...We stand together in our faith that everyone, regardless of national origin, has basic common rights,including but not limited to: 1) livelihood; 2) family unity; and 3) physical and emotional safety. We witness the violation of these rights under current immigration policy, particularly in the separation of children from their parents due to unjust deportations, and in the exploitation of immigrant workers. We are deeply grieved by the violence done to families through immigration raids. We cannot in good conscience ignore such suffering and injustice.These statements are very dangerous to American sovereignty and the integrity of American law. If you've been reading my blog for any amount of time, you know how I've addressed all three of these points over and over. They are simply a play on emotions, and not even valid points.
There are some significant questions to ponder here:
Isn’t it interesting that the left always stresses immigrant rights but never immigrant responsibilities, and conversely, the left always stresses American citizen’s responsibilities to immigrants but never mentions American citizen’s rights?But, here are some passages that clearly indicate assimilation:
Christians who oppose illegal immigration are painted as racists, nativists, xenophobes, or worse, Nationalists! Here’s one of their favorite quotes:
"You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." [Exodus 22: 21]
"But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it." Exodus 12:48,49I don't know if this will come up in our church (or yours), but if it does, you need to carefully think about what's going on behind the scenes before you sign this pledge. I, for one, will not.
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed..." Romans 13:1-2
Clearly, this is advice to Christians to follow the laws of their nation and to respect the laws of other nations. Although Christianity encourages acts of charity, we cannot be both charitable and law breakers. We cannot rob Peter to pay Paul.
There's my two cents.
Good News For Prosecution Of Terrorists
The New York Times reports on a new ruling by a 3-judge panel that allows the U.S. military to use tribunals to prosecute terrorists currently being detained at Guantanamo Bay. The ruling overturns a previous ruling by a federal court that halted terrorist prosecutions on a technicality.
Maybe now we can clean the place out and put these guys where they belong - permanently behind bars.
There's my two cents.
Maybe now we can clean the place out and put these guys where they belong - permanently behind bars.
There's my two cents.
More On SCHIP: Gov't Spending Is Unsustainable
A watchdog group, National Taxpayers Union, points out that prior to the debate in the House on the SCHIP bill, there was a request from the Treasury Department to increase the limit on our national debt from $8.965 trillion to $9.82 trillion. That's right, people, we have to raise our debt level to almost $10 trillion to continue operating if this program gets implemented.
This is uncontrolled government spending at its worst, and needs to be stopped. The only ones who can stop it are...American citizens, in very large (angry) numbers. Call and e-mail NOW!
There's my two cents.
This is uncontrolled government spending at its worst, and needs to be stopped. The only ones who can stop it are...American citizens, in very large (angry) numbers. Call and e-mail NOW!
There's my two cents.
How Porous Are America's Borders?
Apparently, they're so porous that Mexicans are now flowing into Canada in numbers sufficient to cause Canadian authorities some concern! Just another piece of evidence that our borders need to be secured NOW!
I suppose the good news here is that some of this influx is the result of extra crackdowns in the U.S. That's great, but with borders this leaky, it's only treating the symptoms rather than the root cause. A secure fence will allow us to stop the flow, and continued crackdowns will purge those who are here. A winning combination!
There's my two cents.
I suppose the good news here is that some of this influx is the result of extra crackdowns in the U.S. That's great, but with borders this leaky, it's only treating the symptoms rather than the root cause. A secure fence will allow us to stop the flow, and continued crackdowns will purge those who are here. A winning combination!
There's my two cents.
A Great Big Pile Of SCHIP
One bill with two major problems that requires action NOW.
The SCHIP bill looks like it's coming up for a vote this week (maybe as early as today), so you need to contact your reps ASAP. The first reason is what I've blogged about all along - rather than providing health care for children, SCHIP is a massive entitlement program, the first step toward universal/socialized healthcare, and would provide government-funded (i.e. taxpayer-funded) health care for families (including adults) making over $80,000/year. The funding is not there, and the program will require massive new tax hikes both now and just a few years down the road.
Some new information is coming out today, though - this SCHIP program would also provide health care benefits for illegal aliens. It looks like there's also a loophole that would provide amnesty for illegal aliens in here, too.
I cannot stress to you enough how important it is for you to call your representatives in the House and Senate (as well as the White House) to voice your opposition to this terrible bill. Do it today!
There's my two cents.
***UPDATE***
The House is debating this bill right now (it sounds like they're going to vote tonight), so call your Reps NOW! The Senate will probably take it up as soon as it comes out of the House (assuming it passes).
The SCHIP bill looks like it's coming up for a vote this week (maybe as early as today), so you need to contact your reps ASAP. The first reason is what I've blogged about all along - rather than providing health care for children, SCHIP is a massive entitlement program, the first step toward universal/socialized healthcare, and would provide government-funded (i.e. taxpayer-funded) health care for families (including adults) making over $80,000/year. The funding is not there, and the program will require massive new tax hikes both now and just a few years down the road.
Some new information is coming out today, though - this SCHIP program would also provide health care benefits for illegal aliens. It looks like there's also a loophole that would provide amnesty for illegal aliens in here, too.
I cannot stress to you enough how important it is for you to call your representatives in the House and Senate (as well as the White House) to voice your opposition to this terrible bill. Do it today!
There's my two cents.
***UPDATE***
The House is debating this bill right now (it sounds like they're going to vote tonight), so call your Reps NOW! The Senate will probably take it up as soon as it comes out of the House (assuming it passes).
More Democrat Corruption?
Judicial Watch is trying to obtain documents regarding a huge land deal that went down in Nevada. Several prominent politicians may or may not be involved, but there is a lot of suspicion of foul play on the part of Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid, pushing the deal in return for financial contributions and other favors.
It's about time someone started probing into the Democrats' closets for skeletons! Of course, given the low standards Democrats hold for themselves, it may not matter what Judicial Watch finds. Anything short of massive felonies could likely be swept under the rug by the Democrat propaganda wing (the MSM), especially if Republicans continue to be spineless. We'll see what happens.
There's my two cents.
It's about time someone started probing into the Democrats' closets for skeletons! Of course, given the low standards Democrats hold for themselves, it may not matter what Judicial Watch finds. Anything short of massive felonies could likely be swept under the rug by the Democrat propaganda wing (the MSM), especially if Republicans continue to be spineless. We'll see what happens.
There's my two cents.
Columbia Recap
Okay, so Columbia University gave a microphone and a podium to a crazy third-world dictator. Should they have done it? Absolutely not, in my opinion. However, there's no taking it back now, and there may be some silver lining here. First, the president of Columbia, Lee Bollinger, raked Ahmadinejad over the coals before the Iranian president's speech with statements like, "you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator" and calling on him to answer a series of questions on killing homosexuals, oppressing women, killing Americans in Iraq, denying the Holocaust, and so forth. He finished by saying "I doubt you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions."
What the heck...!
This was the sort of treatment that one could expect to come from a fierce conservative pundit, not from the president of ultra-liberal Columbia University! As welcome as it was to hear, it was a shock to pretty much everyone. Of course, Ahmedinejad didn't actually answer any of those questions, and no on really appeared to push him too hard after the fact. But, it was still a major, major surprise.
The other potential silver lining is that by giving Ahmadinejad such a major platform from which to spout his verbal filth, he illustrated to the world just how unstable he really is. Dana Milbank in the Washington Post has a terrific article recounting many of his statements compared to reality. A couple examples:
Incidentally, it appears the U.S. is already on a path toward war with Iran.
Good. Let's take him out before he nukes somebody.
There's my two cents.
What the heck...!
This was the sort of treatment that one could expect to come from a fierce conservative pundit, not from the president of ultra-liberal Columbia University! As welcome as it was to hear, it was a shock to pretty much everyone. Of course, Ahmedinejad didn't actually answer any of those questions, and no on really appeared to push him too hard after the fact. But, it was still a major, major surprise.
The other potential silver lining is that by giving Ahmadinejad such a major platform from which to spout his verbal filth, he illustrated to the world just how unstable he really is. Dana Milbank in the Washington Post has a terrific article recounting many of his statements compared to reality. A couple examples:
Ahmadinejad: "For hundreds of years, we've lived in friendship and brotherhood with the people of Iraq."Later, at the National Press Building videoconference, moderator Jerry Zremski of the Buffalo News asked a few more questions that further illustrated Ahmadinejad's disconnect with reality:
Milbank: That's true -- as long as you don't count the little unpleasantness of the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, when a million people died, some by poison gas. And you'd also have to overlook 500 years of fighting during the Ottoman Empire.
Ahmadinejad: "Our people are the freest people in the world"
Milbank: ...said the man whose government executes dissidents, jails academics and stones people to death.
Ahmadinejad: "The freest women in the world are women in Iran"
Milbank: [he] neglecting to mention that Iranian law treats a woman as half of a man.
Zremski inquired about the Amnesty International report finding flogging and imprisonment of journalists and at least 11 Iranian newspapers closed. "I think people who prepared the report are unaware of the situation in Iran," the president answered. "I think the people who give this information should seek what is the truth and, sort of, disseminate what's correct."Remember, this guy has publicly stated he believes his purpose in life is to start a nuclear war with Israel and the United States, and he is actively working toward obtaining nuclear weapons. As if that isn't bad enough, he's clearly nuts. He needs to be stopped before he can do some incredible damage.
Zremski then raised the specific cases of two Kurdish journalists who have been sentenced to death for enmity toward God.
"This news is fundamentally wrong," Ahmadinejad replied. "What journalist has been sentenced to death?"
Zremski supplied the names of Kurdish journalists Adnan Hassanpour and Hiva Boutimar, sentenced July 16. "I don't know people by that name," the president retorted. "You have to, sort of, rectify the information channel."
A pattern had emerged. Zremski asked about the beating and torture of women's rights leaders. "Can you again tell me where you get this report from?" Ahmadinejad asked innocently.
Zremski asked about Ahmadinejad's assertion, at a news conference last month, that Iran is "prepared to fill the gap" of power in Iraq as U.S. influence declines. "Well, again, this, too, is one of those distortions by the press," he answered.
And those Iranian weapons showing up in Iraq? "No, this doesn't exist," he said.
Incidentally, it appears the U.S. is already on a path toward war with Iran.
Good. Let's take him out before he nukes somebody.
There's my two cents.
Senate Halts Mexican Trucking
In response to apparent overwhelming opposition from Americans, the Senate has voted to de-fund the effort to allow Mexican trucking companies unrestricted access to U.S. highways. This program was a part of the NAFTA treaty signed back in the 90's, so as I understand it, the only way to permanently stop this program from moving forward is to revisit the entire treaty. But, the Senate heard the American people, and put a stop to this potentially disastrous program by easily passing an amendment to eliminate funds earmarked for the program.
The speculation is that some are so interested in globalism that they're willing to harm America's interests, and this was one step in that direction - enhancing the porous borders between Mexico, the U.S., and Canada.
Some welcome news from the Senate for a change! If you have a minute, you might write or call them to thank them for standing up for American interests!
There's my two cents.
The speculation is that some are so interested in globalism that they're willing to harm America's interests, and this was one step in that direction - enhancing the porous borders between Mexico, the U.S., and Canada.
Some welcome news from the Senate for a change! If you have a minute, you might write or call them to thank them for standing up for American interests!
There's my two cents.
Quote: The End Result Of Liberalism
I think this is particularly true in that today's liberals are quite clearly anti-American (yet support the enemies of America):
"Very few established institutions, governments and constitutions... are ever destroyed by their enemies until they have been corrupted and weakened by their friends."
-- Walter Lippmann --
"Very few established institutions, governments and constitutions... are ever destroyed by their enemies until they have been corrupted and weakened by their friends."
-- Walter Lippmann --
Posted at Heavy-Handed Politics
Monday, September 24, 2007
Radical Islam Revealed (The Short Version)
I realize that the series on radical Islam I posted last week was rather...uh...voluminous, and I know most people probably don't have the time (or the desire) to read through it all. I certainly understand that, but I wanted to post it all so people could use it as a reference whenever they needed to.
At the same time, the information in there is so important that I thought I'd take a stab at condensing the most important points to something you can read through pretty quickly. I'll shoot to post those this coming weekend.
At the same time, the information in there is so important that I thought I'd take a stab at condensing the most important points to something you can read through pretty quickly. I'll shoot to post those this coming weekend.
Clinton's Fundraiser Admits Guilt
Norman Hsu, big-time Hillary Clinton fundraiser, has admitted his guilt. His supposed business dealings were nothing more than a pyramid scheme, and he pressured investors into contributing to candidates he liked.
But of course, the Clintons had no idea of any of this. Just like they had no idea about any other Chinese contributor/fundraiser crooks they've been associated with over the past couple of decades.
Uh-huh. The pattern is just a wee bit too regular to be denied.
There's my two cents.
But of course, the Clintons had no idea of any of this. Just like they had no idea about any other Chinese contributor/fundraiser crooks they've been associated with over the past couple of decades.
Uh-huh. The pattern is just a wee bit too regular to be denied.
There's my two cents.
Regulating Religion
Here's a very interesting article posted on Conservative Thoughts about an attempt to regulate the activities a church in New Jersey. Apparently, a lesbian couple wanted to use the church for their wedding, and were turned down. As a result, some gay and lesbian groups are pressuring the local and state governments to revoke the church's tax exempt status, a very potent weapon in the fight to shut down churches.
I've blogged about thought police several times before, and this is just another example of how this cancerous mentality is becoming more and more prevalent. Christians (as well as Jews and other religions) need to stand up and fight for our freedom of religion; if we don't, we'll find this freedom gone one day, despite the fact that it is enshrined in the Constitution.
There's my two cents.
I've blogged about thought police several times before, and this is just another example of how this cancerous mentality is becoming more and more prevalent. Christians (as well as Jews and other religions) need to stand up and fight for our freedom of religion; if we don't, we'll find this freedom gone one day, despite the fact that it is enshrined in the Constitution.
There's my two cents.
It's Hard Not To Like Mitt For This!
Mitt Romney sent a letter to the UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon, strongly urging the UN to "un-invite" Ahmadinejad from speaking. He also suggested that if the Iranian president set foot on American soil, he should be greeted with an indictment according to the Geneva Convention. Furthermore, Romney suggests that if the UN doesn't comply, the U.S. should reconsider its level of support to the UN.
YES!
It's about time we see some spine in one of the Republican candidates! I'm not completely sold on Romney, but he's dead-on right on every one of these points! I have no doubt that his statements will fall on deaf ears, but it's nice to hear them at least get publicly stated.
There's my two cents.
YES!
It's about time we see some spine in one of the Republican candidates! I'm not completely sold on Romney, but he's dead-on right on every one of these points! I have no doubt that his statements will fall on deaf ears, but it's nice to hear them at least get publicly stated.
There's my two cents.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Shamnesty, Round Three...No, Round Four...Wait, I Lost Count...
Here it is again, the latest attempt by the Democrats to provide amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
This time it was introduced by Dick Durbin (the #2 Democrat in the Senate), and will be attached to the Defense Appropriations Bill in the form of a Senate amendment (SA 2919).
According to Michelle Malkin, the vote could take place this week, so call and e-mail your Senators ASAP to weigh in. Once again, these slimy 'representatives' are trying to buy their way out of following the law, and once again only the outrage of the American people can slap them back into line. The sad truth is that the current bunch is never going to stop trying to get this passed, so we have to be vigilant in a grass roots kind of way, then vote out the pro-amnesty crowd at the next opportunity.
Items of note for Kansas and Missouri - Bond and Roberts have already pledged to vote no on this amendment. McCaskill and Brownback have not yet made a statement, so they're the ones who need to feel some serious heat. McCaskill has so far been solidly against amnesty, but until she commits she needs to hear from you. Brownback is pro-amnesty, but has already proven he is quite happy to waffle whichever way the political wind blows, so he can also be influenced.
Call and e-mail repeatedly until this thing gets killed like the other shamnesty attempts were killed - any amnesty at all is bad for America!
There's my two cents.
This time it was introduced by Dick Durbin (the #2 Democrat in the Senate), and will be attached to the Defense Appropriations Bill in the form of a Senate amendment (SA 2919).
According to Michelle Malkin, the vote could take place this week, so call and e-mail your Senators ASAP to weigh in. Once again, these slimy 'representatives' are trying to buy their way out of following the law, and once again only the outrage of the American people can slap them back into line. The sad truth is that the current bunch is never going to stop trying to get this passed, so we have to be vigilant in a grass roots kind of way, then vote out the pro-amnesty crowd at the next opportunity.
Items of note for Kansas and Missouri - Bond and Roberts have already pledged to vote no on this amendment. McCaskill and Brownback have not yet made a statement, so they're the ones who need to feel some serious heat. McCaskill has so far been solidly against amnesty, but until she commits she needs to hear from you. Brownback is pro-amnesty, but has already proven he is quite happy to waffle whichever way the political wind blows, so he can also be influenced.
Call and e-mail repeatedly until this thing gets killed like the other shamnesty attempts were killed - any amnesty at all is bad for America!
There's my two cents.
Columbia University's Declaration Of War On America
Well, the much-needed vacation is over (it was great, by the way), and now it's back to the ol' grind. Jumping back in, we have a bombshell of a controversy...
Columbia University in New York has formally invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak this week. One of the Deans explains the controversial invitation: even if Adolf Hitler wanted to speak, they'd give him a microphone and a stage. I don't think that explanation helped a whole lot.
Anyway, this invitation is absolutely tasteless and -- to my knowledge -- unprecedented. America is in the middle of a war, and we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Ahmadinejad is actively involved in planning and carrying out attacks that kill American soldiers, and Columbia invites him to speak?!
Unbelievable.
Hugh Hewitt sums it up: The collapse of the left's moral sense is complete.
Fortunately, some people are outraged (rightly so), and are already protesting the speech.
There's liberalism for you - hate America, love the enemy. If anyone is a Columbia alum, I would hope you will contact them instantly and threaten to cut off any and all alumni support if they allow this murderous tyrant onto campus.
For the rest of us, just be aware that this is the liberal left in America. This is what we get when we allow lefty wackos into leadership positions. We gotta' stop the madness!
There's my two cents.
Columbia University in New York has formally invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak this week. One of the Deans explains the controversial invitation: even if Adolf Hitler wanted to speak, they'd give him a microphone and a stage. I don't think that explanation helped a whole lot.
Anyway, this invitation is absolutely tasteless and -- to my knowledge -- unprecedented. America is in the middle of a war, and we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Ahmadinejad is actively involved in planning and carrying out attacks that kill American soldiers, and Columbia invites him to speak?!
Unbelievable.
Hugh Hewitt sums it up: The collapse of the left's moral sense is complete.
Fortunately, some people are outraged (rightly so), and are already protesting the speech.
There's liberalism for you - hate America, love the enemy. If anyone is a Columbia alum, I would hope you will contact them instantly and threaten to cut off any and all alumni support if they allow this murderous tyrant onto campus.
For the rest of us, just be aware that this is the liberal left in America. This is what we get when we allow lefty wackos into leadership positions. We gotta' stop the madness!
There's my two cents.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Radical Islam Revealed: The Answers You Need To Know
I'm no 'expert', but I'm coming to believe the struggle between the Muslim world (specifically, the radical wing that practices Islamic jihad) and the modern Western world is shaping up to be -- much like the battle with the Nazis in World War II -- the ideological struggle of our generation. I believe that we as Americans need to have a solid understanding of what we face if we are to have any hope of winning. I think it's clear that the mainstream media cannot be trusted to tell the real story (something I've alluded to repeatedly in previous blogs), and much of the information out there can get fiercely convoluted, so it's hard to make sense of it. My guess is that most people have a sense that this struggle is important on some level, but they get so bombarded with mixed messages that they become overwhelmed and just stop thinking about it.
That's where I was until I started actually keeping track of things a few months ago. It wasn't long before a much clearer picture formed, and my understanding of the struggle grew much deeper; it makes a whole lot more sense to me now. If it worked for me, I'm hoping it will work for you, too.
So, I took it upon myself to bring together a lot of articles and stories on radical Islamic jihadists (from the real world) in a series of blogs attempting to address some key points, including:
- Who are they?
- What do they really want?
- What happens if they win?
- What happens to people who attack/question Islam?
- Is Islam really the religion of peace?
- Where are the moderate Muslims?
This is not a comprehensive analysis, but it is at least a starting point. My intent is to explain this complex topic in a way that everyone can understand it, using real stories and real events to back up my assertions. My hope is that the knowledge you gain from this series will help guide you in your thoughts, votes, and actions when real life demands tough decisions about what to do.
I welcome your feedback, both positive and negative. If you disagree, by all means provide the proof and we'll consider it together; if you don't have proof, then I ask you to consider mine. If nothing else, I hope you learn as much reading this as I have in putting it all together.
Part 1: Who are they?
Part 2: Why do they do this?
Part 3: What do they want?
Part 4: What happens if they win?
Part 5: What happens to those who attack/question Islam?
Part 6: Is Islam really the religion of peace?
Part 7: Where are the moderate Muslims?
Part 8: What should you do?
That's where I was until I started actually keeping track of things a few months ago. It wasn't long before a much clearer picture formed, and my understanding of the struggle grew much deeper; it makes a whole lot more sense to me now. If it worked for me, I'm hoping it will work for you, too.
So, I took it upon myself to bring together a lot of articles and stories on radical Islamic jihadists (from the real world) in a series of blogs attempting to address some key points, including:
- Who are they?
- What do they really want?
- What happens if they win?
- What happens to people who attack/question Islam?
- Is Islam really the religion of peace?
- Where are the moderate Muslims?
This is not a comprehensive analysis, but it is at least a starting point. My intent is to explain this complex topic in a way that everyone can understand it, using real stories and real events to back up my assertions. My hope is that the knowledge you gain from this series will help guide you in your thoughts, votes, and actions when real life demands tough decisions about what to do.
I welcome your feedback, both positive and negative. If you disagree, by all means provide the proof and we'll consider it together; if you don't have proof, then I ask you to consider mine. If nothing else, I hope you learn as much reading this as I have in putting it all together.
Part 1: Who are they?
Part 2: Why do they do this?
Part 3: What do they want?
Part 4: What happens if they win?
Part 5: What happens to those who attack/question Islam?
Part 6: Is Islam really the religion of peace?
Part 7: Where are the moderate Muslims?
Part 8: What should you do?
Radical Islam Revealed, Part 2: Why do they do this?
It is problematic (and hideously politically incorrect) to say that Islam itself dictates this radical jihad, but it is the naked truth. Irshad Manji is a senior fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy and has written extensively on the subject. She points out that religion is precisely the root cause of this crusade against the West. Many of the 'professional' terrorists mentioned above freely admitted as much when questioned about their motives. In fact, many are proud of their actions when they are caught, precisely because they are dedicating their lives to their religion. For example, religion prompted this:
Nevertheless, Islam is the key motivator for these terrorists, and it has been for decades. Most of them, when they are caught, are quite proud of their actions, and seek only to commit more atrocities in the name of Allah. Why do they do these things? They are called to do them.
References:
Irshad Manji - Religion Is The Root Cause
Call It Like It Is
What Do Muslims Want
Author Certain Left Naive About Islamist Agenda
UK Muslim Student Jailed For Smuggling Weapons Plans
"Mohammed Bouyeri, the Dutch-born Moroccan Muslim murdered Amsterdam filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Bouyeri pumped several bullets into van Gogh's body. Knowing that multiple shots would finish off his victim, why didn't Bouyeri stop there? Why did he pull out a blade to decapitate van Gogh? The blade is an implement associated with 7th-century tribal conflict. Wielding it as a sword becomes a tribute to the founding moment of Islam. Even the note stabbed into van Gogh's corpse, although written in Dutch, had the unmistakable rhythms of Arabic poetry. Let's credit Bouyeri with honesty: at his trial he proudly acknowledged acting from religious conviction."Pretty clear cut. Manji also distinguishes between two types of non-extremist Muslims: moderates, and reform-minded:
"Moderate Muslims denounce violence in the name of Islam but deny that Islam has anything to do with it. By their denial, moderates abandon the ground of theological interpretation to those with malignant intentions, effectively telling would-be terrorists that they can get away with abuses of power because mainstream Muslims won't challenge the fanatics with bold, competing interpretations. To do so would be to admit that religion is a factor. Moderate Muslims can't go there. Reform-minded Muslims say it's time to admit that Islam's scripture and history are being exploited. They argue for reinterpretation precisely to put the would-be terrorists on notice that their monopoly is over."We'll go more into detail on moderate Muslims later in this series. For now, I want to focus on the point that Islam is calling Muslims to a state of constant conflict with non-Muslims. From the Koran itself, as reported by Raymond Ibrahim, editor of The Al Qaeda Reader:
"O you who believe! Take neither Jews nor Christians as friends…whoever among you turns to them is one of them." (5:51) There are countless verses and traditions, in fact, that make it clear that Muslims are to be in a constant state of animosity toward non-Muslims, waging war through tongue and teeth in order to spread Islam, and, when finally in a position of superiority, discriminating against those who refuse to convert (see, for example, 3:28, 5:73, 5:17, 9:5, 9:25, etc). "We [Muslims] disown you [non-Muslims] and what you worship besides Allah. We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us — until you believe in Allah alone!" (60:40)Clearly, the cause of radical jihad is Islam, although many people are afraid to say it. That fact in itself is a politically correct virus that has spread to much of the world:
The new British prime minister, Gordon Brown, has directed ministers to omit "Muslim" when discussing (Muslim) terrorism. And forget the generic "war on terror"; even that pathetic phrase is off limits. (This has absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Brown's unctuously stated goal to make Britain "the gateway for Islamic finance.") The new Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith refers to British Muslims as "communities" — maybe a prelude to not mentioning them at all. Both have done the "perversion of a great faith" dance to enlightened applause, taking cues from the unpublished "EU Lexicon," which reportedly nixes such "offensive" phrases as "Islamic terrorism."These are just a few of the examples; there are too many to recount here. The point is that by not saying the words or by somehow glossing over the facts, it doesn't mean the facts don't exist. It simply means that we are deliberately turning a blind eye on a real and growing threat, and that blind eye is largely on the part of the political Left in America and Europe. The irony is that many of the positions taken by the Left are the very same ones (i.e. homosexual rights, women's rights, rights for transgenders, diversity rights) that radical Islam will instantly purge through Sharia law.
Philosopher John Gray and historian Eric Hobsbawm recently said on British television that even the word "Islamist" was "unfair" because "it implied a strong link to Islam." Never mind the link is doctrinally accurate.
J. Millard Burr, a former USAID coordinator and Robert O. Collins, a professor emeritus of history at the University of California at Santa Barbara, teamed up to write a book with the title Alms for Jihad. At the end of 2006, Cambridge University Press published this book. The authors are both serious men, and the CUP has been one of the most reputable publishing houses in the English-language world. The book involved an examination of the funding of Islamist extremism. The libel laws in England are scandalously out of date, designed to protect a plaintiff, and therefore time and again vexatious litigants come to harm the public interest. So it is in this case. At the threat of a libel suit from a Saudi billionaire, the CUP [withdrew] it, pulping all copies, and publishing a cringe-making letter of apology discrediting their authors for making "defamatory allegations." And they’ve also paid damages.
Nevertheless, Islam is the key motivator for these terrorists, and it has been for decades. Most of them, when they are caught, are quite proud of their actions, and seek only to commit more atrocities in the name of Allah. Why do they do these things? They are called to do them.
References:
Irshad Manji - Religion Is The Root Cause
Call It Like It Is
What Do Muslims Want
Author Certain Left Naive About Islamist Agenda
UK Muslim Student Jailed For Smuggling Weapons Plans
Radical Islam Revealed, Part 3: What do they want?
Islamic jihadists have a simple ultimatum: convert or die. That's it. That's the nutshell. Their mission is to establish Islam as the supreme controlling religion all over the world. To do that, they have to either convert or kill all non-Muslims in the world (or allow second-class citizens, called 'dhimmis', who willingly submit to the laws and ways of Islam, including Sharia law). Assuming Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims don't accept their conversion coercion, they are then given permission by the Koran to kill us. Yes, it is sanctioned by the Koran.
So, you could say that they want us to die, simply because we exist. To Western ears, this may sound harsh, provocative, or even simplistic, and I believe that's one of the reasons people in Western democracies have a hard time understanding where they're coming from. People who want to negotiate with jihadists are projecting their own Western views on their adversaries, completely missing the fact that those adversaries think in a totally different way than Westerners. We think in terms of compromise, concessions, and political advantages; they think in terms of religious absolutes. Whereas we may give in on certain points of negotiation to win others, they will always eventually come back for more because their fervent belief requires it of them until they achieve complete victory (i.e. conversion or death of all infidels). Just ask Israel, who has been giving away land for years, supposedly in exchange for 'peace', although a lasting peace has never been established that way.
This mindset difference is a hard concept to accept, but a critical foundation of the understanding of jihadists and their motivations. If you don't believe me, listen to them - they're the ones saying it.
Osama bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda: The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam. If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran: "Israel must be wiped off the map...The Islamic world will not let its historic enemy live in its heartland."
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism."
Maulana Inyadullah, who began fighting the Soviet invasion in 1982 at the age of 16: "War is our best hobby. The sound of guns firing is like music for us. We cannot live advertisement without war. We have no other way except jihad. The Americans love Pepsi Cola, we love death."
Osama bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda: "The war is for you or for us to win."
Victor Davis Hanson posts an article by Bruce Thornton called In Their Own Words. If there is nothing else that you read out of this entire series of blogs, read this. It is the single most damning piece of evidence supporting the claim that Islam is the root of radical jihadist terrorism. Why? Because it's the words of Osama bin Laden and Aymin al Zawahiri themselves. If they claim their jihad against the West is based on Islam, and if they make extensive use of the Koran in their writings to justify jihad, shouldn't we believe them?
References:
In Their Own Words
The War Is For You Or For Us To Win
The Road To Cultural Surrender
Exploring Islam's Death Cult
Bin Laden's Letter To America
Wipe Israel Off The Map
Iranian Leader - Wipe Out Israel
The Americans Love Pepsi Cola, We Love Death
So, you could say that they want us to die, simply because we exist. To Western ears, this may sound harsh, provocative, or even simplistic, and I believe that's one of the reasons people in Western democracies have a hard time understanding where they're coming from. People who want to negotiate with jihadists are projecting their own Western views on their adversaries, completely missing the fact that those adversaries think in a totally different way than Westerners. We think in terms of compromise, concessions, and political advantages; they think in terms of religious absolutes. Whereas we may give in on certain points of negotiation to win others, they will always eventually come back for more because their fervent belief requires it of them until they achieve complete victory (i.e. conversion or death of all infidels). Just ask Israel, who has been giving away land for years, supposedly in exchange for 'peace', although a lasting peace has never been established that way.
This mindset difference is a hard concept to accept, but a critical foundation of the understanding of jihadists and their motivations. If you don't believe me, listen to them - they're the ones saying it.
Osama bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda: The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam. If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran: "Israel must be wiped off the map...The Islamic world will not let its historic enemy live in its heartland."
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism."
Maulana Inyadullah, who began fighting the Soviet invasion in 1982 at the age of 16: "War is our best hobby. The sound of guns firing is like music for us. We cannot live advertisement without war. We have no other way except jihad. The Americans love Pepsi Cola, we love death."
Osama bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda: "The war is for you or for us to win."
Victor Davis Hanson posts an article by Bruce Thornton called In Their Own Words. If there is nothing else that you read out of this entire series of blogs, read this. It is the single most damning piece of evidence supporting the claim that Islam is the root of radical jihadist terrorism. Why? Because it's the words of Osama bin Laden and Aymin al Zawahiri themselves. If they claim their jihad against the West is based on Islam, and if they make extensive use of the Koran in their writings to justify jihad, shouldn't we believe them?
History shows that bin Laden has the better understanding of Islam than do Western apologists; as Ibrahim summarizes the argument, "'radical' Islam is Islam — without exception." In this same vein, Zawahiri argues in his "Loyalty and Enmity" that the only relationship one can have with the infidel is enmity. Zawahiri buttresses this argument with numerous quotations from Islamic theology, the most important coming from the Koran 60:4: "'We disown you and the idols which you worship besides Allah. We renounce you: enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in Allah alone.'" On this authority comes the necessity to wage jihad against the infidel.So, that's who they are and what they want. Once you understand that, you're over the biggest hurdle - everything else becomes significantly easier to understand. The next blog in this series will address what happens if they achieve their goal of Muslim domination in the Western world.
References:
In Their Own Words
The War Is For You Or For Us To Win
The Road To Cultural Surrender
Exploring Islam's Death Cult
Bin Laden's Letter To America
Wipe Israel Off The Map
Iranian Leader - Wipe Out Israel
The Americans Love Pepsi Cola, We Love Death
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)