Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Show Me The Outrage

Come on, make me believe there are moderate Muslims ANYWHERE who will protest, much less take on what Muslims are doing in the world today in their quest for a reigning Caliphate.


-Muslim outrage huh. OK ... let's do a little historical review. Just some lowlights:

-Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City.
No Muslim outrage

-Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed.
No Muslim outrage.

-Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A
Christian school.
No Muslim outrage.

-Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq.
No Muslim outrage.

-Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt.
No Muslim

-A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six.
No Muslim outrage.

-Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot

children in the back.
No Muslim outrage.

Let's go way back.

-Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics.
Muslim outrage.

-Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel.
No Muslim

-Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured.
No Muslim outrage.

-Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder.
No Muslim outrage.

-Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali.
No Muslim outrage.

-Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons.
No Muslim outrage.

-Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars
around the world.
No Muslim outrage.

-Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge.
Muslim outrage.

-Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed.
Muslims are outraged

-Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and nurses. Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of Muslims .. no Muslim outrage
-but publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.

Come on, is this really about cartoons? They're rampaging and burning flags. They're looking for Europeans to kidnap. They're threatening innkeepers and generally raising holy Muslim hell not because of any outrage over a cartoon. They're outraged because it is part of the Islamic jihadist culture to be outraged. You don't really need a reason. You just need an excuse.

Wandering around, destroying property, murdering children, firing guns into the air and feigning outrage over the slightest perceived insult is to a jihadist what tailgating is to a Steeler's fan.
I know and understand that these bloodthirsty murderers do not represent the majority of theworld's Muslims. When, though, do they become outraged?

When do they take to the streets to
express their outrage at the radicals who are making their religion the object of worldwide hatred and ridicule? Islamic writer Salman Rushdie wrote of these silent Muslims in a New York Times article three years ago. "As their ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, why are they not screaming?"

Indeed. Why not?

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Freedom Folks: Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst

Freedom Folks has a new weekly Video thing. They're taking videos on illegal immigration, etc from around the country - be the first on your block! I just watched the first one, and I like what they are doing. Whenever I find something like this, I will report it right away.

Freedom Folks: Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography

This falls under the "Why am I not surprised?" category. What is amazing is that it took so long to take this guy down. His activities have been been under scrutiny for a long time. These ACLU A**holes have long been supporters of such decadent, perverse organizations as NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Not only that, but your tax dollars are supporting them! And judicial activist judges are in cahoots with them. Listen to this interview at AM 1500 WBRI. Marquis Washington of Dividing Line Magazine interviews Craig McCarthy of CourtZero.

Complaint Alleges Virginia Man Accessed, Downloaded Graphic Child Pornography

Feb. 23, 2007— Federal agents arrested Charles Rust-Tierney, the former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU, Friday in Arlington for allegedly possessing child pornography. According to a criminal complaint obtained by ABC News, Rust-Tierney allegedly used his e-mail address and credit card to subscribe to and access a child pornography website.

The complaint states that federal investigations into child pornography websites revealed that "Charles Rust-Tierney has subscribed to multiple child pornography website over a period of years." As recently as last October, the complaint alleges, "Rust-Tierney purchased access to a group of hardcore commercial child pornography websites." Complaint Alleges Access to Graphic Material Rust-Tierney admitted to investigators that he had downloaded videos and images from child pornography websites onto CD-ROMs, according to the complaint.

The videos described in the complaint depict graphic forcible intercourse with prepubescent females. One if the girls is described in court documents as being "seen and heard crying", another is described as being "bound by rope."

The investigation is being conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and the Arlington County Police as part of the Northern Virginia and District of Columbia Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.

Rust-Tierney made an initial appearance in a federal court in Alexandria, VA, Friday. He is being detained pending a preliminary hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 28.

Youth Coach, Argued Against Restricting Public Internet

Rust Tierney coaches various youth sports teams in and around Arlington, Virginia, according to court documents. In the past, Rust-Tierney had argued against restricting Internet access in public libraries in Virginia, writing, "Recognizing that individuals will continue to behave responsibly and appropriately while in the library, the default should be maximum, unrestricted access to the valuable resources of the Internet."

Calls to Rust-Tierney's home were not answered and calls to the ACLU of Virginia were not immediately returned.

CourtZero is an organization devoted to restoring our court system to its original mandate - that of upholding our constitution and enforcing the will of the people of the United States. I don't need to tell you that the judicial process has gone horribly awry. Much valuable information as well as a rich source of downloadable audio files.

**Update on my
Monday, February 05, 2007 story,

Student Council Passes Diversity Pledge

h/t to Texas Fred's

Well, it was tied in to the diversity pledge story, since it was also in Virginia, and in the same week. The original proposal by Del. Donald McEachin, a Democrat, called for “atonement.”
That was when Donald McEachin said:

"This is a good first step,' says McEachin, whose great-grandfather Archie was a slave."

Wow, an 'African-American' whose great-grandfather was a slave. Surprising. Unless he's black as shoe polish, he's probably got some of Massa McEachin's blood in him. Oh, crap - that's right, he's a VICTIM. Well s'cuse me, my great-grandaddy fought in the Civil War. So what?

We do the things we do mostly because of environment. His great grand-daddy couldn't avoid being taken into captivity (probably on an African tribal head's orders), and sold as a slave. My great-grandaddy couldn't avoid the War between the States, which by the way was fought partly to FREE the slaves. Which side you fought on back then, depended on where you were born. Get over it. There are no victims here, unless you choose to see yourself as one. You want to be a victim, Mr McEachin? Go ahead, I got things to do.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Cultural Marxism

In the next few days, I will be posting information on the history of Cultural Marxism and Islamism. Although others have written excellent essays on these subjects, it is good to keep our perspective fresh and alive with new ideas and new views as we prioritize our goals. The attempt to understand what is oppressing democratic ideals and values as events unfold is reason enough to proceed. Fjordman has given us much as has Bawer, Horowitz, Robert Spencer, and Daniel Pipes, from the non-Muslim perspective; Walid Shoebat, Ayan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and others have given us a more secular view of Islam, and the dangers of Wahbabism as it keeps coming at us in waves.

I think the danger to citizens of western democratic counties is to for us lose the sense of immediacy and urgency of the battle being waged on the world by the radical Islamists. The first article, by Linda Kimball, appeared a week ago in the American Thinker, and it gives us a brief, cogent look at Cultural Marxism, aka Multiculturalism.

I make no claim to scholarship when it comes to delving and divining out the problems facing us today. Honestly, having grown up in the 40’s and 50’s, I am almost at a loss to digest what I see. Almost, but not quite. What I am is scared s***less, if not witless at the evil arising (I almost said descending onto) in the world. But I do know one thing: evil arises from within, not from without. It does give me the will to persevere.

(note: I have The American Thinker’s permission to partially reprint this article, so please go to their website to finish reading this article:
American Thinker

Cultural Marxism

American Thinker
February 15, 2007
By Linda Kimball
There are two misconceptions held by many Americans. The first is that communism ceased to be a threat when the Soviet Union imploded. The second is that the New Left of the Sixties collapsed and disappeared as well. "The Sixties are dead," wrote columnist George Will ("Slamming the Doors," Newsweek, Mar. 25, 1991)

Because the New Left lacked cohesion it fell apart as a political movement. However, its revolutionaries reorganized themselves into a multitude of single issue groups. Thus we now have for example, radical feminists, black extremists, anti-war ‘peace' activists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, and ‘gay' rights groups. All of these groups pursue their piece of the radical agenda through a complex network of organizations such as the Gay Straight Lesbian Educators Network (GSLEN), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), People for the American Way, United for Peace and Justice, Planned Parenthood, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), and Code Pink for Peace.

Both communism and the New Left are alive and thriving here in America. They favor code words: tolerance, social justice, economic justice, peace, reproductive rights, sex education and safe sex, safe schools, inclusion, diversity, and sensitivity. All together, this is Cultural Marxism disguised as multiculturalism.

Birth of Multiculturalism

In anticipation of the revolutionary storm that would baptize the world in an inferno of red terror, leading to its rebirth as the promised land of social justice and proletarian equality-Frederich Engels wrote,
"All the...large and small nationalities are destined to perish...in the revolutionary world storm... (A general war will) wipe out all...nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only reactionary classes...but...reactionary peoples." ("The Magyar Struggle," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Jan. 13, 1849)
By the end of WWI, socialists realized that something was amiss, for the world's proletariat had not heeded Marx's call to rise up in opposition to evil capitalism and to embrace communism instead. They wondered what had gone wrong.

Separately, two Marxist theorists-Antonio Gramsci of Italy and Georg Lukacs of Hungary concluded that the Christianized West was the obstacle standing in the way of a communist new world order. The West would have to be conquered first.

Gramsci posited that because Christianity had been dominant in the West for over 2000 years, not only was it fused with Western civilization, but it had corrupted the workers class. The West would have to be de-Christianized, said Gramsci, by means of a "long march through the culture." Additionally, a new proletariat must be created. In his "Prison Notebooks," he suggested that the new proletariat be comprised of many criminals, women, and racial minorities.

The new battleground, reasoned Gramsci, must become the culture, starting with the traditional family and completely engulfing churches, schools, media, entertainment, civic organizations, literature, science, and history. All of these things must be radically transformed and the social and cultural order gradually turned upside-down with the new proletariat placed in power at the top.

read the rest here...

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Following the Amnesty Trail


Tucson Weekly
Following the Amnesty Trail

Leo W. Banks follows one of Arizona's most popular illegal alien crossing routes and finds piles of garbage, trampled public lands, angry residents and the suspected presence of a vicious gang.

In the coming weeks, as President Bush and the Democrat controlled Congress take up immigration reform, and the political talk turns to amnesty, everyone living along border smuggling routes will hunker down to wait for the worst. They know their lives will get miserable in a hurry.

The word amnesty possesses remarkable power on the Mexican side of the line. It has the same effect as a starter's pistol.

Bang! Let the land rush begin.

It happened after Jan. 7, 2004, when Bush floated his idea for a temporary worker program. The idea was broadly viewed in Mexico as amnesty, and the Border Patrol's own survey proved it. In the weeks following the proposal, the agency quietly questioned crossers apprehended at the southern border and found the president's plan had caused a big spike in illegal crossings. Forty-five percent said they'd entered our country "to get Bush's amnesty."

Let' s face it. The secretive group of elitist power brokers, among them, the Council on Foreign Relations (.pdf) are calling the shots. I can just imagine them snickering up their sleeves, knowing all this kerfuffle protecting a sieve of a border and the hopeless of it all is a joke; for them it is just so much like watching so many little children playing cops and robbers. Useless, really. YAWN.

But they are merely one arm,
guiding directing our government's every move. The real power brokers, the Federal Reserve, the Rothschilds, the Rockerfellers, JP Morgan, Warburg, George Soros, et al, have a grand scheme for...... errr, the world. It is beyond the scope of today's blog. And I don't consider illegal immigration and control of our borders to be child's play. We must fight these monsters (not the immigrants - the power holders of the world), at every turn. I will have more to say about all this, and no, I'm not a crazy conspiracy advocate. At any rate, I'm not crazy.

I will just report what I've found on the
CFR, and let you be the judge. But I will say this. If all this is true, if scares the crap out of me. Well, it did when I first began reading about this 'New World Order'. As I began to go deeper into the history of how the power hierachy was formed early in the 20th Century, and the conditions which led to a sell-out by our govenment on a colossal scale I began to see that we, the American People have been duped, big time. I feel powerless, but now I'm mad as hell.

I didn't mean to take away from reporting on the great work of the Border Patrol, the Minutemen, and the National Guard. It's not their fault their hands have been tied by George Bush. That leash he put on them is partly because of the Great Plan the power brokers have for the North American Continent. Shameful conduct. Whatever faith I had in our government is gone. I consider our system of government to be an abject failure.

h/t Jake
There's more on this. Go to:

Freedom Folks: More On That Thing That Most Definitely Isn't Happening...

Monday, February 19, 2007



And now, a word from the Christian Right...refreshing, actually.

February 6, 2007
h/t to Deanna Spingola
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

Looking at the potential presidential frontrunners for both the Democrat and Republican parties reveals that virtually everyone of them would surrender America's borders. Not one of the presidential frontrunners from either party would protect our borders against illegal immigration. Just the opposite. They would continue George Bush's policy of wide open borders, including his determination to grant amnesty to illegals. In other words, when it comes to protecting our borders, there is not a nickel's worth of difference between the two major parties' leading presidential contenders.

Democratic presidential frontrunners include John Edwards, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Republican frontrunners include John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani.

In fact, virtually every Democratic candidate, and even the vast majority of Republican candidates, would provide no relief to America's border problems. And, yes, that includes Sam Brownback and Newt Gingrich. Notable exceptions include Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo, with Tancredo at the head of the class.

Obviously, should Hunter, Paul, or Tancredo miraculously win the White House, the push for a North American Union (NAU) complete with a NAFTA superhighway and a trilateral, hemispheric government, would be stopped dead in its tracks. For this reason, the GOP machine (and the insiders who control it) will never allow someone such as Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, or Tom Tancredo to obtain the nomination.

It's time the American people faced a hard, cold reality: no matter who the two major parties nominate in November 2008, the push for open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the NAU will continue unabated. In other words, anyone who believes that unimpeded illegal immigration (and related issues) just might be the biggest threat to our national sovereignty and security (and count me as one who does) will not be able to vote for either the Republican or Democratic nominee in 2008. It's time to start preparing for that reality now.

It's time the American people faced a hard, cold reality: no matter who the two major parties nominate in November 2008, the push for open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the NAU will continue unabated. In other words, anyone who believes that unimpeded illegal immigration (and related issues) just might be the biggest threat to our national sovereignty and security (and count me as one who does) will not be able to vote for either the Republican or Democratic nominee in 2008. It's time to start preparing for that reality now.

Does that mean that Republicans should not do everything they can to help Tancredo, Paul, or Hunter gain the nomination? Of course not. If the vast majority of the GOP rank and file would get solidly behind these three men, one of them might have a chance of succeeding. However, the track record of the GOP faithful is not very reassuring.

Instead of supporting principled, uncompromising men of integrity, such as the three men named above, Republican voters will doubtless buy into the party mantra of pragmatism and help nominate another spineless globalist such as currently occupies the White House, which will leave us exactly where we are now.

So, here is the sixty-four million dollar question: What will principled conservative voters do in 2008? My hope and prayer is that after failing to receive their party's nomination, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter (or at least one of them) will leave the party and bring their (his) followers to the Constitution Party (CP). In all likelihood, the CP will have ballot access in over 45 states. It is already the third largest political party in the country and is currently the fastest growing political party in the nation. A national leader such as Paul, Tancredo, or Hunter would provide the CP with a very attractive alternative to the globalist candidates being offered by the two major parties.

By nature, I am not a single issue voter. However, I am sensible enough to realize that there are currently a handful of issues that will literally make or break America's future. And right now, the illegal immigration and emerging North American Union issues are at the very top of the list. Further failure on these issues will mean the end of America as we know it. And I mean very soon.

Regardless of what Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo ultimately do, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who believe we must protect America's borders, stop the burgeoning North American Union, and secure our national sovereignty must be prepared to abandon the two major parties' presidential nominees in 2008 and support an "America First" third party candidate. Even a virtually unknown candidate with limited experience, but someone who understands the issues and has the backbone to do what is right, would be head and shoulders above what the two major parties are currently shoving down our throats.

Better start preparing yourselves for it now, folks.

It is apparent that President Bush does not intend to safeguard our borders; just as Bill Clinton, and Bush's father before him, Bush, allied by members of Congress never intended that our borders be a defining factor in our Nation's sovereignty. Unhappily, Our border states of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California expect, and ask too little of our illegal immigrants.
Upon arriving, immigrants do not have to learn to speak English, can expect to get work, Medicaid benefits, including hospital care, drivers' license, and a fake social security card. They're set, then to pull down (artificially depressed) wages, but enough to send some money home. It's all a great adventure, a chance at a new life for them. On a small scale it wouldn't matter at all. But when the law of large numbers begin to operate, the the concomitant law of unintended consequences also comes into play. On the local level, towns where illegals tend to pool, the ability of social services to handle and pay for these numbers of people, who shouldn't be here in the first place, begins to degrade. Local inhabitants on the lower end of the socio-economic scale cannot any longer expect to find employment in or around their communities. They have to either move, or travel longer distances to find work. As the Mexican diaspora continues to flow northward, the problem is exacerbated, and the demographics of say, smaller towns in Georgia, become distorted. All the while, big government has calmly looked on, and done nothing. Now they are making a show of enforcement. But it's just a show. National Guard troops are sent in with a 'do nothing' directive. The troops came storming into New Orleans after Katrina, took U.S. citizen's guns away from them at gunpoint, an insane thing to do, yet they are not armed while 'protecting our borders'. They were sent in on a 'supportive role', whatever that is. Face it, our borders will remain porous for the foreseeable future, until we get a president with a pair of balls.

All of this brings us to the question of why? Is there some agenda the government is concealing from the public. You bet there is. It's called the New World Order, The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, the SPP, in which our borders with Canada and Mexico will be nullified. Stripped of sovereignty, America will come under the rule of a collection of elites, who will take over our governance and our lives. Exactly as The European Union (which is being advanced in exactly the same way in Europe), is being perpetuated on the Europeans today. None of this has come to meaningful public debate, or forum or referendum. That's because it isn't being advanced as Law; rather, it is being instituted through such plans such as NAFTA, and a NAFTA Superhighway.
Big Brother. Oh, George Orwell, what prophecy.

In response to these events, Representatives of the House have put forward this Resolution to the House of Representatives:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North... (Introduced in House)


2d Session

H. CON. RES. 487

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.


September 28, 2006

Mr. GOODE (for himself, Mr. PAUL, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, and Mr. TANCREDO) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.

Whereas, according to the Department of Commerce, United States trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have significantly widened since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA);

Whereas the economic and physical security of the United States is impaired by the potential loss of control of its borders attendant to the full operation of NAFTA;

Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System from the west coast of Mexico through the United States and into Canada has been suggested as part of a North American Union;

Whereas it would be particularly difficult for Americans to collect insurance from Mexican companies which employ Mexican drivers involved in accidents in the United States, which would increase the insurance rates for American drivers;

Whereas future unrestricted foreign trucking into the United States can pose a safety hazard due to inadequate maintenance and inspection, and can act collaterally as a conduit for the entry into the United States of illegal drugs, illegal human smuggling, and terrorist activities; and

Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System would be funded by foreign consortiums and controlled by foreign management, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--
      (1) the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System;
      (2) the United States should not enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and
      (3) the President should indicate strong opposition to these or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States.


    It is up to all Americans
    to speak out against this take-over of our country. It is real, as real as cancer (like, you know,the Federal Reserve), and we must not give in to it. Fight back. New World Order? No thanks. I like the old one; for all its flaws, it still belongs to the People, not some elitist technocrats, who only want the good for themselves. As good as it is to see someone, anyone in Congress stand up and say, "This is not right", it is not nearly enough. It is not enough to merely "express the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a Superhighway". We must DEMAND that Congress get to the bottom of this outrage, and dismantle it. Otherwise, we will see anarchy in America. And in my view, that's not necessarily a bad thing, anarchy. Big Brother is coming for you, and you, and yours.

    Sunday, February 18, 2007

    AMERICA: Freedom to Fascism


    After Watching this movie "America: Freedom To Fascism" by Aaron Russo, award-winning Producer of such movies as, "Trading Places" starring Eddie Murphy. I am speechless, for the moment, anyway. It has turned my view of the political process of America on its head. I think you should watch it. (read a review here)

    It is a full-length movie (one hour, 49 min ) - so make some popcorn, invite your friends over, and get prepared to have your mind blown.

    If you don't have time to watch the whole movie, you can go here so see a 15-minute trailer.

    Thursday, February 15, 2007


    Now for a bit of encouraging news...

    The Globe and Mail
    Doug Saunders
    Feb 14, 2007

    What if they had a revolution and nobody came?
    Iran's baby boom created a generation that now feels stifled by the spirit of 1979

    TEHRAN -- The first thing you see in the sprawling shrine of Ayatollah Khomaini on a recent Wednesday afternoon is the small crowd of visiting Iranians, mostly poor villagers, gathered around his Plexiglas-walled tomb, offering banknotes and prayers to the man who launched the world's first and only Islamic revolution.

    Look across the half-built shrine in the outskirts of Tehran, and you'll see something very different. There, along the marble wall on the opposite side of the enormous chamber, a dozen young couples sit together, hold hands, chat quietly and stare into one another's eyes, precisely the sort of activity that Mr. Khomaini's revolution banished.

    "It's what you'd call a make-out place," one young man says. "If we were holding hands on the street or in the shops, the morality police would get us. But they'd never think of entering this place, so we come here after classes."

    While none of the behaviour here would be described by a Westerner as making out, in Iran it is a crime for unmarried men and women to congregate or physically touch, and if caught by the morality police or bands of Islamic vigilantes, they can be punished with flogging. A generation ago, people just obeyed. Now, all over Iran, in rich neighbourhoods and poor villages, you see young people finding clever ways around the rules.

    Here, in countless scenes like these, are the bizarre contradictions that govern Iran today and that underpin its awkward relationship with the outside world. This is, on paper, a society that is ruled by Islamic law to an extent unknown anywhere else, governed by mullahs who impose their strict readings of the Koran on every aspect of public and private life.

    "It is definitely a totalitarian government," says Tehran movie director Dariush Mehrjui, whose acclaimed films have been censored and banned under various Iranian regimes since 1966, and who says that things are worse now than he has ever seen them. "But it is not at all a closed society.

    As a society, this is nothing at all like Eastern Europe under the Soviets." Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, since he won the office in 2005, laws have become more
    restrictive: Dissenting newspapers have repeatedly been banned, critical views in universities have been aggressively repressed, bloggers have been locked in prison and primary- and secondary-school curriculums, according to United Nations workers, have been changed so that they consist mainly of prayer.

    Yet despite the laws, Iranian society is in many ways more open and liberated than in most countries in the Middle East, certainly more so than in Arab states that fear Iran's influence. In places like Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive cars, shake hands with men or wear anything that isn't black. Iranians staunchly defend their freedoms, and seem to be pushing for more.

    Well-informed Iranians say that Mr. Ahmadinejad faces a conundrum: Just as his government is trying to export its Islamic revolution to the wider Middle East, through endorsement and likely support of movements in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and many other places, it is facing a new generation at home that has diminishing interest in those values.

    And a growing number of people here are quietly predicting that the Iranian revolution will likely run out of steam due to mounting public dissatisfaction and economic malaise, like the Soviet Union did in the late 1980s, unless it is strengthened by some outside threat such as a U.S. invasion.

    Iran is facing the largest baby boom in the world: Between 1979 and the late 1980s, its population doubled, from 35 million to 70 million, with an average of almost eight children for every family. That number has plummeted back to slightly more than two children to a family at an equally amazing rate, but the country is left with 70 per cent of its population under 30 years of age. Mr. Ahmadinejad is gambling, according to those close to him, that this postrevolutionary generation will embrace his rigidly conservative values as they get older.

    "What they're saying in his cabinet is that they just need to hold on to power for two years, until most of these kids are over 30 and start having families, and then it will all be all right, because they'll become less rebellious and more serious about the revolution," said a man who works closely with Mr. Ahmadinejad's party.

    But those who observe this generation closely say that the opposite seems to be happening: As they come of age, the Iranian baby boomers are decreasingly interested in the values that led their parents to overthrow the U.S.-backed regime of the Shah, expel the government and impose an authoritarian regime that is a mixture of radical Islam and Soviet-era economics.

    "According to our research, this generation has a totally different point of view toward the revolution; they are not the young people of 30 years ago," says Amir Nikpay, a University of Tehran anthropologist who has just completed a major study of the values and beliefs of Iran's enormous baby-boom generation. "This generation has no connection to revolutionary values."

    A day later, on Thursday night in central Tehran, another typical scene: Four young women pile out of a car, all of them screaming at uniformed police officer. "How dare you ask us for a bribe! We weren't even doing anything wrong," the driver, her red head scarf barely covering her hair, shouts repeatedly. The mustachioed officer mutters an inaudible response.

    She raises both arms and strikes him in the chest, pushing him away. The policeman looks bewildered. As a crowd watches but does nothing, she pummels him. He backs off, gets into his car, and leaves the scene. The women drive off.

    That sort of grassroots rebellion against the social mores of the revolution is increasingly visible.

    For instance, despite the Islamic regime's absolute ban on alcohol and drugs, Iran now has two million heroin addicts, the highest proportion in the Middle East. According to the government, most are under 30.

    Mr. Nikpay and other scholars have found that Iranians born after the revolution are devout Muslims, perhaps more universally than before, but that they believe strongly that religion should be a private matter, a major transformation of belief that has also been detected in Turkey and other countries.

    The implications, for an Islamist government, could be staggering.

    "In this generation, when they have a decision, they refer to their own personal beliefs, not to the beliefs of their family or community or government," Mr. Nikpay said. "The majority of this young generation are believers in Islam, but this majority is also saying that they want to separate the church from the state, and that the regime, the state, cannot base its legitimacy on religion."

    Signs of rebellion are increasing. Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian feminist who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 for her work, is in the midst of a surprisingly successful petition campaign to get a million women to put their names on a statement denouncing Islamic law as harmful to women.

    It is unique in being directly targeted at the central values of the revolution itself. While it is generally acceptable to criticize the President and other elected figures -- they are regularly parodied on state-controlled radio -- to question the Supreme Leader or the revolution itself is an unmentionable taboo. While a number of the women associated with the campaign have been arrested and imprisoned, it does not appear to be losing steam.

    Such dissent appears to be mounting. The opposition to Mr. Ahmadinejad in parliament this month has come from parties that, while more pro-Western and supportive of fewer restrictions and a more liberal economy, are still loyal to the revolution.

    The quieter opposition on the street, driven by Internet connections and TV signals, is coming from an entire generation of people who seem to have little interest in the principles that brought the ayatollahs to power.

    I have met a few Iranian women, and you will not find them wearing Muslim garb, a headscarf for the occasional trip to the mosque, that's about it. Strong women, all.

    Tuesday, February 13, 2007

    Daw'ah in Herouxville, Quebec

    Note: This visit by the Muslim women is a typical Daw'ah ploy, soon to be followed by a more stern rebuke for the good town of Herouxville. Then off come the gloves, out come the lawyers. And Andre Drouin, the town councillor, looks to be ready for a good fight. This is re: my Feb 2, 2007 post.

    Muslim women visit Que. town that passed code of 'norms'
    Canadian Press (National Post)

    HEROUXVILLE, Que. — Clad in traditional Islamic head scarves, a delegation of Muslim women paid a visit Sunday to the Quebec town that passed a controversial code aimed at potential immigrants.
    Six women, accompanied by a handful of male and female Muslim students, appealed for changes to a so-called “code of life,” which lays out societal norms for Herouxville, 165 kilometres northeast of Montreal.

    The declaration, passed by the town council last month, says a person’s face should not be covered, except at Halloween, and that children should sing Christmas songs in December.

    It warns would-be immigrants that women can vote, drive and dance if they choose. It says adults can drink alcohol and children cannot bring weapons, religiously symbolic or not, to school despite a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that has already upheld that right for Sikh Canadians.

    Although the list has no legal weight, it clearly targets religious minorities, said May Haidar, one of the women who made the journey to the community of 1,300 on Sunday afternoon.

    “We’re disappointed by this `code of life,”’ Haidar said.

    “It’s apparent there is a misconception and a wrong view of Muslim women, so we want to open a dialogue to let them know us and, of course, we want to know them.”

    The town has already toned down the declaration, handing out another version Sunday that removed references to stoning women to death or burning them with acid.
    The council said in a statement that the media misinterpreted some aspects of the documents. But much of the code remained the same and the council repeated a call for changes to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to avoid “unreasonable accommodation” of minorities.
    Andre Drouin, the town councillor behind the list of norms, said residents were eager to welcome the visitors and prove they are not racists.

    But Drouin was unrepentant about the list and said it will stay put.

    “No major change,” he told reporters.

    He said the council has received thousands of e-mails from all over the world. “We’re not alone in this,” Drouin said. “The e-mails we’ve received… they all say the same thing: `We’re behind you.”’

    One nearby town has passed a resolution in support of Herouxville but has not adopted their own "norms.” Another has passed a resolution in support of multiculturalism. The debate over accommodation of ethnic, cultural and religious minorities continues to rage in Quebec and Premier Jean Charest has named a special commission to study the issue.

    The Canadian Islamic Congress is still considering a human rights complaint against the Herouxville council.

    Haidar, a member of the congress, said no decision has been made.
    “We’re going to see what is the reaction from officials in Herouxville and then we’ll see,” she said. About 50 residents came out to meet the women Sunday, sipping coffee as they waited.

    Louise Trudel spoke at length with one of the visitors. She said it was nice but accomplished nothing. “We didn’t even speak about the `code de vie,”’ she said. “At a certain point it (accommodation of minorities) must stop.”

    Her debate partner, Samira Laouni, felt differently. “For me it was very beneficial,” she said. “I didn’t leave my kids with my husband for nothing.

    Another note: Were it not for the encouragement Mr. Drouin received in the many e-mails, it would be much more difficult to hang tough. Keep those e-mails going out to him.
    He's about to find out what real pressure is...

    Sunday, February 11, 2007

    Dr. Sanity Is Right

    This is not the first time Dr. Sanity has nailed the Left...

    Dr. Sanity

    Shining a psychological spotlight on a few of the insanities of life
    Saturday, February 10, 2007


    Rarely do you find an example that so clearly demonstrates the real agenda of the neo-marxist fascism of today's political left.

    In "The Four Pillars of the Socialist Revival", I identified four key epistemological and ethical strategies that provide the foundation of the ideological agenda of the socialist and communist remnants aggressively pursuing power in the 21st century.

    They are:

    *Radical Environmentalism - ("humans are behind the imminent disaster of global warming and only aggressive government intervention can prevent disaster")

    *Political Correctness - ("reality, truth and morality are all subjective")

    *Multiculturalism - ("all cultures are equally good except for western culture which is uniquely bad; who are we to say that freedom and democracy are any better than tyranny and oppression?")

    *Terrorism - ("terrorism is the only option of those who are oppressed by the western imperialist capitalists and is perfectly justified. George Bush/America/the West is the real terrorist")

    A big h/t to Dr Sanity

    Go read her whole post:

    **And while I'm on the subject, here is more of the Leftists attack on our freedom:**

    Thought Police Strike Again

    Newest 'Hate Crime' Bill Violates Constitution: Attempts End-Run Around Free Speech

    h/t -
    February 5, 2007

    Lancaster, PA: The Constitution Party, the country's third largest political party in terms of voter registration, warns Americans that the latest federal 'hate-crime' bill introduced in the House of Representatives is a dangerous threat to Constitutionally protected rights. H.R. 254, introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, is another version of proposed legislation passed by the House in 2005 and the Senate in 2004. Only strong public outcry and a Republican controlled Congress kept this type of legislation from becoming law. Now that Democrats are in charge there's a tough fight ahead to keep this dangerous bill from passing. H.R. 254 would make certain types of speech a federal offense. So-called 'hate crimes' legislation is dangerous for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the blatant unconstitutionality of such laws. 'Hate crime' laws would allow federal "thought police" to interfere in the law enforcement authority of states and localities - something our founders were clear was NOT to be allowed.

    H.R. 254 would require every state to pass and enforce 'anti-hate' laws. It would outlaw stating a "bias" against certain 'federally protected' groups such as homosexuals. Constitution Party National Chairman Jim Clymer warned "So-called 'hate crime' laws could mean the Bible would be considered 'hate literature' and preaching from it would be 'hate speech' because of references to religious teachings on homosexuality or other behaviors. The Orwellian implications of these types of laws mean Bible-believing Christians could become criminals simply because they spoke out about their beliefs."

    Citing a 2004 case in Philadelphia, where 11 Christians were charged under a 'hate-crimes' statute for peacefully protesting at a gay rights rally, Mr. Clymer, a practicing attorney, said "Law-abiding Americans became criminals because they exercised a right our forebears fought and died for". "By introducing the Anti-Defamation League's (ADL) federal 'hate crime' bill into Congress for the second time, Rep. Jackson-Lee shows she's bound and determined to stifle your First Amendment Rights no matter how many times she has to make a run at it", noted Constitution Party Communication Director Mary Starrett who added: "The Constitution Party condemns H.R. 254 as an affront to our liberty. Today, ADL-inspired 'thought crime' laws are stripping nations of free speech.

    "In Canada and many European countries, it is a crime to use the internet to criticize 'federally protected' groups, such as homosexuals and Muslims. In England, two men who called Islam 'wicked' were indicted under Britain's 'hate crime' law and now face seven years in prison. Those horrors do not belong in America!"

    Referring to the group behind this bill, Clymer noted: "Congresswoman Jackson-Lee's H.R. 254 is being pushed by the same group, ADL, responsible for the British law that says truth cannot be used as a defense in court. only the complaints by members of specially protected groups who say their feelings have been hurt are being allowed. The reality of what these types of laws are doing and have done to people across the world should be a chilling reminder to Americans to oppose these laws while we still can" warned Clymer.

    This is not about some gay boys' rights. Truth be told, in my day they were called 'queers', because such outlandish, decadent behavior was not tolerated. Full stop. Ok, today's world is different, more accepting and tolerant, right? Then answer me this. If the world is such a tolerant and accepting place today, why is it that the dangers of self-censorship can be seen throughout all of the science disciplines, the media, publishers of books and magazines, writers, journalists (not necessarily two different animals), teachers, law enforcement, and yes, politicians? Self-censorship invades our conversations with peers, our behavior among strangers, and certainly to an increasing extent, in the blogging world - as witnessed in YouTube's zealous active censorship of what it considers objectionable.

    What is the net result of all this self-correcting, Politically Correct speech and work sanctions?

    Well, it creates fear. Fear of sanction. Fear of being seen as insensitive, fear of being considered racist and bigoted, fear of rejection by ones peers, fear of loss of job and income, fear of being passed over for grant money, if the wrong areas of scientific research are pursued, fear of others' opinions in the political arena. Ah, the threat of lawsuit, of losing one's livelihood, threat of having one's reputation stained, the threat of being bombed! - these are all operating in our lives today to some extent.

    FEAR- FEAR - FEAR. Is it worth it? Who stands to gain from this fear-mongering, designed to produce apprehension and doubt? Well, the environmentalists for sure. Never mind that our planet has seen countless ice ages come and go, without any apparent help from humankind.
    Who stands to gain if I am labeled a racist? Not the blacks who live next door, or indeed any of the average 'people of color' I work with. Al Sharpton? Most assuredly, racists of his ilk, J.J., or any black politician would automatically milk it, if they could get some recognition, some perceived moment of, "Aha! gotcha, you whitebread mofo." But I have no name recognition, therefore would be of no use to the Al Sharptons or the Jesse Jacksons.

    Nevertheless, the threat of censure, willingness to punish a white man for hurting the black's feelings is very real. The blacks must be constantly reminded that they are the victim, so the racial profiling scam can flourish. Again, only more laws can protect him from the bigoted white man. And men such as Al Sharpton to make sure everyone is paying attention.

    Any offense, taken individually, just doesn't add up to keeping the threats and the fear-mongering going. But taken together, these provide a nanny government with fuel to make laws and more laws, outlawing such offenses. It's simple. The government will protect us from ourselves. The government will pass laws protecting our environment from its inhabitants - laws protecting you from me, never mind there are already on the books a fairly complex set of laws governing the social interaction of its citizens. No, no - we need more laws (and lawyers), and a relentless bureaucracy to implement them. And the government has 'useful idiots' aplenty. Couldn't function without them. In a democratic country such as ours, there are just enough checks and balances to keep the wolves off balance. With constant vigilance, may it always be so.

    In our universities, the students face a constant and pervasive threat of censure, of outright loss of freedom of speech - or worse. Their newspapers are under attack, their clubs, their right to protest is met with an iron hand. It's really outrageous, and it comes from people (usually) acting out of a well-intentioned credo, to protect and preserve liberalism and cultural relativism by whatever means available. And it's getting more pervasive, with the inclination of a great many colleges to continue creating 'sensitivity programs', and making them mandatory.

    Does anybody in their right mind think that there will not be a price for these clumsy attempts at social engineering? The pendulum will swing back the other way. It's Nature's way.
    Nature, be it human or otherwise, will always win out.


    San Francisco State University Investigates Students for Anti-Terrorism Protest

    By Foundation for Individual Rights in Education


    SAN FRANCISCO, Calif., February 8, 2007—In a profound display of disrespect for free speech, San Francisco State University (SFSU) is investigating its College Republicans for hosting an anti-terrorism rally on campus in which participants stepped on makeshift Hezbollah and Hamas flags. After students filed a complaint claiming they were offended because the flags bore the word “Allah,” SFSU initiated an investigation into accusations of incitement, creation of a hostile environment, and incivility. Members of the College Republicans then contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for assistance.

    “At a public university, stepping on a flag—even burning an American flag—is without question a constitutionally protected act of political protest,” FIRE Vice President Robert Shibley said. “The right to protest is at the very heart of the First Amendment, and means nothing if only inoffensive expression is permitted. The College Republicans “offense” took place on October 17, 2006, when they held an anti-terrorism protest in SFSU’s Malcolm X Plaza. During the protest, several members of the group stepped on butcher paper they had painted to resemble the flags of Hamas and

    Unbeknownst to the protestors, the flags they had copied contain the word “Allah” written in Arabic script.On October 26, a student filed a formal complaint with the university against the College Republicans. By December, Director of the Office of Student Programs and Leadership
    OSPLD had concluded its investigation and had passed the case along to the Student Organization Hearing Panel (SOHP), a panel of students, faculty, and staff members who will deliver a verdict on the charges. The College Republicans contacted FIRE, which wrote to SFSU President Robert A. Corrigan on January 23, 2007, to protest SFSU’s unlawful actions and to remind this public university of its obligations to protect students’ constitutional rights. FIRE’s letter emphasized that “incitement” and creating a “hostile environment” are legal terms that are not applicable to the College Republicans’ actions of stepping on a flag. FIRE wrote that “SFSU has a duty to uphold the First Amendment rights of all of its students, even if their expressive activity offends the religious sensibilities of some.” SFSU replied to FIRE’s letter on January 29 by saying that the university is investigating the complaint “to give all parties the confidence that they will be heard and fairly treated by a panel that includes representatives of all the University’s key constituencies.”

    students report that OSPLD has the power to dismiss baseless charges after concluding an investigation. SFSU’s student group misconduct procedures also give OSPLD Director Greenwell the option of settling the complaint with an “informal resolution of charges.” Instead, Greenwell passed the case along for trial before SOHP. If SOHP finds the College Republicans guilty, punishment could range from a letter of warning to the revocation of recognition.“In a free society, neither SFSU nor any other agency of the government has the power to investigate a group simply for disrespecting a religious symbol,” FIRE’s Shibley said. “By continuing this investigation, SFSU is not just charting new territory in campus repression, but its actions come into direct conflict with the United States Constitution. The charges against the College Republicans must be immediately dismissed.” FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America can be viewed at www.thefire.org.


    Robert Shibley, Vice President, FIRE: 215-717-3473; robert@thefire.org

    Friday, February 09, 2007

    Arab-Americans like "24"


    In Defense of '24'

    An Arab-American defends the real-life Bauers.

    WSJ Opinion Journal
    Wednesday, February 7, 2007

    "I am an Arab-American as well as a fan of "24." The two things are not mutually exclusive,despite what the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other such groups have to say about this season's opening episodes possibly increasing anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudice in American society. Most of the terrorists represented in "24" through the years have been Arab Muslims. Why? Well, probably because most terrorists today are, in fact, Arab Muslims. As a descendant of Syrian Muslims, I am very well aware that the majority of Muslims world-wide are peaceful, hard working, and law abiding. That still does not change the fact that the greatest terrorist threat to the U.S. today comes not from the ETA, the IRA, etc., but from one group: Islamic terrorists."

    "And this is what makes "24" a compelling drama every week. Instead of pretending Islamic terrorists don't exist, the show presents frighteningly real worst-case scenarios perpetrated by Osama bin Laden's followers. So CAIR thinks it's over the top for the terrorists in "24" to blow up Los Angeles with a nuke? Please, if bin Laden and his crew had nukes, most of us would be way too dead to argue over such points."

    "There is a dangerous trend in the U.S. today that involves skirting the truth at the risk of offending any individual or group. When Bill Cosby talks to African-Americans about self-respect and responsibility, and says publicly what many have been saying privately for years, he's branded a "reactionary," "misinformed," "judgmental," and so on. When "24" confronts America's worst fears about al Qaeda--whose goal remains to kill as many Americans as possible whenever possible--the show is said to be guilty of fueling anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudice."

    "Well, here's the hard, cold truth: When Islamic terrorists stop being a threat to America's survival, viewers will lose interest in "24," because it will have lost its relevancy. Until such time, I will continue to watch "24"--because, believe it or not, the idea that there are Jack Bauers out there in real life risking their lives to save ours does mean something to me. And as for "24" causing a possible backlash against Muslims and Arab-Americans, where's the evidence of that? The show is now in its sixth season and there hasn't been one recorded incident of any viewer ever slurring or attacking any Muslim or Arab-American because of something that happened on the show. More to the point, in the latest episode President Palmer stated, "The American Muslim community is the greatest line of defense against these terrorists." He advocates strengthening ties with Islamic leaders across the U.S., and is opposed to measures that would in any way infringe upon the constitutional rights of Arab Americans."

    "That said, I would certainly welcome more characters in movies, TV programs and novels who reflect the overall Arab-American experience. Truth is, most of us don't have bomb-making skills or a desire to become human missiles. And there are Muslim and Arab-American CTU heroes out there, as well as doctors, superdads, women scientists, etc. But just as it took Saul Bellow to give literary voice to the Jewish-American experience, we need our own storytellers to weave the pastiche of tales that make up Arab-American life."

    "In the meantime, the next time a journalist decides to report on Arab-American concerns about shows like "24," maybe he could actually talk to someone other than CAIR and the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and seek out Arab-Americans with a different point of view."

    "We actually do exist."

    "And maybe that same reporter could take a closer look at CAIR. Ask CAIR about the Holy Land Foundation and its support of Hamas. Ask it about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the CAIR board member who was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in that case--yet still sits on CAIR's board. Look a little closer, and maybe you'll find that CAIR has good reason to get nervous about shows like '24.'"

    "Because terrorists and their supporters continue to hide among us in plain sight, we need Jack Bauer, now more than ever."

    Mr. Dabul is a free-lance writer and the author of Deadline, a novel about modern terrorism.

    Thursday, February 08, 2007

    What's Washington Up To?

    from NRO

    February 7, 2007 6:45 AM
    By Deroy Murdock

    Stick Ethanol in the Museum of Unintended Consequences
    (Washington has found a way to raise the price of fuel and tortillas at the same time.)
    ...and piss the Mexicans off.

    Many Democrats and some Republicans applauded President Bush’s State-of-the-Union proposal for a 20 percent reduction in gasoline use over the next ten years, largely through greater reliance on ethanol. Bush’s idea, however, is adding corn-based fuel to the fire in Mexico City. Existing federal laws that mandate ethanol in U.S. gasoline have diverted trainloads of corn from America’s food supply-chain to ethanol factories. This boosted U.S. corn prices nearly 80 percent in 2006.

    That’s bad enough if you buy corn on the cob for a weekend barbecue. But it’s much worse if you are a poor Mexican surviving on corn tortillas. The price of a kilo (2.2 pounds) of tortillas recently has shot up 55 percent, from 5.5 to 8.5 pesos. Poor Mexicans are not taking this sitting down. In fact, some 75,000 of them stood up on January 31 in Mexico City’s giant Zocalo plaza. More than 200 unions and social-action groups organized protests to denounce the rising price of this basic Mexican staple.

    “[Felipe] Calderon stole the elections, and now he’s stealing the tortillas!” screamed one banner, chiding Mexico’s narrowly elected, new president. According to the Associated Press, the normally free-market Calderon has been trying to get manufacturers to follow a gentlemen’s agreement to keep tortilla prices flat. How has American energy policy inspired political instability in Mexico? This is a pristine example of The Law of Unintended Consequences. When big government does big things, all sorts of wacky stuff happens, and rarely for the good.

    Uncle Sam gives ethanol manufacturers a 51-cent-per-gallon subsidy. Anyone who wants to import ethanol is welcome to — provided he pays the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff slapped on ethanol imports. This is one reason for another unintended consequence: gasoline prices shot up last summer since ethanol, largely produced in the Midwest, had to be shipped south and to both coasts to be blended, by law, with gasoline. Importing Brazilian ethanol into Atlantic and Pacific ports would have made sense, but then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert hated the idea, since that would put competitive pressure on his corn-farming Illinois constituents.“I don’t see an economic plus in it right now,” Hastert sniffed. What other unintended consequences could the federal government’s ethanol-mania propel?

    First, poor Mexicans will feel even poorer as tortilla prices stay high or climb even higher. At the margin, watch for more of them to throw up their hands and head north, to a neighborhood near you.

    Second, as fuel companies buy more and more corn, prices will rise for corn flakes, corn bread, popcorn, corn syrup, and other food items. Grocery bills should grow, at least marginally.

    Third, humans eat corn, but so do cows, pigs, and chickens. Meat prices will rise, hurting U.S. consumers and making American meat exports less competitive on world markets.

    Fourth, if they have not already, members of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee will notice these increases in consumer and producer prices. Fearing inflation, they could start increasing interest rates. That would slow the economy and push into foreclosure more Americans with variable home mortgages.

    This economic damage will accelerate if President Bush promotes, or if the federal government mandates, a one-fifth drop in gasoline use by 2017. According to estimates by Cato Institute scholars Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren, writing in the Winter 2007 issue of The Milken Institute Review, “If all the corn produced in America in 2005 were dedicated to ethanol production…it would have reduced U.S. demand for gasoline by, at most, 12 percent.” So, to reach Bush’s 20 percent goal, corn production must grow to 167 percent of its 2005 levels, and every kernel must go into ethanol. Kiss your corn pudding goodbye.

    Cultivating that much corn will require even more farmland. Securing it likely will require chopping down the same trees that inhale the carbon dioxide that humans and cars exhale. If Al Gore is telling the truth, this will increase global warming. So one of the environmentalists’ favorite tools for fighting global warming could actually exacerbate it. Meanwhile, as the Wall Street Journal editorialized on January 27, “ethanol increases the level of nitrous oxides in the atmosphere and thus causes smog.”

    How lucky we are to have a government big enough to tie its own shoelaces together.

    (from WSJ)
    No wonder, then, that the price of corn rose nearly 80% in 2006 alone. Corn growers and their Congressmen love this, and naturally they are planting as much as they can. Look for a cornfield in your neighborhood soon. Yet for those of us who like our corn flakes in the morning, the higher price isn't such good news. It's even worse for cattle, poultry and hog farmers trying to adjust to suddenly exorbitant prices for feed corn--to pick just one industry example. The price of corn is making America's meat-packing industries, which are major exporters, less competitive.

    What’s worse, the supposed environmental benefits of ethanol just aren’t true:

    As an oxygenate, ethanol increases the level of nitrous oxides in the atmosphere and thus causes smog. The scientific literature is also divided about whether the energy inputs required to produce ethanol actually exceed its energy output. It takes fertilizer to grow the corn, and fuel to ship and process it, and so forth. Even the most optimistic estimate says ethanol’s net energy output is a marginal improvement of only 1.3 to one. For purposes of comparison, energy outputs from gasoline exceed inputs by an estimated 10 to one.

    And because corn-based ethanol is less efficient than ordinary gasoline, using it to fuel cars means you need more gas to drive the same number of miles. This is not exactly a route to “independence” from Mideast, Venezuelan or any other tainted source of oil. Ethanol also cannot be shipped using existing pipelines (being alcohol, it eats the seals), so it must be trucked or sent by barge or train to its thousand-and-one destinations, at least until separate pipelines are built.

    If nothing else, the continued survival of the ethanol subsidies is a testament to political power.

    Good Lord. You mean to tell me that with all the geniuses on Capitol Hill, they couldn't think this one through? Well, I had just as soon start subsidizing the freaking Mexicans, so they can eat their godamn tortillas, rather than have the economy destabilized further in Old Mexico, as we used to call it. Is there anything Washington can't fuck up? (I knew you were gonna say that.)

    Can't you just picture the Green Party's enthusiasm, if Washington starts talking Nuclear Power? Hey, if Iran can build nuclear reactors for "peaceful purposes", maybe it's time we put that back on the table. Who wants it? Nobody. But then who wants the Wahhabi Caliphate in their backyard, either? It's beginning to look like
    : 1) we either develop an alternative fuel, and dry up the Islamists's money, or 2) we go kick the shit out of the Middle East (No, I mean REALLY kick the shit out of them), and take their toys away from them.

    Where's Churchill when you need him? Oh, not in Merry Old England, aka the British Dhimmihood, the Multicultural pisspot of the world.

    h/t little green footballs

    Tuesday, February 06, 2007

    Taking the fight to Islam

    Taking the fight to Islam

    In 1989, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali Muslim, supported the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. But on moving to Europe her views changed and she turned against Islam. Two years ago she fled Holland after the brutal murder of her artistic collaborator Theo van Gogh. Who is this fierce critic who lives under the constant threat of death?

    Andrew Anthony
    Sunday February 4, 2007
    The Observer

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not the only critic of Islam who lives with round-the-clock protection. But surely none wears their endangered status with greater style. The Dutch Somali human-rights campaigner looks like a fashion model and talks like a public intellectual. Tall and slender with rod-straight posture and a schoolgirl smile, she is a thinker of stunning clarity, able to express ideas in her third language with a precision that very few could achieve in their first. This combination of elegance and eloquence would be impressive in any circumstances. Under threat of death, it is nothing short of incredible....

    the article goes on to say:

    When it comes to words, Hirsi Ali is not one to look for the mincer. She speaks in a language that makes no concessions to the softening euphemisms of political correctness. Those immersed in circumspection and ever vigilant to the contemporary sin of offence are bound to ask themselves if she's allowed to say what she says. In this respect her predicament is reminiscent of the moment in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone lights a cigarette under interrogation in a police station. She's told that's it's non-smoking environment and she replies: 'So arrest me.' Hirsi Ali's life is already in jeopardy. She's long past the point of polite restraint.

    Some observers find her forthright approach refreshing and, indeed, intoxicating, but many
    recoil from her unadorned conviction. Writing in the New York Review of Books, the historian Timothy Garton Ash described Hirsi Ali as a 'slightly simplistic Enlightenment fundamentalist'. Last year when Garton Ash chaired a discussion with Hirsi Ali at the ICA, he seemed both to admire the incisiveness of her quietly spoken logic and to wince at its unshakeable conclusions.

    'For him,' Hirsi Ali laughs, 'the Enlightenment is complex. For me, it isn't. There's nothing complex about it.' A student of 17th- and 18th-century political ideas, she doesn't mean that she thinks the Enlightenment was some kind of uniform philosophical movement. The simplicity, for her, is the legacy of the Enlightenment, the things we take for granted about Western sociopolitical culture: the rule of law, the rights of the individual, freedom of expression. To Hirsi Ali these are bedrock precepts that should not be compromised in the name of cultural diversity.

    To read the whole article, go here.

    Monday, February 05, 2007

    Student Council Passes Diversity Pledge

    Student Council Passes Diversity Pledge Aimed At First-Year Students
    American Renaissance
    University of Virginia
    Feb 1, 2007

    Student Council passed a resolution last night to institute an undergraduate pledge against prejudice. The legislation is designed to give students a chance: “to reflect on issues of community diversity and multi-vocality after first-year orientation”, and recognize “the history of institutionalized inequalities at the University.”
    Diversity Initiatives Co-Chairs Ryan McElveen and Yvonne Ng sponsored the legislation along with Executive Vice President Nick Jordan. During debate of the legislation, several representatives expressed concern over whether the names of the pledge’s signatories should be available to the public.
    Law School Rep. Brendan Dignan said releasing names would create what he called a “forced message” as well as a “reciprocal black list” in which students who did not sign the pledge might be discriminated against.

    Other Council members said making names available shows an effort on behalf of University students to create a friendlier environment. “The pledge shows a proactive stance that will give comfort to people in the community,” Jordan said.

    According to McElveen, the push for the pledge began four months ago and stemmed from similar initiative by University Law students following an incident involving two gay Law students.


    Judging from the Comments (see below), they ain't gonna take this lying down. If fact the comments are the reason I'm posting this. Some of the comments are by students, hard to tell for sure but they are not happy campers.

    And also in the state of Virginia, there is this:
    more ass-kissing all around for the good folks of Virginia...

    Feb 1, 2007

    Virginia moved forward on Wednesday to apologize for slavery, something no president or legislature has done. The Virginia House Rules Committee unanimously approved a measure that expresses “profound regret” for the state’s role in the slave trade and other injustices against African-Americans and Native Americans.

    The original proposal by Del. Donald McEachin, a Democrat, called for “atonement.”

    “This is a good first step,” says McEachin, whose great-grandfather Archie was a slave.

    He says the wording was changed because some lawmakers said an apology could lead to reparations, or cash payments, to slave descendants.

    -HEH, does someone smell MONEY?

    Diversity Pledge Comments follow:

    “Other Council members said making names available shows an effort on behalf of University students to create a friendlier environment.”Yeah I'm sure their intent is to create a friendlier environment. Sounds more like the intent is to force those who don't sign into signing.

    Posted by Mike Harrigan at 5:06 PM on February 1

    According to McElveen, the push for the pledge began four months ago and stemmed from a similar initiative by University Law students following an incident involving two gay Law students. Gee, I wonder what that incident could have been. A conservative student voicing objections to homosexual “marriage” perhaps. As Pink Floyd said, “We don’t need no … thought control.”

    Posted by sofita at 5:07 PM on February 1

    These silly, self-appointed Torquemadas must feel so virtuous sitting around dreaming up schemes to make gullible 18 year olds fall into the sewer of multi-culti diversity worship. In reality they’re not only frightening, but lack only the brown shirts of the Nazi era in coercing people to bend to their will. I would hope that most students would resist such obvious blackmail, but I would probably be wrong. Resist, write false names, just don’t give in!

    Posted by Veritas at 5:33 PM on February 1

    Read more comments