I have long been expecting (and hoping) that the relentless attack of the enviromentalists would lead to the resurgence of the nuclear power industry. It has long been farily obvious that solar, lunar, hydroelcetric and all other forms of so-called "natural
energy" cannot make up the massive needs of modern society, nor can they replace oil.
But nuclear power can. And since it is completely clean save for its waste (which is far easier to manage than the exhaust of most other forms of energy production, it is really the only practical solution. Except that the envinromental movement hates it. However, they reap what they sow, and their constant drumbeat of negativity (aided and abetted by their clueless-as-usual useful idiots in the media) has roused rational people to respond.
The United Kingdom's Daily Mail today writes that leading scientists announce that nuclear power will save the save world.
In a nutshell, precisely.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Breaking the Law On Illegals
What part of "illegal" do the Oakland and San Francisco city governments fail to understand? I read in an article in SFGate magazine that Oakland is instructing its employees to refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials' efforts to deport illegal aliens.
This is unbelievable. What part of America do these morons come from where it is OK for elected municipal officials to refuse to cooperate with the federal government? hey, folks, illegal is illegal. And the federal government has every right and in fact is expected by most citizens to do its utmost to enforce the laws of the United States. You as city officials do not have the right to choose which laws to obey or not.
i would like to see the US Justice Department swoop down and arrest these idiots, then expose them to the full force of the law. Federal Law, that is. However, with the sad-sack Gonzales as Attorney General and the pro-illegal alien George Bush in the Presidency, I doubt we will see that. Somewhere the federal government has lost it's courage to prosecute those who openly break federal law. Janet Reno at least had the intestinal fortitude to break down doors in defiance of court orders when she was acting to fuurther President Clinton's "progressive" goals. Why is it that Republicans lack courage to do what is right, whether or not the New York Times or the San Francisco city government agrees or not?
Once again folks. Illegal is illegal. These people are here knowing that they are breaking the law, and making it harder for many legal immigrants with their arrogance, their refusal to respect American culture and their open allegiance to changing our culture to be as failed as their own. The Border Patrol needs to deport these people after a term of (unpaid) hard labor. Doing what Oakland and San Francisco are doing simply encourages more of them to come. And that is something our country does not need. We need more legal immigrants like my friends in the software industry from China, Japan, and other countries where the ethic of hard work, family and law-abiding is ingrained, not useless criminals like most of our southern imports.
This is unbelievable. What part of America do these morons come from where it is OK for elected municipal officials to refuse to cooperate with the federal government? hey, folks, illegal is illegal. And the federal government has every right and in fact is expected by most citizens to do its utmost to enforce the laws of the United States. You as city officials do not have the right to choose which laws to obey or not.
i would like to see the US Justice Department swoop down and arrest these idiots, then expose them to the full force of the law. Federal Law, that is. However, with the sad-sack Gonzales as Attorney General and the pro-illegal alien George Bush in the Presidency, I doubt we will see that. Somewhere the federal government has lost it's courage to prosecute those who openly break federal law. Janet Reno at least had the intestinal fortitude to break down doors in defiance of court orders when she was acting to fuurther President Clinton's "progressive" goals. Why is it that Republicans lack courage to do what is right, whether or not the New York Times or the San Francisco city government agrees or not?
Once again folks. Illegal is illegal. These people are here knowing that they are breaking the law, and making it harder for many legal immigrants with their arrogance, their refusal to respect American culture and their open allegiance to changing our culture to be as failed as their own. The Border Patrol needs to deport these people after a term of (unpaid) hard labor. Doing what Oakland and San Francisco are doing simply encourages more of them to come. And that is something our country does not need. We need more legal immigrants like my friends in the software industry from China, Japan, and other countries where the ethic of hard work, family and law-abiding is ingrained, not useless criminals like most of our southern imports.
More Global Hysteria
From the media, naturally. However, in their rush to declare global warming a natural disaster and to try to tell us what we ought to do (since they of course know better than we peons, who should be grateful to them for their 'guidance'), they appear to have (as usual) overlooked the fact that not all scientists agree with them! Far from the "consensus" that the media loves to portray on the topic of global wartming, there are many reputable scientists who do not believe that global warming is either a major issue nor human-caused.
Due to work issues, posting has been light yesterday and today, but this was too much to pass up. I have highlighted other global warming skeptics in this space before, but today the Cornwall Standard Freeholder out of Ontario, Canada announced that The current debate about global warming is "completely irrational," and people need to start taking a different approach, say two Ottawa scientists.
The scientists in question are Tim Patterson from Carleton University and Tom Harris, from the National Resources Stewardship Project. Supporting Patterson's findings, Harris said,
Meanwhile, the paper reports that "Patterson explained CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential plant food. Billions of taxpayers' dollars are spent to control the emissions of this benign gas, in the mistaken belief that they can stop climate change, he said."
I recall the media's rush in the 1970s to declare (with similarly thin evidence) that the next Ice Age was upon us. This is very similar, at least in my mind. It wsould be nice if reporters would at least TRY to address issues like this with an open mind once in a while. But their pack mentality, coupled with their almost total inability to think rationally and objectively (especiazlly when their emotions are involved) makes them very susceptible to being manipulated by "progressive" groups like the environmentalists.
Personally, I understand my lack of knowledege on the topic, so will not opine on it further. However, based on my study of history, I agree with Dr. Patterson, who says "The only constant about climate is change".
Due to work issues, posting has been light yesterday and today, but this was too much to pass up. I have highlighted other global warming skeptics in this space before, but today the Cornwall Standard Freeholder out of Ontario, Canada announced that The current debate about global warming is "completely irrational," and people need to start taking a different approach, say two Ottawa scientists.
The scientists in question are Tim Patterson from Carleton University and Tom Harris, from the National Resources Stewardship Project. Supporting Patterson's findings, Harris said,
Global warming assertions are based on inconclusive evidence put forth in science reports that had not been published yet, he said.
"The media takes (inconclusive) information that only suggests there could be a climate problem and turns it into an environmental catastrophe," said Harris.
Meanwhile, the paper reports that "Patterson explained CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential plant food. Billions of taxpayers' dollars are spent to control the emissions of this benign gas, in the mistaken belief that they can stop climate change, he said."
I recall the media's rush in the 1970s to declare (with similarly thin evidence) that the next Ice Age was upon us. This is very similar, at least in my mind. It wsould be nice if reporters would at least TRY to address issues like this with an open mind once in a while. But their pack mentality, coupled with their almost total inability to think rationally and objectively (especiazlly when their emotions are involved) makes them very susceptible to being manipulated by "progressive" groups like the environmentalists.
Personally, I understand my lack of knowledege on the topic, so will not opine on it further. However, based on my study of history, I agree with Dr. Patterson, who says "The only constant about climate is change".
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Things the Left Fears
With tongue firmly planted in cheek, Greg Gutfield over at the Huffington Post has compiled a list of things the Left is secretly afraid of. Some of the highlights are as follows:
Read the whole thing. I was laughing so hard I could barely type.
Because we all know lefties are too lazy to write their own stuff (see Hillary's ghost-written books) the IMAO crew decided to channel a member of the Left and compiled a companion list of things secretly feared by the Right. I think Greg's is both funnier and more accurate. Hat tip to FrankJ at IMAO.
Fear that even if the democrats win the 08 election, Europeans will still look down on us and Muslims will still want to kill us.
Fear that capitalism actually works better than any other economic system
Fear that America really is the freest country in the world
Fear that going it alone when you think you're right is more moral than trying to build a coalition with dictators, thieves and cowards.
Read the whole thing. I was laughing so hard I could barely type.
Because we all know lefties are too lazy to write their own stuff (see Hillary's ghost-written books) the IMAO crew decided to channel a member of the Left and compiled a companion list of things secretly feared by the Right. I think Greg's is both funnier and more accurate. Hat tip to FrankJ at IMAO.
Flying Machines
Back in the 1960s, I remember seeeing a car-plane that one could assemble and take off/land from any road. I do not recall what it was called (UPDATE: It was the 1956 Aerocar, designed and built by Moulton Taylor), but the idea has always appealed to me. Now, I see that I am not alone in this idea. Author and roboticist Daniel Miller has written an article for Popular Mechanics wherein he takes on the idea of flying cars.
Although he judges that "...it may be another hundred years before you can score that most badass symbol of the space age—the flying car.", he also details some of the possibilities currently under development. I found the article fascinating. Read the whole thing and see what you think. Hat tip to techno-geek law professor Glenn Reynolds.
Although he judges that "...it may be another hundred years before you can score that most badass symbol of the space age—the flying car.", he also details some of the possibilities currently under development. I found the article fascinating. Read the whole thing and see what you think. Hat tip to techno-geek law professor Glenn Reynolds.
The Case Against Gun Control
Read Classically Liberal's well-researched essay on the subject of how gun control only aids murderers and terrorists. Why are ignorant liberals allowed to disarm us in the face of terrorisxm and mass murderers?
Can the FAA guarantee that airplanes are completely safe? Of course not, so why do we allow them to remove our Second Amendment rights? Can adminstrators or campus police guarantee that they will be able to prevent acts such as those of Seung Cho? Of course not. As we saw in the Virginia Tech shootings, not one police officer arrived anywhere near any of the shootings until after the shooter had taken his own life. So why do we allow ignorant and politically-correct administrators to reomove our Second Amendment rights?
When citizens start shooting back, criminals run. That has been proven time and again. So why do we allow well-menaing but ignorant politicians and even more ignorant and agenda-driven media to define the debate. The Second Amendment is clear- "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infirnged."
If only our politicians would take this Constitutional right as seriously as the entirely made-up "right" of abortion (which can be found nowhere in the Constitution), then we would probably live in a safer society. Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.
Can the FAA guarantee that airplanes are completely safe? Of course not, so why do we allow them to remove our Second Amendment rights? Can adminstrators or campus police guarantee that they will be able to prevent acts such as those of Seung Cho? Of course not. As we saw in the Virginia Tech shootings, not one police officer arrived anywhere near any of the shootings until after the shooter had taken his own life. So why do we allow ignorant and politically-correct administrators to reomove our Second Amendment rights?
When citizens start shooting back, criminals run. That has been proven time and again. So why do we allow well-menaing but ignorant politicians and even more ignorant and agenda-driven media to define the debate. The Second Amendment is clear- "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infirnged."
If only our politicians would take this Constitutional right as seriously as the entirely made-up "right" of abortion (which can be found nowhere in the Constitution), then we would probably live in a safer society. Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.
Monday, April 23, 2007
A Spark of Patriotism
A solider returning home to Novato in California's Marin County was welcomed home by a middle school band and a troop of Boy Scouts. the Marin Independent Journal reports,
While I applaud the actions of the Boy Scout troop and the band, it is sad when a demonstration of patriotism like this in Marin County is remarkable for its rarity.
And on a side note, you mean to tell me Ms. Pelosi and her ACLU friends haven't yet managed to drive the Boy Scouts out of Marin with their demands for gay scoutmasters and girls as Scouts? I guess there must be a few judges who still actually respect the Constitution in Marin County. Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.
Former soldiers Jeremiah Pauley, 31, and brother-in-law Greg Scott, 27, both recently returned from Iraq, were pleasantly surprised with a public welcome punctuated by an impromptu front-yard concert by the Sinaloa Middle School band at the home of their grandmother, Liz Scott.
The 30-student-strong marching band was joined by more than a dozen Cub Scouts from Troop 42 for a one-block parade from the nearby school to join an emotional gathering of neighbors, school officials and extended family members to honor the recently released soldiers.
While I applaud the actions of the Boy Scout troop and the band, it is sad when a demonstration of patriotism like this in Marin County is remarkable for its rarity.
And on a side note, you mean to tell me Ms. Pelosi and her ACLU friends haven't yet managed to drive the Boy Scouts out of Marin with their demands for gay scoutmasters and girls as Scouts? I guess there must be a few judges who still actually respect the Constitution in Marin County. Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.
Eco-Socialites
The New York Times provides some unintentional humor as it tries to convince us that the Manhattan socialites are all a-twitter about conservation. Of course, buried toward the end, the article states that regarding the organizer, one Sloan Barnett, who serves as a reporter for a San Jose TV station, but who is a married to a multi-millionaire,
Uh-huh. As Glenn Reynolds says "That's for the little people."
I tell you what, Ms. Barnett and Ms. Rockefeller. When I see you get rid of your housekeepers and actually do your own cleaning, when you and your oh-so-posh friends actually have to understand saving money and do everyday work like the rest of us, or when you sell off a few of your vacation homes, private jets, chauffer-driven limousines or your large yachts, I might take your comments on conservation seriously. Until then, keep your inane comments to yourself.
Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.
Still, she has no plans to reduce the family’s significant carbon footprint by, say, selling the Manhattan second home. “I’m not a perfect person,” she said. “I’m not the greenest woman in America.” And there was scant indication that other guests, most of whom, presumably, knew their way up the steps of a private jet, were contemplating major lifestyle cutbacks. Glancing about the room, Ms. Barnett said, “We aren’t all going to move to one-bedroom apartments.
Ms. Rockefeller wanted four kits, one as a gift to her housekeeper. “I want to spread the word,” she said.
She plans to practice conservation, to a point. Energy-saving light bulbs are fine — for the utility closet, perhaps. In other rooms, “they don’t give a very pretty light,” she said.
Uh-huh. As Glenn Reynolds says "That's for the little people."
I tell you what, Ms. Barnett and Ms. Rockefeller. When I see you get rid of your housekeepers and actually do your own cleaning, when you and your oh-so-posh friends actually have to understand saving money and do everyday work like the rest of us, or when you sell off a few of your vacation homes, private jets, chauffer-driven limousines or your large yachts, I might take your comments on conservation seriously. Until then, keep your inane comments to yourself.
Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.
NGOs - Good or Evil?
The Washington Post has an interesting article today by one Moises Naim on the growing proliferation of NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that are actually funded by governments.
The author, who serves on the board of directors for a U.S.-based NGO points out the differences between such groups as the Myanmar Women's Affairs Federation (run by the wives of Burma's military junta) and the Bolivarian Circles (funded by Bolivia's repressive Stalinist dictator Hugo Chavez) and groups like his own National Endowment for Democracy, which although funded by the US government works "to strengthen democratic institutions around the world through non-governmental efforts." Though the NED, unlike the previously named organizations merely receives funds from the US government, it has been attacked by China, Russia and many other repressive governments. Of course, these same governments see no problem with planting their own sycophanitc fake NGOs in the US and other democratic countries to advance said repressive countries' agendas...
In any event, the article is an eye-opener as regards the unaccountability of NGOs in general and how some countries are trying to use them as proxies. Read the whole thing. Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.
The author, who serves on the board of directors for a U.S.-based NGO points out the differences between such groups as the Myanmar Women's Affairs Federation (run by the wives of Burma's military junta) and the Bolivarian Circles (funded by Bolivia's repressive Stalinist dictator Hugo Chavez) and groups like his own National Endowment for Democracy, which although funded by the US government works "to strengthen democratic institutions around the world through non-governmental efforts." Though the NED, unlike the previously named organizations merely receives funds from the US government, it has been attacked by China, Russia and many other repressive governments. Of course, these same governments see no problem with planting their own sycophanitc fake NGOs in the US and other democratic countries to advance said repressive countries' agendas...
In any event, the article is an eye-opener as regards the unaccountability of NGOs in general and how some countries are trying to use them as proxies. Read the whole thing. Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.
Gore, Redux
Well, it seems Al Gore is still hankering to be the President, not just a pretty face at the Oscars. According to the London Telegraph, Gore has secretly begun assembling a campaign team to challlenge for the Democratic nomination for PResident in 2008. The Telegraph writes,
Well. Al Gore, like Hillary Clinton, is not exactly a warm and natural campaigner. Furthermore, his leftist global warming hype may have made him anathema to the centrists whoi are tired of being preached at by limousine liberals like Gore. But he does have the benefit of free press from his "documentary" and his forthcoming book, both of which give him a decided edge over many of his competitors. And unlike Hillary, he does not inspire feelings of hatred.
I agree with Ed Morrissey over at Captain's Quarters, who writes,
I agree. This will probably make the nomination a two-horse race, if Gore carries through and actually enters the race. But it does have the advantage for Republicans that neither Gore nor Hillary can really run as a centrist after their activites the past few years. this leaves an opening in the center for Republicans. IF they can nominate a viable candidate. Hat tip to Ed Morrissey.
Friends of Al Gore have secretly started assembling a campaign team in preparation for the former American vice-president to make a fresh bid for the White House. Al Gore is third favourite for the Democratic nomination
Two members of Mr Gore's staff from his unsuccessful attempt in 2000 say they have been approached to see if they would be available to work with him again.
Well. Al Gore, like Hillary Clinton, is not exactly a warm and natural campaigner. Furthermore, his leftist global warming hype may have made him anathema to the centrists whoi are tired of being preached at by limousine liberals like Gore. But he does have the benefit of free press from his "documentary" and his forthcoming book, both of which give him a decided edge over many of his competitors. And unlike Hillary, he does not inspire feelings of hatred.
I agree with Ed Morrissey over at Captain's Quarters, who writes,
A Gore entry will probably prove fatal to the ambitions of Barack Obama and John Edwards. Both have run on Gore's turf so far, and neither will outshine him with party donors desperate to find a credible alternative to Hillary Clinton. Gore has a great deal more substance than both candidates put together and will almost immediately be the chief challenger on Hillary's left, once he formally enters the race.
Given that Hillary's negatives keep going higher, Gore could easily convince the Democrats that he has more electability than his ex-boss' wife. If so, that gives the Republicans an opening among the center.
I agree. This will probably make the nomination a two-horse race, if Gore carries through and actually enters the race. But it does have the advantage for Republicans that neither Gore nor Hillary can really run as a centrist after their activites the past few years. this leaves an opening in the center for Republicans. IF they can nominate a viable candidate. Hat tip to Ed Morrissey.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Comments On Racism
The following was sent to me via email by a friend. I found it interesting, so I am reproducing it below:
There are some obvious problems with this email, in that there WERE all-white establishments in the past. There WAS a time when the majority treated the minority badly. For proof, ask the Asian immigrants- they faced barriers far greater than those faced by the ex-slaves. This past is why the Civil Rights movement was necessary. However, the basic point, which seems to me to ask why it is the minorities who are now eagerly embracing segregation, is a valid one to me.
On a related note, it is my belief, after living abroad, that if it was not the white Europeans who dominated the world for the past few centuries, we would still live in a medieval atmosphere of hate and ignorance. It wasn't the Africans, Asians, Hispanics or any other culture that came up with the Bill of Rights. It wasn't they who determined that slavery was evil and finally ended it. And it certainly wasn't any of these other cultures who made any efforts to make minorities in their home societies feel more welcome. How does Mexico treat illegal immigrants in their country today? Only the caucasian, Christian Europeans and Americans of European origin did these things.
Anyway, I welcome any other thoughts on this.....
Someone finally said it.
How many are actually paying attention to this?
There are African Americans, Mexican Americans,
Asian Americans, Arab Americans, Native Americans, etc.
And then there are just Americans.
You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction.
You Call me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,' 'Honkey,'
'Whitey,' 'Caveman' .. And that's OK.
But when I call you, Nigger, Towel head, Sand-nigger,
Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink ... You call me a racist.
You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you,
So why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?
You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King
Day. You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez Day. You
Have Yom Hashoah. You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi. You have the NAACP.
You have BET.
If we had WET (White Entertainment Television) .. We'd be racists.
If we had a White Pride Day .. You would call us racists.
If we had White History Month We'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives
We'd be racists.
We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of
Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.
! Wonder who pays for that?
If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships
... You know we'd be racists. There are over 60 openly proclaimed
Black Colleges in the US , yet if there were 'White colleges'
THAT would be a racist college.
In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching
For your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights,
You would call us racists.
You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're
Not afraid to announce it. But when we ann ounce our white pride
You call us racists.
You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer
Shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug-dealer running
From the law and posing a threat to society .. You call him a racist.
I am proud.
But, you call me a racist.
Why is it that only whites can be racists?
There are some obvious problems with this email, in that there WERE all-white establishments in the past. There WAS a time when the majority treated the minority badly. For proof, ask the Asian immigrants- they faced barriers far greater than those faced by the ex-slaves. This past is why the Civil Rights movement was necessary. However, the basic point, which seems to me to ask why it is the minorities who are now eagerly embracing segregation, is a valid one to me.
On a related note, it is my belief, after living abroad, that if it was not the white Europeans who dominated the world for the past few centuries, we would still live in a medieval atmosphere of hate and ignorance. It wasn't the Africans, Asians, Hispanics or any other culture that came up with the Bill of Rights. It wasn't they who determined that slavery was evil and finally ended it. And it certainly wasn't any of these other cultures who made any efforts to make minorities in their home societies feel more welcome. How does Mexico treat illegal immigrants in their country today? Only the caucasian, Christian Europeans and Americans of European origin did these things.
Anyway, I welcome any other thoughts on this.....
Bomb Iran!
Senator John McCain set a wonderful example of how to respond to knee-jerk political correctness police when he responded to questions on his "Bomb, Bomb Iran" joke yesterday. McCain was asked by a inane reporter (yes, I know that coupling "inane" and "reporter" is redundant) if he was concerned about the joke being insensitive. He responded "Insensitive to what? The Iranians?".
Good for Senator McCain! The media and their friends in the political correctness arena have made it very difficult for people to actually engage in free speech- unless of course they are the favored disciples of said media (like CAIR, Jesse Jackson, etc). It is refreshing to see a public figure stand up to the self-appointed PC police for a change.
On a more serious note, Senator McCain was absolutely correct in his take on the entire Iranian sittuation. he advocates leaving military force as an option on the table in order to prevent Iran from actually gaining nuclear weapons capability. This SHOULD be only common sense- you do not, after all, deliberately weaken yourself when faced with a threat, do you? It is a pity that more of our elected officials do not share McCain's understanding that in the end, the only thing thugs respect is force, and diplomacy, when not backed by a credible threat, will never succeed.
Good for Senator McCain! The media and their friends in the political correctness arena have made it very difficult for people to actually engage in free speech- unless of course they are the favored disciples of said media (like CAIR, Jesse Jackson, etc). It is refreshing to see a public figure stand up to the self-appointed PC police for a change.
On a more serious note, Senator McCain was absolutely correct in his take on the entire Iranian sittuation. he advocates leaving military force as an option on the table in order to prevent Iran from actually gaining nuclear weapons capability. This SHOULD be only common sense- you do not, after all, deliberately weaken yourself when faced with a threat, do you? It is a pity that more of our elected officials do not share McCain's understanding that in the end, the only thing thugs respect is force, and diplomacy, when not backed by a credible threat, will never succeed.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Light Posting Today
Since I have no interest in weiging in on the tragedy at Virginia Tech (The Power Line team has the best commentary- "It's too early to make any conclusions"), and the other issues in the news today are either too ridiculous (John Edwards' $400 dollar haircut). The Supreme Court's rejection of partial-birth abortion is a step, but until Roe vs. Wade is shot down for the completely unConsitutional judicial power grab that it was, we will have a highly charged debate over abortion.
In the meantime, I do have a report on an interesting debate on Islam that took place at UCLA between Daniel Pipes, Wafa Sultan and Yaron Brook. Although the Muslims staged a walkout, those who actually stayed heard a lively discussion on the nature of Islam and its various attempts to terrorize or conquer other cultures into becoming Muslim.
The report by Aaron Hanscomb concludes by saying,
Read the whole thing. Hat tip to Power Line.
In the meantime, I do have a report on an interesting debate on Islam that took place at UCLA between Daniel Pipes, Wafa Sultan and Yaron Brook. Although the Muslims staged a walkout, those who actually stayed heard a lively discussion on the nature of Islam and its various attempts to terrorize or conquer other cultures into becoming Muslim.
The report by Aaron Hanscomb concludes by saying,
The most chilling warning of the night came when Sultan said that the Council on Islamic-American Relations wants to replace the United State Constitution with Sharia law. A member of CAIR once told her that she is “crossing the red line.” Translation: Very soon you will be beheaded.
Not all the messages Sultan receives however are negative. She talked of many Arabs who support her work behind the scenes and look to the United States for help in guaranteeing their human rights. Since Muslims in the West don’t live under the same oppression, they can’t understand such desperation.
UCLA’s Muslim students might have come closer to gaining this knowledge if they hadn’t stormed out of the event in protest.
Read the whole thing. Hat tip to Power Line.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Is Hillary Sinking?
Maybe. According to a new Gallup poll released today, Hillary Clinton is viewed negatively by 52 percent of Americans and her lead over Senator Obama, her closest challenger among the Democratic candidates, has shrunk to a mere 31 percent to 26 percent.
While I tend to take all polls at this early stage witha large grain of salt, it is interesting that Hillary has not been able to take advantage of her huge advantages in name recognition and fund-raising. I have long wondered if Hillary's high negatives, and the fact that she is a hard-left ideologue, not a skilled politician, might eventually doom her. If this poll is true, it appears that even Democrats are tiring of the Clinton circus.
I hope that this poll holds true, as I think a Hillary presidency would be disastrous for the United States. However, we don't know if this was a poll of likely voters or it was the general public, many of whom do not vote. In any event, we shall see what happens as the campaign actually gets serious. After all, it is still early days, and the Drive-By Media has not yet decided which Democrat (they will never support a Republican candidate) they are going to back.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
While I tend to take all polls at this early stage witha large grain of salt, it is interesting that Hillary has not been able to take advantage of her huge advantages in name recognition and fund-raising. I have long wondered if Hillary's high negatives, and the fact that she is a hard-left ideologue, not a skilled politician, might eventually doom her. If this poll is true, it appears that even Democrats are tiring of the Clinton circus.
I hope that this poll holds true, as I think a Hillary presidency would be disastrous for the United States. However, we don't know if this was a poll of likely voters or it was the general public, many of whom do not vote. In any event, we shall see what happens as the campaign actually gets serious. After all, it is still early days, and the Drive-By Media has not yet decided which Democrat (they will never support a Republican candidate) they are going to back.
Hat tip to Matt Drudge.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Tax the Rich?
Our tax code is a disgrace. Ever since I began to pay taxes, and especially after living in Japan, which is a country with a much cleaner tax code, I have been an advocate of a fairer, simpler, less burdensome tax system. The flat tax comes to mind rather quickly.
Over on TownHall.com today, David Strom has published an excellent analysis of our current tax system, especially why it is so unfair and why it does exactly the opposite of what the tax-increasers (that would be the Democrats) like to claim it does.
Strom writes,
Read the whole thing and see what you think. I think it makes eminent sense. Now if only Congress would actually reform the tax code....
Over on TownHall.com today, David Strom has published an excellent analysis of our current tax system, especially why it is so unfair and why it does exactly the opposite of what the tax-increasers (that would be the Democrats) like to claim it does.
Strom writes,
How? It's pretty simple really. While liberals say income taxes are aimed at the "rich," that is simply wrong.
Income taxes are levies on income, not wealth. Rich people are already rich. If they are earning an income as well, then more power to them. But if you are really "rich," you don't need to work. So an income tax, far from being a tax on "the rich," is really a tax on people who work for a living.
Read the whole thing and see what you think. I think it makes eminent sense. Now if only Congress would actually reform the tax code....
On Monsters
After the horrific events at Virginia Tech this week, Citizen Phil asks the question on his blog today, what made the Viriginia Tech murderer act as he did?
My answer is simple: No matter what the circumstances, some people are born to be monsters and most people are not. Furthermore, I believe that one's environment has little to do with it. Many of the greatest talents in history rose from humble and/or squalid beginnings, while some of the greatest monsters in history had well-to-do backgrounds. Despite the clamor from the counseling industry about how we can work with these folks, there are some people who are simply born that way, and no amount of counseling or emotional wallowing will change them.
Who can explain a mass-murderer like Josef Stalin? Or Adolf Hitler, Robert Mugabe, Saddam Hussein, Mao Tse-tung, and Charles Manson? Who can understand the Zodiac Killer or the Son of Sam? One cannot, save to say, "This person is evil." I believe that is all we can say about this monster as well. Maybe he was pushed over the edge by his failed romantic relationship, but being dumped by a woman, or even finding her with another man should not so destroy one that they start shooting at innocent people. If it does, then that person was not a normal, adjusted individual to begin with.
All we can offer our sympathy and pray for his victims. As Citizen Phil so aptly puts it in regard to the victims of this deranged murderer, "There but for the grace of God go I." Hat tip to TownHall.com.
My answer is simple: No matter what the circumstances, some people are born to be monsters and most people are not. Furthermore, I believe that one's environment has little to do with it. Many of the greatest talents in history rose from humble and/or squalid beginnings, while some of the greatest monsters in history had well-to-do backgrounds. Despite the clamor from the counseling industry about how we can work with these folks, there are some people who are simply born that way, and no amount of counseling or emotional wallowing will change them.
Who can explain a mass-murderer like Josef Stalin? Or Adolf Hitler, Robert Mugabe, Saddam Hussein, Mao Tse-tung, and Charles Manson? Who can understand the Zodiac Killer or the Son of Sam? One cannot, save to say, "This person is evil." I believe that is all we can say about this monster as well. Maybe he was pushed over the edge by his failed romantic relationship, but being dumped by a woman, or even finding her with another man should not so destroy one that they start shooting at innocent people. If it does, then that person was not a normal, adjusted individual to begin with.
All we can offer our sympathy and pray for his victims. As Citizen Phil so aptly puts it in regard to the victims of this deranged murderer, "There but for the grace of God go I." Hat tip to TownHall.com.
Virgina Tech
All our sympathy to the victims of yesterday's Virigina Tech massacre. As unlike the New York Times, I am not in favor of using tragedies to make political statements, I merely wish to say that it does appear that the Virginia Tech adminstration needs to be asked some hard questions about their actions to protect their students.
In the meantime, the anti-American moonbats in the European press have decided to blame Charlton Heston for the massacre. Since Virginia Tech is a no-gun zone, and the Legislature just refused to pass a bill allowing VT students to carry if they held a Virigina permit, the question these useless hot air specialists should be asking, is why VT didn't either make more of an effort to make sure that the students were protected or allow them to carry in their own self-defense, which might have saved a few lives. The surest way to create massacres is to disarm the populace. Have the Europeans forgotten the Communist and Nazi plans for mass murder?
In the meantime, courtsey of wanusmaximus, a grad student at Virginia Tech, here is our fluff for the day. He was initially thought by some in the Drive-By Media to be the shooter, but it turns out he is merely a well-armed grad student who wished to make a comment on the Second Amendment rights the liberals are in such a hurry to eradicate. He looked though a site called Hot or Not and found what he characterizes as,
For the confused, FOB=fresh off boat. They are pretty easy to spot- look for the inappropriate/incomprehensible English on their T-shirts! Enjoy...
In the meantime, the anti-American moonbats in the European press have decided to blame Charlton Heston for the massacre. Since Virginia Tech is a no-gun zone, and the Legislature just refused to pass a bill allowing VT students to carry if they held a Virigina permit, the question these useless hot air specialists should be asking, is why VT didn't either make more of an effort to make sure that the students were protected or allow them to carry in their own self-defense, which might have saved a few lives. The surest way to create massacres is to disarm the populace. Have the Europeans forgotten the Communist and Nazi plans for mass murder?
In the meantime, courtsey of wanusmaximus, a grad student at Virginia Tech, here is our fluff for the day. He was initially thought by some in the Drive-By Media to be the shooter, but it turns out he is merely a well-armed grad student who wished to make a comment on the Second Amendment rights the liberals are in such a hurry to eradicate. He looked though a site called Hot or Not and found what he characterizes as,
roflmfao.
this is kinda wrong but whatever. ok, so i decided to randomly browse through hot or not and i think i nearly died from laughing so hard.... here are the worst of the fob profiles:
For the confused, FOB=fresh off boat. They are pretty easy to spot- look for the inappropriate/incomprehensible English on their T-shirts! Enjoy...
How About The 1950s
I believe that the decade of the 1950s has been unfairly categorized for a long time as repressed and too straight-arrow. Since I am something of a throwback, I have always had a fondness for earlier times. However, I found Roger Kimball's New Criterion piece today on Then and now, or 8 (more) reasons the 1950s are unfairly maligned to be completely hilarious. And unfortunately a bit too true.
One thing to remember- not only did the 1950s bring us Eisenhower and Nixon, it also brought us the Firehouse Five Plus Two and the rebirth of Dixieland jazz. So it couldn't be entirely bad!
Read the whole thing and see what you think. Hat tip to Power Line.
One thing to remember- not only did the 1950s bring us Eisenhower and Nixon, it also brought us the Firehouse Five Plus Two and the rebirth of Dixieland jazz. So it couldn't be entirely bad!
Read the whole thing and see what you think. Hat tip to Power Line.
Defending American Troops
Show trials like the one Giuliani Sgrena is bringing against a US soldier in an Italian court are the reason why the United States should never sign onto the International Criminal Court. This is also a textbook case of courts straying into areas where they have neither expertise nor jurisdiction. The Italians should be ashamed of this judge for his publicity hunting.
As for Sgrena, has she forgotten that it is only due to US troops that she ever saw Italy again? Probably. She is a confirmed anti-American, hard-left Stalinist apologizer and if she isn't ashamed of herself for this naked money grab, then perhaps her government should be.
As for Sgrena, has she forgotten that it is only due to US troops that she ever saw Italy again? Probably. She is a confirmed anti-American, hard-left Stalinist apologizer and if she isn't ashamed of herself for this naked money grab, then perhaps her government should be.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Democrat Priorities
It appears that the new Democratic majority has decided that the government is not bloated enough, it needs an additional Cabinet-level Department of Peace and Nonviolence. Based on the bill (H.R. 808) to establish said department, it appears that the new Department of Peace and Nonviolence would be able to interfere in any and all area of other departments domestically and internationally. To quote Tigerhawk's excellent analysis:
Michelle Malkin is slightly more direct. She calls the proposed department the Department of Appeasement and Surrender. Read the whole bill, and decide for yourselves. My immediate reaction- don't we have far more pressing problems (like lots of crazed Muslims trying to kill us or make us into dhimmis)? Hat tip to Tigerhawk via the awesome Michelle Malkin.
For those looking for a distillation, imagine a governmental agency responsible for advising on non-confrontational foreign policy options, establishing and enforcing new gun control measures, designing school curriculum, establishing and enforcing new legislation governing "hate crimes" and violence against animals, and my favorite, establishing a "Peace Academy," a four-year institution of higher learning modeled on our service academies. (Wait, doesn't the Ivy League already have like six of those?)
Michelle Malkin is slightly more direct. She calls the proposed department the Department of Appeasement and Surrender. Read the whole bill, and decide for yourselves. My immediate reaction- don't we have far more pressing problems (like lots of crazed Muslims trying to kill us or make us into dhimmis)? Hat tip to Tigerhawk via the awesome Michelle Malkin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
