Friday, March 31, 2006

Be a man, for God's sake... (you mean that's ok?)

Click this image for more info on Manliness"Being a Man"

Harvey Mansfield ponders the male of the species,

by Christina Hoff Sommers in the next issue of The Weekly Standard
...In Manliness, Harvey C. Mansfield seeks to persuade skeptical readers, especially educated women, to reconsider the merits of male protectiveness and assertiveness. It is in no way a defense of male privilege, but many will be offended by its old-fashioned claim that the virtues of men and women are different and complementary. Women would be foolish not to pay close attention to Mansfield's subtle and fascinating argument.


Women can be manly - Margaret Thatcher is an example - but manliness is the "quality mostly of one sex." This creates problems for a society such as ours that likes to think of itself as "gender neutral," egalitarian, and sensitive. Manliness is not sensitive. Today, we mainly cope with it by politely changing the subject. The very word is deemed quaint and outmoded. Gender experts in our universities teach as fact that the sex difference is an illusion--a discredited construct, like the earth being flat or the sun revolving around the earth.

Manliness is not sensitive

And yet, the complex range of behavior that "manliness" characterizes persists. It is still mostly men who embody it. We have succeeded in bringing the language to account, but we have not managed to exorcise masculine thumos.

After almost 40 years of feminist agitation and gender-neutral pronouns, it is still men who are far more likely than women to run for political office, start companies, file for patents, and blow things up. Men continue to tell most of the jokes and write the vast majority of editorials and letters to editors. And - fatal to the dreams of feminists who long for social androgyny - men have hardly budged from their unwillingness to do an equal share of housework or childcare. Moreover, women seem to like manly men: "Manliness is still around, and we still find it attractive," says Mansfield.
Click here for the rest of Sommers article on Manliness, by Harvey Mansfield.

Why Can’t They “Just Get Along”? V-Day meets P-Day on campus.Other works by Christina Hoff Sommers:

7 books to consider...


Labels: , ,

Let's be consistent folks, and demand free and fair elections in Belarus...

Lukashenko and PutinPutin is turning back the clock in Russia, but even he doesn't like what's going on in Belarus...

The Last Stalinist in Europe, from The American Thinker:
Last week, a tragedy occurred in Europe, though the American media largely ignored it, and our political leadership has not made it an issue. For all the talk of democracy in Iraq and in the Middle East, there is still one bastion of Stalinism in Europe. That is in the country of Belarus, where last week, the last of the Old Guard of the KGB flexed its muscle.

Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko “garnered” 82.6% of the popular vote in that election, against 3 other candidates. The reform candidates tried to garner a “White Revolution” in Belarus (Belarus actually means White Russia), but Mr. Lukashenko saw to it that the peaceful Belarussians were hauled off to jail and beaten with night sticks...
Read the rest here.

*** Update 4/1/2006 ***

Kira Zalen here:
Lukashenka’s twelve year reign can be summarized in two main themes. On the domestic front, he has intentionally and repeatedly stifled business growth, consolidated constitutionally separate branches of the government, shut down independent media, and made dissenters literally disappear. Internationally, Lukashenka has been accused of trafficking Russian arms to US enemies, and has managed to become personae non grate in every Western country.


Tony Blair is right...

Click the image for videoBritish Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 21: (Video here)
"Here, in its most pure form, is a struggle between democracy and violence.

"We must reject the thought that somehow we are the authors of our own distress, that if only we altered this decision or that, the extremism would fade away. The only way to win is to recognize this phenomenon is a global ideology, to see all areas in which it operates as linked, and to defeat it by values and ideas set in opposition to those of the terrorists.

"The fundamental point: 'We' is not the West. 'We' are as much Muslim as Christian or Jew or Hindu. 'We' are those who believe in religious tolerance, openness to others, to democracy, liberty, and human rights administered by secular courts.

"This is not a clash between civilizations. It is a clash about civilization. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace and see opportunity in the modern world and those who reject its existence; between optimism and hope on the one hand, and pessimism and fear on the other.

This is not a clash between civilizations.
It is a clash about civilization.

"(The terrorists) know that if they can succeed either in Iraq or Afghanistan, or indeed in Lebanon or anywhere else wanting to go the democratic route, then the choice of a modern democratic future for the Arab or Muslim world is dealt a potentially mortal blow. Likewise if they fail, and those countries become democracies and make progress and, in the case of Iraq, prosper rapidly, then not merely is that a blow against their whole value system but it is the most effective message possible against their wretched propaganda about America, the West, the rest of the world.

"That to me is the painful irony of what is happening. They have so much clearer a sense of what is at stake. They play our own media with a shrewdness that would be the envy of many a political party. Every act of carnage adds to the death toll. But somehow it serves to indicate our responsibility for disorder rather than the act of wickedness that causes it. For us, so much of our opinion believes that what was done in Iraq in 2003 was so wrong that it is reluctant to accept what is plainly right now.

That to me is the painful irony
of what is happening. They (terrorists)
have so much clearer a
sense of what is at stake.

"What happens in Iraq or Afghanistan today is not just crucial for the people in those countries or even in those regions, but for our security here and round the world. It is a cause that has none of the debatable nature of the decisions to go for regime change. It is an entirely noble one - to help people in need of our help in pursuit of liberty - and a self-interested one, since in their salvation lies our own security."

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Unbelievably, former hostages air-lifted back to Iraq just one week after their rescue...

Potfry has the whole story here:
...The British Military was concerned that the men would not be picked up quickly, leaving them to wander in the dessert. So each man was given a bright red parachute emblazoned with one of the famed Danish Mohammed cartoons.

“The cartoons really did the trick,” said Captain Coates. “As they drifted downward, you could see the insurgents gathering to welcome them. Some had even set fires to help guide them as they landed. We could hear the chants of welcome even over the whir of the rotors. Did you ever see Born Free? It was like that, but better.”

Did you ever see Born Free?
It was like that, but better.

Coates would not comment on reports that the three men were all wearing “Jesus Rules, Mohammed Drools” T-Shirts.

Labels: ,

Homegrown propaganda is bad: Foreign propaganda is just fine thanks...

Cliff Kincaid columnsCliff Kincaid (March 30, 2006) at Accuracy in Media:

"Invasion of Foreign Media"
Just as we were preparing to go to press with our AIM Report on the British media invasion of the U.S., the Washington Post ran a column confirming all of our fears. The March 12 column by David Pitts noted that public radio stations in the Washington, D.C. area are airing many hours of BBC programs, in place of the local programming that was once dominant. Pitts, who wrote for 15 years for the U.S. Information Agency-Voice of America, said that "it is disturbing that a foreign broadcaster has taken such a prominent role in U.S. public radio."

This is not because it is British. Rather, it's because BBC World Service Radio "is not funded through the general license fee that pays for BBC domestic radio and television in Britain," but through a special grant from the British Foreign Office. This is extremely important because it makes the BBC into a propaganda arm of the British government.

The implication of Pitts' point should be obvious. U.S. law prohibits the U.S. Government-funded Voice of America from being broadcast inside the U.S., because of the fear that the government would propagandize its own citizens. But the British government-funded BBC can be broadcast in the U.S. Why doesn't this constitute foreign government propagandizing of the American people? And why isn't this improper or illegal?

British government-funded BBC
can be broadcast in the U.S.
Why doesn't this constitute foreign
government propagandizing
of the American people?
And why isn't this improper or illegal?

The Pitts column noted the BBC's left-wing, anti-American bias. He said conservatives complained that the BBC operated like the Baghdad Broadcasting Corp. during the Persian Gulf War. Pitts said that careful listeners "may have noted that negative stories about the U.S. presence in Iraq abound on the BBC World Service, while far fewer stories critical of British involvement there are aired. Perhaps that is because the U.S. presence in Iraq is far larger than that of Britain and concentrated in more volatile areas of the country. Or perhaps coverage is connected to the BBC's funding. In any case, should our local public radio stations be carrying programming of an organization that is funded by the British Foreign Office without also carrying an advisory for listeners?"

BBC will also be coming to America through Al-Jazeera International, the English version of the pro-Arab terrorist satellite channel. David Frost, formerly of the BBC, has joined the new channel, which is set to launch in the U.S. this year.

A group called the United American Committee has announced plans to protest the launching of the channel on April 30 at 12:00 Noon at the new Washington, D.C. offices of Al-Jazeera International at1627 K St., NW.

The group is urging people who can't make it to the protest to write, call, or fax your cable company and tell them that you will cancel your subscription if they carry Al-Jazeera International.


There are no jobs Americans won’t do. There are only wages Americans won’t work for...

Selwyn Duke at The Conservative Voice:

"What Jobs Won’t Americans Do?"

...And this relates to a fact of contemporary American life: immigrants, illegal or otherwise, depress wages. Oh, some would dispute this? Well, they’re wrong and I intend to prove it.

There’s another universal, unchangeable law of economics called “supply and demand,” and most of us understand it. Regardless of what product or service is at issue, if demand increases relative to supply, prices increase; if supply increases relative to demand, prices drop. And this phenomenon is relevant here. Why?

Quite simply because, like it or not, within the context of a free market system, workers are commodities whose value is determined by supply and demand. For example, a skilled neurosurgeon doesn’t make a half a million dollars a year because what he does is so important. If that were the case, he’d earn more than people who hit, kick and throw balls around and sign autographs. No, his income is a function of his rarity; create 100 million more just like him and his salary will become relatively paltry.

Thus, increase the supply of workers relative to the jobs available and the value of workers decreases. This is not opinion, my friends, but hard, cold fact. Immigrants swell the worker pool, thereby increasing competition for jobs, allowing employers to pay less for the same employees. We’ve all heard of a “buyer’s market” and a “seller’s market”; well, high levels of immigration transform us from a worker’s market into an employer’s market. Big business loves it.

increase the supply of workers
relative to the jobs available
and the value of workers decreases

Of course, the immigration lobby has an answer at the ready when this truth becomes inconvenient. “How much do you want to pay for a head of lettuce?!” they exclaim.

What’s so ironic about this argument is that its proponents are generally the very same people who’ll zealously campaign for increases in the minimum wage, an action that can also increase the cost of doing business and, therefore, retail prices. But since they say they want to help poor Americans, let’s discuss that.

The natural, free market way to help low income Americans is to increase their value by making them rarer commodities. How do you do this? You guessed it, by severely curtailing (a moratorium would be ideal) immigration. Do that and America becomes more of a worker’s market, forcing businesses to offer more money to attract applicants.

Would goods become more expensive? Perhaps, but while this isn’t the focus of this piece, that may be more than offset by the elimination of the social consequences (e.g., hospital, welfare and education costs) of absorbing millions of often illiterate (some can’t even read and write their own languages) Third World immigrants into our nation. Regardless, this is the traditional, healthy, free market way of spreading the wealth around. And I’d rather redistribute wealth through the market than through socialism.

I’d rather redistribute wealth
through the market
than through socialism

Lastly, there’s another irony here. Cesar Chavez, the head of the United Farm Workers Union during its heyday, is a hero of Americans of Mexican descent. So much so, in fact, that his name is often associated with the dual cause of promoting immigration and the re-conquest of California and the American southwest, known as La Reconquista. Conveniently forgotten, though, is a very inconvenient fact: when Chavez enjoyed the peak of his power, he was a fervid – bordering on venomous – opponent of illegal immigration. And he not only railed against it but often actually reported Mexican illegals to the INS so they could be deported. He also protested illegal immigration on the border in 1969 and had civilian border guards who were sufficiently heavy-handed to make today’s Minutemen seem milquetoasty.

What motivated him? Quite simply, he was charged with the responsibility of keeping his union members’ wages as high as possible. And he understood the law of supply and demand.

We have a union called the United States. I just wonder if membership therein means anything anymore.

Of course, there’s always cheap lettuce.

A co-worker told me a story a few months ago about a friend of his who wanted his high school graduate son to spend the summer learning the benefits of hard labor...working outside for a landscaper, carpenter, painter, etc...

His son wasn't able to find work in any of these areas largely because of the abundant supply of cheap, under-the-table, illegal labor. The man felt so strongly that this was an important learning experience for his son, however, that he ended up paying the owner of a landscaping company for his son to have the priveledge of working for him.

Let's stick with the free market, not promote the illegal market. I don't want to have to pay for my boys to paint houses.



A guided tour to an un-enchanted world called "Liberal Land"...

A Virtual Visit to Liberal Land
By Rob Hood (03/29/2006)
...The Red State Army has announced that it has began sending in troops highly skilled in truth-telling, blogging, and internet fundraising. The scheduled date of rescue for the college kids and the Supreme Court is in November of 2006. They will return in November of 2008 to finish the job. The primary goals of this army is to install a new democratic government to replace the ruling party of Liberal Land.

It will happen like this: The Red State Army will:

1)stamp out communism by taking away tax money from ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and other unofficial government installations.

2) Weed out any sign of Political Correctness and arm every citizen with an old dictionary of real world terms.

3) Eradicate any form of socialism and replace it with a more competitive form of modern day capitalism where the public at large benefits.

4) Expose the Media for what they are: liberals with an attitude problem and a dark,evil agenda.

5) Outlaw the "fairness doctrine" and all it stands for and replace it with a constitution that guarantees freedom of speech.

6) tear down the Baal idols of worship and replace them with an unheard of religion called Christianity and instill into the minds of the young and moral right and wrong, a good and an evil.

7) make Israel the center of the world by helping the innocent people reclaim what was given to them by God over 3000 years ago.

8) laugh hysterically about anything related to evolution and replace it with what really happened in the beginning : CREATION!

9) Replace the Brady/Soros/Martin Bunch with people who want real freedom and the right to bear arms. The Red State Army will destroy translate all documents related to something called a "Brady law" by using highly trained Political Correctness Translation Technicians. These outdated and inhumane rulings will be replaced by a constitution that will consist of an amendment that will guarantee all law abiding citizens the right to bear arms.

10) infiltrate "Undocumented Immigrant" Drive and collect billions in unpaid taxes owed by illegal aliens.

These are real goals and were are so close to obtaining them. I hope that this tour of this far away land has helped you realize how lucky you are to live in a free society that can blog freely, worship Jesus Christ and the resurrected Son of God (especially at Christmas) without persecution, and to just be an American. Remember to be on the "right" side of the election this November.


Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

C.S. Lewis: Not a Pacifist...and Not Interested in Political Policy, but Longstanding Principle.

Window in the Garden WallA provocative C.S. Lewis quote from an old post on the temporarily subdued blog Window in the Garden Wall...

"Why I Am Not a Pacifist" from The Weight of Glory (1949):
If not the greatest evil, yet war is a great evil. Therefore, we should all like to remove it if we can. But every war leads to another war. The removal of war must therefore be attempted. We must increase by propaganda the number of Pacifists in each nation until it becomes great enough to deter that nation from going to war. This seems to me wild work. Only liberal societies tolerate Pacifists. In the liberal society, the number of Pacifists will either be large enough to cripple the state as a belligerent, or not. If not, you have done nothing. If it is large enough, then you have handed over the state which does tolerate Pacifists to its totalitarian neighbour who does not. Pacifism of this kind is taking the straight road to a world in which there will be no Pacifists.

...then you have handed over the state
which does tolerate Pacifists
to its totalitarian neighbour
who does not

C.S. LewisFrom John G. West in "Finding the Permanent in the Political: C. S. Lewis as a Political Thinker":
The year was 1951, and England was embroiled in a bitter general election campaign. Six years earlier the Conservative Party of Winston Churchill had been thrown out of power. Now the same party, still led by the same indomitable Churchill, was attempting a comeback. The conventional wisdom was that the attempt would fail. The conventional wisdom was wrong. Voters went to the polls on October 25, and the next morning the whole world knew that the Conservative Party had recaptured control of Parliament and Churchill had regained the post of Prime Minister.

Within a few weeks of the change of power, Churchill's office sent a letter to C. S. Lewis, inviting him to receive the honorary title "Commander of the British Empire." One can only guess what Lewis thought when he first read the letter, but one suspects that he appreciated it, for he greatly admired Churchill.


It is startling to note just how many political topics Lewis broached in his writings: crime, obscenity, capital punishment, conscription, communism, fascism, socialism, war, vivisection, the welfare state, the atomic bomb. When Lewis talked about these matters, however, it was not in the way most politicians do. He was wholly unconcerned with what political scientists today like to call "public policy"--that conglomeration of compromise, convention, and self--interest that forms the staple of much of our own political diet. If you expect to find a prescription for solving air pollution or advice on how to win an election, don't bother reading Lewis. He has nothing to tell you. His concern was not policy but principle; political problems of the day were interesting to him only insofar as they involved matters that endured. Looked at in this light, Lewis's penchant for writing about politics and his simultaneous detachment from the political arena seem perfectly explicable. It is precisely because Lewis was so uninterested in ordinary political affairs that he has so much to tell us about politics in the broad sense of the term. By avoiding the partisan strife of his own time, he was able to articulate enduring political standards for all time...

His concern was not policy
but principle


Contrary to those Christians who reject natural law, however, this problem of uncertainty cannot be solved by replacing the law of nature with the law of revelation as expressed in the Bible. The Bible rarely gives particular advice on specific political issues. It does not tell us whether to build nuclear missiles or invade Panama; it does not inform us what type of social programs to enact, if any; it does not guide us in our choice of the best tax system. The Bible invariably requires interpretation if it is to be used as a political guidebook, and interpretation opens the door for misconstruction. The Bible is infallible; but its interpreters are not. So the Bible can be abused and misused as much as natural law.

uncertainty cannot be solved by
replacing the law of nature
with the law of revelation

Now I am not arguing--and I know Lewis would not argue--that the Bible has no role in the area of morality. But in a society that is not a theocracy the Bible can never be the only standard of morality. The Christians who lived during the American Founding recognized this fact, and their political rhetoric was fashioned accordingly. They spoke regularly of the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" and of acting in accord with both "reason and revelation." They saw natural law as the necessary meeting point for citizens of all religious beliefs. Like the early American Christians, Lewis recognized the inescapable need for natural law. Christians today would do well to heed his advice.



Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Wake up government! You are foolishly forgetting about the American voters...

Kaye Grogan - columnsJust found a great column by Kaye Grogan, a freelance writer in Virginia...

Check out "Americans vote too...ya know!" here.
...Naturally, if people openly refuse to obey the laws by coming to America illegally — then their motives have to be suspect. There is a right and wrong way to do things (no in-betweens), and coming into a country illegally is certainly not the way to gain favor with the country's natural born citizens. The majority of Americans are opposed to illegal immigrants taking American jobs — leaving many of them unemployed.

To say that the "guest worker" program is successful is like claiming someone saw a UFO landing in Wrigley Field. The pro-guest workers' groups are conveniently ignoring the enormous strain illegal immigrants are having on the economy through the welfare and medical programs. Something is definitely wrong when 92 hospitals in one state, had to close their doors permanently due to the influx of immigrants needing medical attention.

Don't you think it's time for you (as leaders and lawmakers) to get inside the real world and quit pandering to a large group who has made a mockery out of the laws of this county?

As long as you reward people for bad conduct . . . you will never be taken seriously as a person who abides by or respects the law.

And that's just my opinion!
Another Mac Attack: Illegals "mobbing the streets Americans won't mob"...


Sharon Stone: Hillary has too much "sexual power" to be President...oh, and teens should give more oral sex

Sharon for article(hat tip Conservative Cat)

Sharon Stone:
"I think Hillary Clinton is fantastic, but I think it is too soon for her to run (for president)... A woman should be past her sexuality when she runs. Hillary still has sexual power and I don't think people will accept that. It's too threatening."
That's just too funny. Hillary and "sexual power" don't belong in the same sentence Sharon...stop thinking too much and pull yourself together!

Hard to fathom, but this next one is even more unbelievable...

Sharon Stone:
"Young people talk to me about what to do if they're being pressed for sex. I tell them (what I believe): oral sex is a hundred times safer than vaginal or anal sex. "If you're in a situation where you cannot get out of sex, offer a blow job. I'm not embarrassed to tell them."
Disgusting and totally irresponsible. Sharon is doing everything she can to pimp her new film, including joining Tom Cruise and Charlie Sheen on the "most clueless, idiotic moron" list in Hollywood...a list which isn't getting any shorter by the way.

Does she have no shame? Right and wrong have clearly gone out he window here. Why do we have to take this? What if Al Pacino had given this advise...that a teen girl who is threatened should offer oral sex? He'd be crucified. But no, Sharon is just offering an unusual point of view that should be respected least that's how it feels.

I hope she recieves some sort of backlash for this. It's one thing for her to leave condoms in her hallway at home for her kids, but it's another thing entirely for her to promote this kind of thing publicly. There is such a thing as right and wrong, and she is wrong.

Cris Bergman:
I'm certain she's not embarrassed - she has no shame. So if a teen is in a situation where they cannot get out of sex? What does she mean - like rape? This may be the dumbest words ever to leave Stone's mouth.

I'm a mom with a teen - so I understand the importance of safe sex for teens - but to tell a girl to give a guy oral sex if he is aggressive is asinine.

Wow - Sharon Stone - way to step up and be role model for teens. Reward your would be rapist with oral sex.
Well said Cris.


Labels: , ,

NY Times reporter Scott Shane takes a jab at “conservative bloggers”...

NY Times company stock image for link to Michelle Malkin postTimes Watch covers it here.
In contrast to Shane’s dubious take on the judgment of “conservative bloggers” like Robison, Shane has in the past found anti-war serial misleader Joseph Wilson to be quite trustworthy and credulously claimed that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, had “shunned publicity,” even as her photo appeared in Vanity Fair that very month.

Nathan Goulding at National Review Online finds Shane’s take scornful and writes sarcastically: “But there's no need to second-guess in this case, the NYT assures us. After all, an anonymous ‘senior intelligence official’ says there's nothing to these documents. Besides, the only people who seem interested in the documents are those crazy conservative bloggers.”
Sign up for their TimesWatch Tracker here to be kept in the loop on the liberal bias at the Old Grey Lady.


Labels: ,

Some interesting facts I heard on Glenn Beck this morning...

Glenn Beck - Conservative Blog Therapy Points of interest:

  • 2700 illegals come across the southern border every day.

  • Polls in Mexico show that 50% of people fear for their safety in their own homes.

    (here's the big one)

  • "Remittances" (funds sent back to Mexico from America) are the second largest annual revenue generator (17 Billion!!!) for Mexico, second only to oil sales (25 Billion). WOW.

    I don't get to listen much, but Glenn Beck is seriously entertaining.

    (You can listen to Glenn here for free M-F 9:00am to noon Eastern U.S...see the sidebar for other hosts/times)



  • Monday, March 27, 2006

    Another Mac Attack: Illegals "mobbing the streets Americans won't mob"...

    Mac Johnson - Conservative Blog TherapyMac Johnson speaks for me, and is yet again on the money. He's absolutely one of my favorites...

    Click here to listen.

    To the astonishment and delight of the news media, Saturday saw an unprecedented protest by an estimated 500,000 illegal aliens and their advocates in Los Angeles. Smaller rallies were held in cities across the country, opposing efforts to secure the border and finally crack down on illegal entry into America by millions of unscreened foreigners. Apparently, the protests prove what a “divisive” issue illegal immigration is. To me, they simply prove that criminals dislike the prospect of increased law enforcement.

    To me, they simply prove
    that criminals dislike the prospect
    of increased law enforcement.

    But that’s not all the protests prove. They also prove how ridiculously out of control our federal government has let the problem get. Which is worse -- that a half million immigration criminals and their descendants and sympathizers can be found in a single American city, or that the current immigration enforcement system is such a joke that the half million have nothing to fear from openly entering the public streets and arguing against legislation currently before Congress?

    It’s as if thieves thought they could form a union to lobby for fewer cops.

    It’s as if thieves thought
    they could form a union
    to lobby for fewer cops

    Sadly, many in Congress will actually consider their demands. You know, just like Mexico would consider the wishes of any American criminals in their country for profit.

    But mostly the throngs showed how poorly we are assimilating the unprecedented numbers of migrants we have received in this generation. The need to limit immigration to numbers that can be properly assimilated has always been one of the main arguments against tolerating illegal immigration, and this weekend’s pro-illegal-immigration protests did much, ironically, to support that argument.

    Many of the symptoms of failure to assimilate were obvious. The colossal crowd, allegedly gathered to tout their pursuit of the “American Dream”, held signs in Spanish, waved mostly Mexican flags, and chanted “Mexico! Mexico!” and “Si se puede!” (Yes we can!). Which is, it seems, an answer to the formerly rhetorical question, “Can the whole world sneak into America?” There was also the predictable invocation of race and ethnicity that is supposed to obligate American Hispanics to side with the illegal aliens, at least in the nationalistic eyes of the illegals themselves.

    the tout their pursuit
    of the “American Dream”,
    held signs in Spanish, waved mostly
    Mexican flags, and
    chanted “Mexico! Mexico!”

    But there was a subtler symptom of how unassimilated the protesters were: the quintessentially foreign form of the protest itself.

    Due to its size, the protest shocked the American media. A wave of 500,000 people pouring through Los Angeles is one of the largest protests in the history of the whole country. Thus, the protests have been reported as an extraordinary reaction to events in American politics. But they are not extraordinary at all. They are just the typical way that governments are influenced in many Latin American nations.

    What the protests truly represent is the colonization of America by the Latin style of politics. Rally, demonstration, march and protest are the tools of the politically dispossessed. They carry with them the intrinsic threat that is always associated with the gathering of large crowds in acts of political demonstration. And they are standard fair in the lopsided politics of many foreign nations, including Mexico.

    Consider the following recent examples, all from the BBC World service coverage of Mexico:

  • April 24, 2005: “Hundreds of thousands of people have marched through Mexico City in support of the capital's embattled mayor…”

  • September 13, 2001: “Union leaders in Mexico say they expect thousands of people to take to the streets on Thursday in protest at plans to impose taxes on some foods and medicines.”

  • March 17, 2006: “Most of the demonstrations in Mexico City remained peaceful, however, with the violence blamed on a small number of radical youths.”

  • March 19, 1999: “Tens of thousands of demonstrators brought the centre of Mexico City to a standstill on Thursday in a protest against government economic policies.”

  • June 28, 2004: “Mexican President Vicente Fox has said his government has failed to defeat violent crime, after a protest in Mexico City by over 250,000 people.”

  • November 28, 2003: “Tens of thousands of people have marched through Mexico City to protest against energy and tax reforms...”

  • January 31, 2003: “Thousands of farmers gathered in the Mexican capital to demand their government renegotiate a regional trade pact...”

  • August 28, 1999: “Thousands of demonstrators have taken part in a march in Mexico City to protest against government plans to allow private investment in the state-owned electric power industry.”

    Viewed in this light, one can see that the protests are not unusual at all -- for a Latin American nation. And it is an unassimilated colony of Latin America that twenty years of corrupt government inaction on illegal immigration has built in Los Angeles and Phoenix and Chicago and Houston and dozens of other cities and towns across America, both large and small.

    For demographic reasons, the examples I gave above were drawn exclusively from Mexico, but similar patterns of political protest as the default means of lobbying government can be found in Venezuela, Peru, Uruguay, and other Latin American nations. They are standard fare, and institutionalized in the culture of the region.

    In the United States, we write letters to the editor and vote and debate. In the Latin world, people march and rally and muster their numbers before the eyes of government.

    What we saw this weekend was not extraordinary. It is the new normal. It is the predictable and unimpeded flow of the political culture of Latin America into the United States.

    And unless we address the gaping hole in our border, enforce our laws, deport illegal entrants, and again assimilate legitimate immigrants into our unique culture, you can count on the United States becoming more Latin American, and less American, every day.
  • -Home-

    Labels: , ,

    American Creativity, Leadership, Competitiveness, Talent...Innovation is the key

    President George W. Bush, May 2001:
    "The role of government is not to create wealth; the role of our government is to create an environment in which the entrepreneur can flourish, in which minds can expand, in which technologies can reach new frontiers."

    Labels: ,

    Islamic imperialism and the dream of a global Islamic empire inspiring every Muslim jihadist...

    Islamic Imperialism: A History
    by Efraim Karsh

    From Human Events Book Service:
    The upsurge of Islamic jihad around the world has inspired two diametrically opposed -- yet equally false -- interpretations regarding its "root causes," writes Middle East expert Efraim Karsh in Islamic Imperialism. In one view, modern jihad represents a backlash by a deeply frustrated civilization reluctant to come to terms with its long-standing decline. In the other, it is a response to America's arrogant foreign policy by fringe extremists whose violent interpretation of Islam has little to do with the religion's actual spirit or teachings. But, as Professor Karsh demonstrates conclusively in this myth-busting book, the real "root cause" of Islamic jihad is the teachings and traditions of Islam itself.

    "From the first Arab-Islamic empire of the mid-seventh century to the Ottomans, the last great Muslim empire," writes Karsh, "the story of Islam has been the story of the rise and fall of universal empires and, no less important, of imperialist dreams." With brilliant scholarship, Karsh shows how this dream of a global Islamic empire has inspired every Muslim jihadist, including:

    Muhammad:"I was ordered to fight all men until they say 'There is no god but Allah'"

    Saladin, the 12th-century conqueror:"I shall cross the sea to their islands to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah"

    Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini:"We will export our revolution throughout the world . . . until the calls 'There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah' are echoed all over the world"

    Osama bin Laden:"I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah and his prophet Muhammad"

    In "Islamic Imperialism", Karsh demonstrates that September 11 must be seen as simply the latest expression of this dream, and such attacks have little to do with U.S. international behavior or policy in the Middle East.

  • How Islam envisages a global political order in which all humankind will live under Muslim rule as either believers or subject communities (dhimmis)

  • How, in order to achieve this goal, it is incumbent on all free, male, adult Muslims to carry out an uncompromising struggle (jihad) "in the path of Allah"

  • Why this, in turn, makes all those parts of the world that have not yet been conquered by the House of Islam an abode of permanent conflict (Dar al-Harb, the House of War) which will only end with Islam's eventual triumph

  • Why, in the meantime, there can be no peace between Islam and the rest of the world -- only the temporary suspension of hostilities to allow Islam to regain the advantage

  • How even Islam's earliest conquests were imperial in nature, aimed not at ridding itself of foreign occupiers (as often maintained) but at establishing universal Islamic rule

  • How, unlike Christianity, Islam made no distinction between temporal and religious powers, which were combined in the person of Muhammad -- allowing him to cloak his political ambitions with a religious aura

  • The watershed event in Islamic history that transformed Muhammad from a private preacher into a political and military leader -- and Islam from a persecuted cult into a major religion with imperialist ambitions

  • How Muhammad pioneered the "fusion of the sacred and the profitable" - amassing astounding wealth for himself and his followers -- which was endorsed by future generations of Islamic leaders

  • Muhammad's massacre of the Medina Jews, who refused to acknowledge his revelations: how it set the pattern for Muslim Jew-hatred down to the present day

  • Slaves: the primary trade commodity in the Islamic empire

  • The crusades: how, unlike the early Islamic conquests, they were not a drive for world mastery but a limited endeavor geared toward stemming the tide of Muslim aggression and liberating the Christian holy places

  • How contemporary scholars falsely idealize the Ottoman empire as a shining example of tolerance, in contrast with their scathing indictment of Western colonialism

  • How Osama bin Laden and other modern jihadists model themselves on Islam's early conquerors -- and aspire to nothing less than the substitution of Allah's universal empire for the existing international system

  • Alarming signs -- cultural, demographic and political -- that Europe may come under Islamic domination by the end of the twenty-first century
  • Efraim Karsh is professor and head of the Mediterranean Studies Programme, King’s College, University of London. He has published extensively and often served as a consultant on Middle Eastern affairs, Soviet foreign policy, and European neutrality.

    Click the either image above (or here) to order or browse on Amazon.


    Labels: , , ,

    Blair: Continuing to fight for what it right...defending the values that we hold dear

    Tony Blair is making his case for conitinued perseverence and patience in Iraq in a speech to the Australian Parliament in Canberra. ...
    "This is not a time to walk away but to have the courage to see it through"

    "If we want to secure our way of life, there's no alternative but to fight for it. That means standing up for our values not just in our own country but the world over...We need to construct a global alliance for these global values and act through it."

    "I don't always agree with the US. Sometimes they are difficult friends to have...But the strain of, frankly, anti-American feeling in parts of European politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in."

    In an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Blair said that the insurgency in Iraq has failed to undermine Iraqis' desire for democracy.

    "What has happened with this terrorism and insurgency is that it's tried to derail the political process and has failed so it's now turning to try to create sectarian strife,... But it's not what the people want. What they want is a functioning democracy."
    In his speech, Mr. Blair also said that Australia, Britain, the United States and their allies must win not just the "battle of arms" but also one of global democratic values - which he defined as fairness, justice and freedom.

    "Wherever people live in fear, with no prospect of advance, we should be on their side in solidarity with them," said Mr. Blair.

    He said while Iraq and Afghanistan are the key battlegrounds, the world must also pay attention to the same struggle elsewhere - in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma and North Korea.

    Addressing anti-American feeling in parts of the world, the British leader warned that this battle for global values could not be won if the United States retreated into isolationism.

    Mr. Blair, who received a standing ovation from Australian lawmakers, arrived in Australia Saturday and will visit New Zealand and Indonesia later this week.

    Blair's speech was a stinging condemnation of Australian Labor's Iraq policy, and a ringing endorsement of the Howard Government's approach.

    (hat tip Alexandra)


    Labels: ,

    Sunday, March 26, 2006

    Tax please!

    What...does it depend on what your definition of "now" is?

    Flat or Sales or something in

    President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform:
    Purpose. The purpose of the Advisory Panel shall be to submit to the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with this order a report with revenue neutral policy options for reforming the Federal Internal Revenue Code. These options should:

    (a) simplify Federal tax laws to reduce the costs and administrative burdens of compliance with such laws; (b) share the burdens and benefits of the Federal tax structure in an appropriately progressive manner while recognizing the importance of homeownership and charity in American society; and (c) promote long-run economic growth and job creation, and better encourage work effort, saving, and investment, so as to strengthen the competitiveness of the United States in the global marketplace.

    At least one option submitted by the Advisory Panel should use the Federal income tax as the base for its recommended reforms.
    Final Report here...silence.


    Democrats: "Breaking Down Republican Culture of Corruption"...and more feel-good blather with no real ideas

    Click the image above or here for the complete coverage from the official site of the Democratic National Committee.

    Jack Reed - Democrat Rhode IslandClick here for audio of Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) saying how "Americans Want Real Plan for Iraq, Not PR Campaign".

    As always, the Democratic agenda for the country is centered around bringing down President Bush, regaining power, criticizing with no real ideas...and certainly not about anything productive: Header

    Keeping America Safe at Home

    John Kerry FunnyDemocrats are unwavering in our commitment to keep our nation safe. That's why we led the fight to create the Department of Homeland Security and continue to fight to ensure that our ports, nuclear and chemical plants, and other sensitive facilities are secured against attack.

    Democrats support fair immigration reform that keeps our borders secure. Democrats are also united to ensure that the world's most dangerous weapons stay out of the hands of terrorists. We will expand the pace and scope of programs to eliminate and safeguard nuclear materials, enhance efforts to keep these and other deadly materials out of the hands of terrorists, and assist state and local governments in equipping and training those responsible for dealing with the effects of terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction.

    Strength Overseas

    Howard DeanOur nation stands as a shining example to all the world of freedom and democracy, a unique honor that comes with a responsibility to lead.

    Democrats believe that strong international alliances are the cornerstone of our foreign policy. The threat from international terrorism and rogue states requires a new era of alliances led by the United States, based on mutual respect and shared vision.

    A Strong Economy

    If you want job creation, a strong economy, and a fiscally responsible federal government, there's only one choice: vote for Democrats. History has proven that Democrats know what it takes to keep our economy growing.

    Bush & KennedyExpanding economic opportunity. Democrats believe that the most effective means of increasing opportunity for our families is a high quality, good paying job. We are committed to expanding economic opportunity to all Americans and creating the new jobs of the future.

    Fiscal responsibility. The Democratic Party believes in balanced budgets and paying down our national debt, while Republicans continue to put huge burdens on future generations by borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign nations.

    Fair trade. Creating jobs at home means opening markets abroad. The Democratic Party supports fair trade agreements that raise standards for workers abroad while making American business more competitive. We will also fight for stronger enforcement of our existing trade agreements.


    Hilary LiesDemocrats know that the key to expanding opportunity is to provide every child with a world-class education. We want to meet our responsibilities to America's children by ensuring that our schools have the resources they need to help our kids meet high standards.

    Democrats will also help expand educational opportunities for college by providing relief from skyrocketing college tuition, increasing the size and access to Pell Grants and supporting proven programs that encourage more young people to attend and succeed in college.
    That's all I can take...nothing but anti-this, anti-that, pandering, pandering, and more pandering.

    Vote Democrat and they promise you'll be taken care of on the plantation...because bad things shouldn't happen to good people...and don't unless Republicans are in charge.


    Labels: , , , , ,

    The Hope of Spring...

    By Tony Blankley
    March 22, 2006

    Click here for the complete article from the editorial page of the Washington Times.
    ...As I argued in my book, the will to resist probably will not come from the top down. It will not be the elected leaders or the senior bureaucrats or the elite media or prestigious academics who will provide the stiff backbone -- neither in Europe nor in America. If there is strength left, and I believe there is -- it will come up from the people.

    So the signs of change are more likely to be found in the modest precincts where the common people and tomorrow's true leaders do their work and speak their piece -- not in the formal pronouncements of governments. As in yesterday's governmental announcement from Sweden, it was the mere consequence of a people's will.

    So, too, in Washington this brilliant spring morning, professional Republicans of all types -- senators and congressmen, strategists and operatives, lawyers and lobbyists, pundits and columnists -- remain in their winter gloom. They don't have enough bad to say of their president who has seen them through three successful elections -- but now appears to be faltering. They have become a sullen, muttering mob of malcontents -- offering all sorts of advice. They offer the president every form of assistance -- short of help.

    As in the previous matter, let the strength come from the bottom up. If the president cannot currently do large, important political things, let Congress do small useful things to enhance their public esteem and the public welfare.

    Be cheerful, live in hope, be productive and useful. Nobody likes a gloomy Gus. Nor are they likely to vote for such gloom merchants in November. If you must say rude things, here's an idea. Say it about your opponents (clue: They have a D after their names).



    Saturday, March 25, 2006

    An weekend interview with Thomas Sowell...

    "Classy Economist"
    Thomas Sowell is a lifetime student of the market force.
    Mr. Sowell's unorthodox views on racial matters have made him our foremost "black conservative," but the modifier sells him way short. He is one of the country's leading social commentators--without qualification. And his scholarship is not only voluminous but wide-ranging, covering everything from education and law to political philosophy, migration and the history of ideas. His primary discipline, however, is economics, specifically the history of economic thought, the subject in which he earned his doctorate from the University of Chicago in 1968 under Milton Friedman and George Stigler. It is the subject he taught at Cornell, UCLA, Amherst, Brandeis and elsewhere during an academic career in the 1960s and '70s. And it is the subject of his most recent book, "On Classical Economics," which Yale has just published.
    I hadn't read Sowell until a few years ago. Now I read all of his columns, and he rarely disappoints. Thomas Sowell is fantastic. Hard to believe he's 76...I would have guessed at least 10-15 years younger.



    Muammar Gadhafi: "Libya is the only real democracy in the world"...Charlie Sheen probably agrees

    Saturday, March 25, 2006
    Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi lectured an American audience on democracy via a videoconference link to a New York university on Thursday, stating that Libya was the only real democracy in the world. Gaddafi was addressing an unprecedented gathering of U.S. and Libyan academics prompted by a thaw in relations since the former Pariah State decided in 2003 to abandon nuclear weapons and took responsibility for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.

    Gaddafi used the rare interaction with Westerners to tout Libya's political system as superior to parliamentary and representative democracies in the West which he said were farcical and fake. Gaddafi also said that nations should not involve themselves with the internal affairs of other nations.
    Gaddafi is almost on par with the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying that the Holocaust never happened...

    ...and with Charlie Sheen for that matter, saying that 9/11 couldn’t have happened the way the government tells it and that the collapse of the World Trade Centers looked like a “controlled demolition”. He also doubts a plane actually hit the Pentagon. Loon, or moron? Moonbat for sure.

    Doug Powers:
    "Of course, Charlie was baked on Acapulco red and had a whore sitting on his face at the time, but dammit, he knows what he saw!"


    Labels: ,

    Right and Left, Right and Wrong...

    Mike Burleson - March 17, 2006
    Republicans believe America is the land of the free and the home of the brave.
    Democrats think America has a lot to answer for in the world.

    Republicans think America is the land of opportunity.
    Democrats are embarrassed by America’s wealth.

    Republicans believe in defeating terrorism.
    Democrats think American policies create terrorism.

    Republicans visit wounded soldiers in the hospital.
    Democrats protest in front of military hospitals.

    Republicans believe in attacking countries who threaten world peace.
    Democrats think America threatens world peace.

    Republicans think terrorists should be imprisoned for killing innocent civilians.
    Democrats are concerned over the welfare of terrorists in US prisons.

    Republicans think Saddam should be tried by the people of Iraq for his crimes.
    Democrats fret that Saddam might not get a fair trial.

    Republicans believe America is one nation under God.
    Democrats are kicking God out of schools, churches, the courts, and increasingly out of the country.

    Republicans are often shocked by the lack of traditional values in Hollywood.
    Democrats think Hollywood values are “mainstream America”.

    Republicans believe America should lead the world.
    Democrats think America should be led by the world.

    Labels: , , ,

    Friday, March 24, 2006

    Newt making a ton of sense on the issues: A long post, but worth a read...Newt is right.

    Challenge #1: "Confronting America's Enemies"
    The Irreconcilable Wing of Islam believes in a strikingly different world then the one we believe. It is an uncivilized and barbaric world. This wing of Islam, and its adherents and recruits, are irreconcilable because they cannot peacefully coexist with the civilized world. Their views on the role of women, on the application of medieval religious law (the Sha’ria) and religious intolerance (prosecuting Christians) make them irreconcilable with civilization in the modern age.

    This ideological wing of Islam is irreconcilable because it does not accept freedom of conscience.

    It does not accept freedom of speech.

    It does not accept that women are equal in dignity and equal under the law, but instead accords them an inferior status in the life of society.

    It does not accept the existence of the United States, with the adherents of the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam constantly fomenting a cheering chorus calling the United States the “Great Satan” and calling for its destruction. Their constantly declared goal is to either destroy or dominate the United States.

    It does not accept Israel as a legal state.

    It does not accept the inherent dignity of every human life. Instead, it supports the taking of innocent lives -- in the name of its ideology -- of anyone or any group that disagrees with its world view.

    Because this war is at its core an ideological war, it is most accurate to think of and identify this war against the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam as the “Long War”.

    It is stunningly hard to win a war of ideology where the enemy is religiously motivated to kill us...

    It is stunningly hard to win
    a war of ideology where the enemy
    is religiously motivated to kill us

    ...Because we are involved in a civil war within Islam, we must work to turn the Islamic world against the Irreconcilables. Just as the Cold War was fought in part as a propaganda war pitting the appeal of democracy against communism, so too we need the Peace Corps and other government agencies to sponsor pro-Western secular schools and charities throughout the Islamic world. Most important, we need big broadcast networks that communicate to the Islamic world Western ideas about the rule of law, private property, and freedom. We need to broadcast our civic culture so that the Arab world gets a different view of the West than what it gets from Al Jazeera and Michael Moore.

    Simultaneously leading the world, defeating the Irreconcilable Islamists, forcing rogue dictatorships into acceptable behavior (or replacing them), building up our intelligence and military capabilities to cope with China and Russia and other threats, making the necessary transformations in our foreign policy bureaucracy, and securing our homeland will be an enormous undertaking.

    President Bush told us the truth: It will be a hard campaign, a long war, and we will suffer setbacks on occasion. “This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion....Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.”

    Transformational wars always take time, and always mean overcoming setbacks: It took George Washington from 1776 to 1783 to win the Revolutionary War. It took Abraham Lincoln four years (1861 to 1864) to finally hit on a winning strategy to win the Civil War in 1865. And the Cold War lasted more than forty years until the Soviet Empire collapsed.

    We have risen to the challenge before and we can do so again. As Ronald Reagan won the Cold War, so too can we win this war.

    Challenge #2: "Defending God in the Public Square"
    There is no attack on American culture more deadly and more historically dishonest than the secular Left’s unending war against God in America’s public life. The decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to rule unconstitutional the phrase “one nation under God” was the final straw. A court that would destroy a Pledge of Allegiance adopted by the Congress, signed by the president (Eisenhower), and supported by 91 percent of the American people is a court that is clearly out of step with an America that understands that our rights come from God, which is why no government—or court—can justly take them away from us...

    the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals...
    is a court that is clearly out of step
    with an America that understands
    that our rights come from God

    ...Abraham Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, remarked that

    It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to the cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

    We are, and always have been, a nation “under God,” regardless of our “robust national religious diversity.”

    The two primary battlefields of this cultural struggle are the courts and the classrooms. Those are the arenas in which the secular Left has imposed change against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Americans. Those are the arenas in which believing in the Founding Fathers and the classic interpretation of the Constitution can be disastrous to a career and lead to social ostracism.

    If we insist on courts that follow the facts of American history in interpreting the Constitution, we will reestablish the right that every American has to acknowledge our Creator as the source of our rights, our well being, and our wisdom. And if we insist on patriotic education both for our children and for new immigrants, we will rebuild the cultural bond of historic memory that has made America the most exceptional nation in history.

    Challenge #3: "Protecting American Civilization"
    We should not worry about people who want to come to the United States to work hard, pay taxes, obey the law, and become Americans. In fact, we should be delighted to have new Americans join our country because historically they have been the source of enormous talent, energy, and courage. From Alexander Hamilton to Andrew Carnegie to Albert Einstein to Henry Kissinger to Arnold Schwarzenegger, people who wanted to improve their lives, and in the process improve the country, have enriched America.

    Nor should we be concerned that a substantial number of new Americans are Hispanic. America has a long history of absorbing and blending people of many languages and backgrounds. There have always been non-English newspapers in America and now we have non-English radio and television. I am also not worried that some immigrants come here only to earn money and then go home (Italian immigrants, in particular, did that in the past).

    What should worry us is the breakdown of will on the part of America to control the borders and to ensure that new immigrants learn to be American. What should worry us is a breakdown of will to protect America’s unique civilization...

    What should worry us is
    a breakdown of will to protect
    America’s unique civilization

    ...But in all of this, we must not be naïve. Insisting that public schools actually teach American history and American values will provoke a bitter fight with the left, no matter how popular those values are with the American people.

    If we lose this struggle in the classrooms we will lose the America that was proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence and defined in our Constitution.

    If we do not teach America’s patriotic history to our children then how are they going to learn it? We must make sure that our young people understand America and what it means to be an American. This is a unique country, the Founders were unique people, and the Constitution is a remarkable document. We live in a very magical place called America and we need to reassert this truth again and again.

    Challenge #4: "Competing in a Global Economy"
    The challenge of economic competition from China and India will require transformations in litigation, education, taxation, regulation, environmental and health policies for America to continue to be the most successful economy in the world and the best source of high paying jobs and enough economic growth to sustain the Baby Boomers and their children when they retire, especially the transformation of math and science education in America. This is the single greatest challenge to our continued economic and national security leadership. Without a profound improvement in math and science learning, America will simply not be able to sustain its national security nor compete for high value jobs in the world market.

    Without a profound improvement
    in math and science learning,
    America will simply not be able
    to sustain its national security
    nor compete for high
    value jobs in the world market

    For the last two decades, the Europeans have looked with scorn upon the American model of free enterprise. Their response to innovation and challenge has been economic isolationism, rule-rigging, and graceful decay. While they know that a welfare state and unionized work rules are expensive and inefficient, they’ve decided to live with them.

    In the United States, there exists a coalition of union leaders who prefer protection over competition; environmental extremists who value nature over the well-being and prosperity of their fellow citizens; and liberal intellectuals who distrust the fluidity and uncertainty of the market and prefer the orderliness of command bureaucracies. This liberal coalition complains about companies’ outsourcing jobs while insisting on corporate taxes that encourage companies to go overseas. They prefer that government impose on business obsolete, absurd work rules, even though these raise costs, lower productivity, and make America less competitive in the world market. These liberals believe in expanding regulation even when it fails to meet any cost-benefit test and clearly drives jobs out of the United States. The Left refuses to reform litigation or create a better system of civil ¬justice even though it knows the explosion of lawsuits makes it less desirable to create jobs and invest in the United States.

    The challenge to American economic supremacy from 1.3 billion Chinese and more than 1.1 billion Indians is vastly greater than anything we have previously seen. India’s embrace of capitalism and China’s bizarre combination of Marxist-Leninist government and free market initiatives will create a future where one-fourth of the world’s markets will be controlled by these countries. Those who advocate economic isolationism and protectionism are advocating a policy that could help China and India surpass the United States in economic power in our children’s or grandchildren’s lifetime.

    Challenge #5: "Promoting Active Healthy Aging"
    The very success of more people living longer will require dramatic transformation in pensions, Social Security and health so that seniors can have active, healthy aging and long term living without the demands on Social Security, Medicare, and related government programs collapsing the current system.

    Aging is a part of life. As we creep up in years our bones get achier. But the values, characteristics, and expectations of most Americans, and especially the baby boomers, are unchanged. We want to continue to lead productive, intellectually stimulating lives, have significance, and be physically active. We value our freedom and our dreams. We do not want age to define us, nor do we want age to eliminate our right to choose where and how we live. It is this American drive for independence that will lead to changes in how we think about the aging process and how we prepare financially for our health and retirement.

    We must recognize that reforming Medicare and rethinking government rules for retirement to encourage economic activity are key steps toward a better future for the baby boomers. The policies that may have made sense in earlier eras when people died younger, exhausted by farm and factory labor (most Americans died by 63 when Social Security set its payment age at 65,) are simply not applicable in an era when more people are healthier longer and want to continue to stay active.

    We must recognize that reforming
    Medicare and rethinking government rules
    for retirement to encourage economic activity
    are key steps toward a
    better future for the baby boomers.

    Active healthy aging requires us to develop policies for 21st Century Medicare and 21st Century Social Security Systems...

    ...For conservatives, such personal social security savings account reform could not be a bigger or more urgent issue. By shifting fundamentally all Social Security retirement benefits to the personal social security savings accounts over the long run, and financing part of the transition by reducing the rate of growth of federal spending, the Ryan–Sununu bill will ultimately reduce federal spending by roughly 6.5 percent of GDP. That, in fact, is a must if we are to avoid an explosion of federal spending relative to GDP that will result under current federal policies.

    Personal social security savings accounts will in fact fulfill the promise that the Social Security system cannot deliver: a guaranteed retirement account. President Franklin Roosevelt and President Ronald Reagan would both be pleased.
    Too much reasoned common sense in there Mr. Gingrich.

    Is Newt right?


    Labels: , , , , ,

    We all know about about idearaising?

    If you live in Florida...or anywhere for that matter, you should check this out... "100 Innovative Ideas for Florida's Future".

    Click here to watch Newt Gingrich speak briefly at the Health Transformation Summit about 100 Innovative Ideas for Florida’s Future while addressing gathered Legislators about Health Care in Florida.

    Following post..."Newt making a ton of sense on the issues..."


    Labels: ,

    Michael Yon on CNN...

    Click the image above for video of Michael Yon on Anderson Cooper 360 a few days ago. Michael talks about how we're not getting the full picture from Iraq.


    Labels: ,

    John Howard & Condi Rice speak up on Abdul Rahman - Unfortunately, Muslim Clerics are speaking up too...

    March 24 - Bloomberg
    The case of an Afghan man facing a possible death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity is "appalling," Australian Prime Minister John Howard said.

    "We're putting the lives of Australian soldiers on the line and this sort of thing is allowed," Howard told Melbourne radio station 3AW today. "When I saw the report about this I felt sick." Australia's government said last month it will send an additional 200 soldiers to serve in Afghanistan...

    "When I saw the report about
    this I felt sick."

    ...Howard said he would write to Afghan President Hamid Karzai to protest. The UN, the U.K. and U.S. have also raised the issue with the Afghan government, which has said it is up to the courts to decide the case. Afghanistan, supported by the international community, has moved toward democracy since the ousting of the Taliban, inaugurating its first parliament since 1969 in December.

    The Australian government said Feb. 21 it will send an extra 200 soldiers to Afghanistan to help in reconstruction and security efforts in the south of the country. The deployment will increase Australia's military commitment to about 500 soldiers.

    "The idea that a person could be punished because of their religious beliefs, and the idea that they might be executed is just beyond belief," Howard said. "I think this is appalling."

    "The idea that a person
    could be punished because of
    their religious beliefs, and the idea that
    they might be executed is just beyond belief,
    I think this is appalling."

    U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday spoke by telephone with Karzai on the matter, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters in Washington.

    "She made very clear what our views were in the strongest possible terms," McClellan said. "She stressed the importance of Afghanistan finding a favorable resolution to this." U.S. President George W. Bush said March 22 the case was "deeply troubling."

    U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist yesterday said Rice should press Afghanistan for Rahman's immediate release.

    "It is fair to say that the United States has not spent the last four plus years liberating, defending, rebuilding and assisting Afghanistan's democratic development only to see the Afghani people remain subject to laws reminiscent of the Taliban's reign," Frist said in a letter to Rice.

    "the United States has not spent
    the last four plus years liberating,
    defending, rebuilding and assisting
    Afghanistan's democratic development only
    to see the Afghani people remain subject
    to laws reminiscent of the Taliban's reign"

    March 24 - WaPo
    In an unusual move, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telephoned President Hamid Karzai on Thursday seeking what she called a "satisfactory outcome" of the case of Abdul Rahman. The 41-year-old former medical aid worker faces the death penalty under Afghanistan's Islamic laws for becoming a Christian.

    "Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate and was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban before the hard-line regime was ousted in 2001.

    ...On Wednesday, authorities said Rahman is suspected of being mentally ill and would undergo psychological examinations to see whether he is fit to stand trial.

    But three Sunni preachers and a Shiite one interviewed by The Associated Press in four of Kabul's most popular mosques said they do not believe Rahman is insane.

    "He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian," said Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque.

    "The government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed," Hamidullah said.

    Raoulf, who is a member of the country's main Islamic organization, the Afghan Ulama Council, agreed. "The government is playing games. The people will not be fooled."

    "Cut off his head!" he exclaimed, sitting in a courtyard outside Herati Mosque. "We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left."

    "We will call on the people to
    pull him into pieces
    so there's nothing left."

    ...Said Mirhossain Nasri, the top cleric at Hossainia Mosque, one of the largest Shiite places of worship in Kabul, said Rahman must not be allowed to leave the country.

    "If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can too," he said. "We must set an example. ... He must be hanged."

    ..."We are a small country and we welcome the help the outside world is giving us. But please don't interfere in this issue," Nasri said. "We are Muslims and these are our beliefs. This is much more important to us than all the aid the world has given us."

    "We are Muslims and these
    are our beliefs. This is much
    more important to us than all the aid
    the world has given us."

    March 24 - NY Times
    Afghan clerics used Friday Prayers at mosques across the capital to call for death for an Afghan man who converted to Christianity, despite widespread protest in the West.

    Afghan clerics used Friday Prayers
    at mosques across the capital
    to call for death for an Afghan man
    who converted to Christianity

    As the international pressure on Afghanistan grew, the clerics demanded the execution of the Afghan, Abdul Rahman 41, if he does not convert back to Islam. His conversion 15 years ago was brought to the attention of Afghan authorities as part of a child custody dispute.

    The Bush administration and European governments have strongly protested the case as a violation of religious freedom.

    In Washington, a State Department spokesman was asked whether the United States had made it clear to the Afghan government that its conduct on the issue could have consequences for its relationship with the United States.

    "It has been made abundantly clear to the government of Afghanistan how the United States feels about this issue and the importance that we attach to its positive resolution," the spokesman, Adam Ereli, replied.

    Asked what should happen next, Mr. Ereli said, "The next step is for the issue to be resolved by the government of Afghanistan."

    Abdul Rahman...still limited coverage of the converted Christian facing death in Afghanistan


    Labels: , , , ,