Archive for January 21st, 2009

Freedom of Speech Dead in the Netherlands

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

The freedom of speech is truly dead in the Netherlands. Who is the murderer who killed free speech, you might ask? You don’t need Interpol for this case; the perpetrator is none other than Islam, the so-called peaceful and tolerant Muslims.

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — A right-wing lawmaker should be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred with anti-Islamic statements that include calling the Koran a “fascist book,” a Dutch court ruled Wednesday.

Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made headlines around the world in March 2008 with his film “Fitna,” which juxtaposed Koranic verses against a background of violent film clips and images of terrorism by Islamic radicals.

In 2007, Wilders called for a ban on the Koran “the same way we ban ‘Mein Kampf.”‘ He said both Adolf Hitler’s work and the Muslim holy book contain passages that contradict Western values.

The Amsterdam Appeals Court called Wilders’ statements in his film, newspaper articles and media interviews “one-sided generalizations … which can amount to inciting hatred.”

The court’s ruling reverses a decision last year by the public prosecutor’s office that said Wilders’ film and interviews were painful for Muslims but not criminal.

Wilders told Dutch media it was a “black day for myself and for freedom of speech.”

The decision set the stage for what will likely be a highly charged trial touching on the declining Dutch tolerance toward a large immigrant population from Muslim countries, mainly Morocco and Turkey. Dutch attitudes shifted markedly after the 2004 murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a radical Dutch Muslim.

Wilders, whose party has nine lawmakers in the 120-seat lower house of Dutch Parliament, has built his popularity largely on tapping into fear and resentment among Dutch voters of Muslim immigrants.

“I’ve had enough of Islam in the Netherlands; let not one more Muslim immigrate,” he wrote once in national newspaper De Volkskrant. “I’ve had enough of the Koran in the Netherlands: Forbid that fascist book.”

The three judges said they had weighed Wilders’ anti-Islamic rhetoric against his right to free speech, and ruled he had even gone beyond the normal leeway given to politicians.

Original Link.

Quote of the Day

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

“The media coverage of the [Obama] Inauguration gave a preview of how they might cover the Second Coming. It was total worship. No doubts were expressed; no questions about his ability to do anything — from healing the economy to bringing peace to the Middle East. The media have at last found a god in whom they can believe. They are worshipping at the altar of the church of Barack Obama. Journalists and some of their ideological cable TV allies have so much invested in Obama’s success that they will be hard-pressed to criticize him for anything and can probably be counted on to explain and justify any mistakes he makes, at least in the first two years.”
-Cal Thomas

Original Link.

“1993 All Over Again” by Phyllis Schlafly

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

Faced with 24/7 Obamamania on the media, the 60 million Americans who did not vote for Barack Obama are wondering where we go from here. Will events turn out like 1993, when another liberal president was inaugurated with the support of big majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate?

Under the direction of the activist first lady, the liberals attempted a government takeover of the massive health care industry, in addition to passing new regulations and tax hikes. Bill Clinton rewarded the feminists by passing Joe Biden’s nearly-billion-dollar-a-year Violence Against Women Act.

But then came the midterm elections in 1994, and liberals were abruptly reminded how conservative America really is. In a tsunami we hadn’t seen since 1946, Republicans won both Houses of Congress by wide margins.

The Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, was defeated for re-election, something that hadn’t happened in over a century. President Bill Clinton held onto his power because he was not yet up for re-election, and he quickly changed his stripes to govern more middle-of-the-road.

The new Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by big majorities, and Clinton signed it into law. DOMA protects states and the federal government against having to recognize same-sex marriages that are performed in other states.

The new Congress passed Welfare Reform to end some of the worst abuses of the system started by Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society in the 1960s. After much grumbling, Clinton signed it.

The liberals never forgave Bill Clinton for signing those laws, and conservatives were never fooled by his newfound political religion. Bill signing those laws even hurt Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary over a decade later.

People who gave Obama up to $750 million to bring about “change” surely expect something in return. But will Obama and the Democrats fulfill Obama’s very expensive promises and risk what happened in the 1994 elections?

Obama’s push for imposing an additional trillion dollars in debt will benefit special interests at the expense of working Americans. That translates to many thousands of dollars in new costs for the average worker at a time when we can least afford it.

Less than half of Americans support this proposal according to polls, and many view it as yet another bailout like the unpopular one for bankers last fall. Just as New Deal spending programs did nothing to lift the United States out of the Great Depression, Obama’s proposed “stimulus” package will simply dig us into a deeper hole.

Obama’s proposed stimulus promises to create 3 million new jobs, but even if it reached that implausible goal, the price tag would be over $300,000 per job. And would they be short-term government jobs or jobs with a future?

The proposed stimulus is not even enough for some Obama supporters, perhaps because so little of it will reach average Americans. It “falls far short” in the words of Terence O’Sullivan, general president of the Laborers’ International Union.

Of course, it falls short because government spending only bleeds the taxpayers to pay for government jobs, and what we need is private industry jobs. We need the government to stop its overtaxation and micromanagement of the U.S. economy, and to stop the unfair trade agreements and foreign-government policies that invite corporations to move their manufacturing overseas.

Read the rest of the article here.

“Letter to Obama Supporters” by Mona Charen

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

I did not vote for the man who today becomes the 44th president of the United States, and in fact, advocated for his opponent. But I am not immune to the happiness of those who did support him, particularly African-Americans, and — to slice it a little thinner — particularly older African-Americas who actually lived through the contempt and cruelty of Jim Crow America. I do not for minute deny the symbolic greatness of the moment, and despite my wariness of President Obama’s policies, it makes me happy to see so many of my fellow Americans in a celebratory, patriotic mood. (If the shoe were on the other foot, however, I doubt that they would reciprocate these sentiments.)

That much having been said, it would be salutary in the midst of all this effervescence to reflect that many of the difficulties faced by the United States are not — the left’s animadversions notwithstanding — the fault of George W. Bush. It is, for example, nearly universally agreed that America’s supposed unpopularity in the world will be erased by the simple fact of Barack Obama raising his right hand and swearing to uphold the Constitution.

Well, the Obama ascendancy may make the U.S. more popular in Europe — though our unpopularity there has been overstated. The most influential nations in Europe elected or re-elected Bush allies during his two terms in office, including Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, Tony Blair in Great Britain, Angela Merkel in Germany and Nicolas Sarkozy in France. In other hemispheres, Canada elected Stephen Harper, and Australia (hats off please for one of our most stalwart allies) re-elected John Howard.

Still, let’s concede that for many Europeans, George W. Bush’s style was off-putting. The Texas swagger that many of us (though not all to be sure) regard as an amusing regionalism, they found obnoxious. The same cannot be said for our enemies. It wasn’t a matter of Bush’s style, or his accent or his political party.

Let’s not delude ourselves, America’s enemies remain our enemies. They were not George W. Bush’s personal hate club (that distinction belongs to others, like the BBC and The New York Times).

Consider that all the good will in the world doesn’t cut any ice with Hizbollah, one of Iran’s terrorist proxies currently controlling a swath of Lebanon. Just last month, former President Jimmy Carter traveled to Lebanon hoping to meet with the leaders of Hizbollah. Carter sought this meeting despite Hizbollah’s long record of murder and terror (including the deaths of 243 United States Marines). They gave him the back of their hand. Carter was disappointed.

Read the rest of the article here.

“Endangering American Democracy to Go After Bush” by John Hawkins

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

Modern liberalism shows remarkably little concern for freedom, democracy, and the will of the people if it’s not politically expedient, but now some of the most influential members of the Democratic Party are starting to drift towards outright fascism with the suggestion that members of the Bush Administration should be jailed once they leave power.

For example, we have Paul Krugman caterwauling that Bush should be investigated for his policy on the environment, voting rights issues, political appointees, contracts in Iraq, and because ludicrously, Krugman claims Bush “deliberately misled the nation into invading Iraq.”

Furthermore, John Conyers has spoken of going after the Bush Administration for “illegal wiretapping, torture, detention, and other practices (that) could land some members in an international tribunal.”

Additionally, Vice-President Joe Biden and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi have both declared that they’re also open to prosecuting members of the Bush Administration.

Let’s be very clear what these Democrats want to do: because they hate George Bush and the Republican Party, they’re proposing partisan witch hunts in search of a crime that they can use to jail members of the Bush Administration. In other words, this has nothing to do with anyone, including the President, being “above the law.” We’re not talking about perjury, bribery, corruption, a Nixonian break-in, or some other real crime.

To the contrary, what we’re really discussing is the party in power abusing their office to try to jail their political opponents over policy differences. Put another way, it’s the sort of thing we’d expect to see in Putin’s Russia, Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, or Castro’s Cuba — not in the United States of America.

Now, some people have spoken out against going after members of the Bush Administration on the grounds that it would create partisan division — but that understates the problem to such an extent that it’s like referring to the sun as a “wee bit hot.”

Trying to prosecute key Bush Administration officials on what are viewed as trumped up, politically based charges would create a firestorm of partisanship and outright hatred that would surpass anything in American history since the Civil War. Members of a political party in the United States, whether it be Republican or Democrat, are simply not going to stand by idly with their hands in their pockets while their political views are criminalized.

At best, this would lead to tit-for-tat prosecutions. By that, I mean if Democrats throw George W. Bush in jail for ten years, Republicans will do their best to find an excuse to throw Barack Obama in jail for ten years — and don’t think it can’t happen. The American political system tends to be cyclical and so today the Democrats may be on top — but in four to eight years, when Obama leaves office, it’s entirely possible the GOP could be in charge of both Houses of Congress — and looking for an opportunity to get payback for Bush. Again, that is the best case scenario. The worst case scenario could mean blood in the streets, riots, and a breakdown of the “orderly transfer of power” that has always been a hallmark of American democracy.

Read the rest of the article here.

Border Agents Commuted Prison Sentences Almost Weren’t

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

Another article I heard on the radio this morning, from people directly involved in the effort to pardon or commute the prison sentences of border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, was that it almost didn’t happen. If it wasn’t for the enormous amount of effort on the part of elected officials and private citizens alike, the president would not have acted on this. I can’t for the life of me understand the governments actions in this case.

See previous post.

One of Obama’s First Acts: Kill Babies

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

I heard a report on the radio this morning that Obama is going to remove the federal funding ban on abortion providers today, his first day in office. I’ll link to an article from the news as soon as I find one.
I know there are Christians who read this blog who also voted for Obama. The Bible tells us that God is holding us accountable for our actions here on earth. What are you going to say to God when He tells you that you have the blood of innocent babies on your hands? My tax dollars go to the infanticide mills against my will. But you helped put this man in office, knowing good and well what he was going to do. How do you justify that decision? Think about what you’ve done…

Update 09:52, 01/20/2009:
Here is a link to a news article.