Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)

Yesterday, I interviewed Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch about his new book, “The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion” (published by Regnery, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company). What follows is an edited transcript of our conversation:

Now, Muhammad was around for quite a long time before he claimed to see visions and became a religious leader, wasn't he?

Muhammad was about 40 when he first claimed to have been visited by the angel Gabriel. According to the earliest Islamic traditions he did not actually start preaching immediately. He only told his wife and a few people who were very close to him for the first couple of years after that. But, then he got the command to begin to preach. It was at that point he began to develop a...following.

Now, I've heard that Muhammad borrowed heavily from the pagan religion many Arabs worshipped at the time, as well as Judaism and Christianity. Is that true?

Yes, there are clear signs in the Koran of influences from not only the Jewish and Christian scriptures, but also Jewish and Christian oral traditions and from the teachings in particular of Christian heretical groups, most notably the Gnostics, who denied the crucifixion of Christ and said that Judas had been made to look like Jesus and was crucified in his place. (That) notion appears in the Koran, in Chapter 4, where it says that they did not kill or crucify him, but it appeared so unto them. In Islamic tradition it is identified also here with Judas, that it is he who is on the cross, not Jesus.

Now, by today's standards, would Muhammad be considered a pedophile?

By today's standards, he probably would because you're talking about a man who did, according to the earliest Islamic traditions about the incident, consummate a marriage with a nine year old when he was in his early fifties.

Now, that being the case, however, it is also true that he is the supreme example for human behavior within Islam; he is imitated in this. That means that you have child marriage being very common all over the Islamic world where it is also not regarded as pedophilia today.

Now in his time, was it regarded as pedophilia or unusual for a man his age to marry a nine year old?

No. In his time, it was taken for granted. No one criticized him (for) it. No one felt like he was doing anything wrong by doing this. Only the fact that he is imitated makes it problematic.

Would it be fair to call Muhammad a warlord or bandit leader, similar to the sort of bad actors we have in Afghanistan today?

Well, certainly there are quite a few similarities and that's not an accident either because these are people who are pious Muslims and who believe that he gave them an example for human behavior -- and he did lead battles, he ordered his followers to fight on his behalf and to offer his enemies conversion, subjugation as 2nd class citizens, or war. So, there's considerable precedent within Muhammad's life, in his words and deeds, to support that kind of a life.

Along similar lines, would it be fair to say that Muhammad lied, pillaged, murdered, and condoned rape and the murder of infidels?

He said, "War is deceit." He ordered his followers to pillage and the Koran contains very detailed instructions, both in a chapter called the Spoils of War and elsewhere in the book, for dealing with the results of that plunder. ... Murder is certainly in the aspects of the invitation to infidels that I mentioned just now. He said to his followers that they should offer non-believers conversion or subjugation as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law or death. So obviously, murder is condoned in that context. Also, he ordered the assassinations of some of his enemies—including several poets who had made fun of him in their verses and rewarded the killers, including the killers of a ... pregnant woman and a man who was according to the Islamic traditions, over 100 years old.

Muhammad ... took for granted that his followers would be having sex with the women that they captured in these battles—the wives of the pagan warriors that they had killed and the wives of the Jewish tribes that they had killed. ... In the Koran actually, it says that a Muslim may marry up to four wives and have sex with the captives that his right hand possesses, which refers to slave girls captured in battle.

Now, images of Muhammad—we've got them on the Supreme Court, for example. There are plenty of them out there. When did that get to be such a big deal?

Well, it's really a big deal when a non-Muslim makes them. Images of Muhammad are rather common in Shiite Islam. Sunni Islam tends to reject that kind of image making. But really, the main offense in the Danish cartoon controversy and also an earlier controversy that CAIR tried to stir up about that (frieze) at the Supreme Court is that non-Muslims are transgressing the limits proscribed for them within Islamic law and are not to depict Muhammad or insult Allah or Muhammad in any way. So, you have a situation where these kinds of protests, the cartoon protests in particular, the murders of innocent people and riots worldwide, were ... an element of a larger effort to impose Islamic standards of behavior onto the non-Muslim world.

So, a big part of the issue was not necessarily the images, but that infidels had made them, right?

Yes.

The Shiia and Sunni (branches of Islam) came about in a dispute over succession to Muhammad. Is that correct?

Yes, exactly.

Can you explain to people how that came about?

The prophet Muhammad died rather suddenly and he did not leave clear instructions as to his successors, as to who would succeed him as leaders of the community. The Party of Ali it was called or the Shi'at Ali believed that only a relative of Muhammad could legitimately take over his role as the leader of the Muslim community that he created. The other party believed that it was not necessary that somebody be a member of the Prophet's family, but only that the best man be chosen.

So Ali was not chosen, was passed over for the first three times in the choice for the succession to the leadership, and finally was chosen but was rather shortly thereafter murdered and his sons also were murdered. ... These became the cardinal incidents for Shiite Islam and are celebrated today, yearly, in extravagant displays of mourning of which you've seen pictures. ...

... People cutting themselves with swords ...

... Yes, people cutting their heads with swords in mourning for Hussein, the son of Ali. Really, there's not much difference between Sunni and Shiite practice of Islam although the Shiites do tend to be more spiritually minded—have more of a mystical tradition—and are certainly more emotional and extravagant in their piety and have a little bit more of an emphasis on, let's say, the cult of the Saint. But otherwise, certainly in terms of jihad warfare against infidels, there's not any significant difference between the Sunnis and Shiites.

One last question: Tell us a little bit about the 12th Imam that (Ahmadinejad) seems to be so enamored with.

The 12th Imam is, in Shiite Islam, the 12th successor of Muhammad. In Shiite Islam, the Imams, beginning with Ali, have some of Muhammad's prophetic powers and some of his luminous spirit, such that they are infallible in matters of faith and are to be regarded with this quasi-mystical devotion. However, the 12th Imam, the 12th successor to Muhammad, is supposed to have disappeared as a child, is said to be still alive, and will return at a moment of great persecution and hardship for the Muslims. There's great excitement in Shiite Islam today and it seems to be held by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran that these are the times when the persecution of the Muslims is coming to the breaking point that will hasten the return of the 12th Imam who will come back to destroy the enemies of Islam and institute the rule of Islamic law over the world.

John Hawkins | 12:21 PM | Comments (117)

"Free Schools" Aren't Real Schools

Want to see how to turn bright, young kids who are eager to learn into worthless sacks of undisciplined crap by the time that they're 18? Well, they've got it all figured out in Brooklyn,

"One recent day at the Brooklyn Free School, the "schedule'' included the following: filming horror movies, chess, debate and making caves for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Not that the students had to go to any of these sessions. At this school, students don't get grades, don't have homework, don't take tests, and don't even have to go to class -- unless they want to.

"You can do basically anything at any time, and it's just a lot more fun because sometimes when you need a break at regular schools you can't get it,'' said Sophia Bennett Holmes, 12, an aspiring singer-actress-fashion designer. "But here, if you just need to sit down and read and have time to play, then you can do that.''

"Free schools,'' which had their heyday decades ago, operate on the belief that children are naturally curious and learn best when they want to, not when forced to. Today, the approach is getting another look from some parents and students tired of standardized testing, excessive homework, and overly rigid curriculums.

"Every kid here is definitely motivated to learn something, there's no doubt in my mind,'' said Alan Berger, a former public school assistant principal who founded the Brooklyn school in 2004. "Our belief is that if we let them pursue their passions and desires, they'll be able to get into it deeper. They'll be able to learn more how to learn.''

Hundreds of free schools opened in the U.S. and elsewhere in the 1960s and 1970s. Most shut down, but some, such as the Albany Free School and Sudbury Valley School in Massachusetts, have persisted. Overall, it's unknown how many free schools operate today.

The ones still in operation often use a "democratic'' model, giving students a say in running the institution.

At the Brooklyn Free School, much of that decision-making occurs in a mandatory (yes, as in required) weekly gathering called the Democratic Meeting. Here, students air grievances, pose challenges, propose rules and set policy. Even the youngest kids have a vote equal to staffers. One agreed-upon rule? No sword-fighting allowed inside."

Look, there's a reason you send kids to school: it's because they're ignorant. The idea that ignorant children can do just as good a job at picking out what they need to be studying as adults is insane.

Moreover, kids need to get a wide educational base, not just study things that they like. How many kids want to sit around doing math problems or want to read some boring old novels or poetry? Not many. But, that doesn't mean that they should be able to just skip it and waste their time making, "caves for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles," instead.

In my book, what they're doing in Brooklyn doesn't even qualify as schooling and therefore, the government should move in, shut them down, and make sure that these kids end up in a real school before these kids wake up one day at 18 and realize that they barely know how to read, can't do math, and don't know any history or science -- because in their infinite, childlike wisdom, they decided that those things were boring and unimportant.

John Hawkins | 12:20 PM | Comments (32)

Random Thoughts

Maybe it's because I'm getting ready to go on vacation or maybe it's because I'm just tired, but I'm having one hell of a time coming up with something to write about. So, with that in mind, enjoy or alternately, suffer through, these random thoughts....

-- Given that a lot of Republicans are going to be cold to any 2008 candidate who has committed adultery or who's not conservative (That knocks out all the top contenders), I'd have to say that the field is absolutely wide open for a "conservative Howard Dean" minus the yearggggghhhhhh, to come in, gain some name recognition, and rocket into the top tier.

-- Today, even a poor American, like myself, has a better standard of living in most ways than the richest American did 100 years ago. Think what a member of the Carnegie or Rockefeller family would have paid back in, say 1900, for a microwave, air conditioner, 36 inch TV with all the channels we have today, a computer with all the websites we have available today, a modern car -- this is why people have trouble grasping how much companies like Wal-Mart help out the average person today. It's not just how much you make, it's how much you get for your money.

-- I've had people say to me, "Gee, wouldn't it be great if dogs could talk so you'd know what they're thinking?" Well, no it's wouldn't. I mean, it's not as if dogs would be great conversationalists.

All my dog Patton does in an average day is eat, sleep, use the bathroom, and play with his toys. So, if he could talk it would be, "Need to pee now....ooh, ooh, a squirrel, a squirrel, gotta get it! Oh, I wish I could find something dead to roll around in. I want food! I want food! I want food! Throw that ball. I got the ball. I am bringing the ball back. Now, throw the ball. I got the ball! I am bringing the ball back! Throw the ball!"

-- I think we should bomb Syria for causing problems in Iraq and causing instability in Lebanon. I also think we should bomb Iran for causing problems in Iraq, threatening the United States, threatening genocide in Israel, causing instability in Lebanon, and attempting to build nukes. So, if Bush wants to bomb Syria or Iran for any reason, for what it's worth (which is not much), he can count on my enthusiastic support.

-- Republicans have really missed an opportunity to hammer the Democrats because of Charlie Rangel's draft idea. Rangel isn't some crackpot, he's a democratic leader who is going to be the head of the Ways and Means Committee and he's putting forward a wildly unpopular, irresponsible idea that's primarily designed to make the military less effective. Why isn't George Bush publicly hammering him? Why aren't we seeing Republican press conferences calling a Democratic draft irresponsible, knocking Rangel around, and pledging to fight a draft if it comes up for a vote? When the Democrats do something that dumb, the GOP should make them pay for it.

John Hawkins | 11:34 AM | Comments (74)

Misc Commentary For Nov 22, 2006

-- The whole idea of having an Iraqi study group that features a bunch of Democrats, people who never bought into the war in Iraq to begin with (like James Baker), and people who have no business having anything to do with foreign policy (like Sandra Day O'Connor), come up with an Iraqi policy is faintly ridiculous. The President is the Commander-In-Chief and he should get together with his staff and the generals to decide how we handle Iraq, not try to outsource the issue to the clowns in the Iraqi Study group.

-- The Christine Jennings / Vern Buchanan race down in Florida is still mired in controversy. Buchanan won by 369 votes and has been declared the winner, but Jennings is planning to ask for a new election in court based on the number of no-votes in the race:

"Democrat Christine Jennings contested her 369-vote loss in the 13th District, asking a judge to order a new election because of problems in Sarasota County, where more than 17,000 voters who cast ballots in other races Nov. 7 failed to vote in the congressional contest.

That rate is nearly six times higher than in the other counties in the congressional district or on Sarasota's paper absentee ballots, Jennings alleges in her legal challenge. Though she lost in the other four counties in the district, Jennings did well in Sarasota County, winning there by a 6 percentage point margin.

Jennings' lawyer, Kendall Coffey, said the "statistical evidence is based on numbers that cannot be seriously questioned." He said there were also eyewitness accounts of voting problems.

Buchanan, a wealthy auto dealer, said there was no evidence of machine malfunctions. He attributed the huge Sarasota undervote to angry voters turned off by negative campaigning.

"I guess the theory is if you don't win, sue," Buchanan said, urging Jennings to concede and "stop listening to the high-price lawyers and out-of-town special interest groups."

On the one hand, I do think that the number of people not voting seems unusually high. On the other hand, they're using iVotronic machines and having voted on one of those machines myself, it's very hard for me to imagine it missing 17,000 votes (13% of the voters).

That's because when you vote on an iVotronic machine, not only does it show electronically, it immediately prints your choice out and prominently displays it. So, if you chose Vern Buchanan or Christine Jennings and the machine posted "No vote," it would be extremely noticable. In fact, I would think that there would have almost certainly been thousands and thousands of complaints if that really happened 17,000 times. Put another way, you know how Democrats always say that what they want is an electronic machine that has a written record that people can check by hand? Well, that's exactly what this is and the written record is even printed in real time so people can look at it as they vote. Since that's the case, my gut instinct is that this is just an unusual occurrence and that the machine probably got it right.

So what caused so many no votes? My best guess would be ballot placement:

"But there were subtle differences in design of the ballot from one county to the next. And as the votes were counted, those differences showed up in unexpectedly large undervotes in the U.S. House and attorney general's races, according to ballot design experts.

Sarasota recorded a massive undervote in the House District 13 race and a typical undervote in the attorney general's race. Charlotte County had a typical undervote in the District 13 race and massive undervote in the attorney general's race.

Experts say the undervotes were likely caused by badly designed ballots that led people to accidentally skip over one race as they scrolled through their computer screens.

...While Sarasota County Supervisor of Elections Kathy Dent believes some voters may have accidentally missed the District 13 race, she does not believe ballot design was the primary cause of the undervotes.

The voters "are instructed on the machine; they are instructed by the poll worker: 'make sure you go through the whole ballot, check all the review screens.'

"There were thousands and thousands and thousands of people who did" vote in the race, Dent said, "and their votes were recorded. I just can not attribute it to any one thing."

Selker and other experts said Sarasota compounded problem with poor use of colors.

The county placed a teal background behind the title of each section of races, such as "CONGRESSIONAL" for U.S. Senate and U.S. House and "STATE" for races such as governor and attorney general.

As a result, the first thing voters saw on screen two was "STATE" with a bright colored background below the District 13 race. There was no colored title for the District 13 race above.

When screen two loaded, the eye naturally traveled to "STATE" and then down the screen, leading many to overlook the unadorned District 13 race, Selker said.

That's what happened to Cornell University Professor Geri Gay, an expert on human interaction with computers.

Tuesday morning, she opened an image file on her computer that showed how the Sarasota ballot appeared on voting machines. She said she didn't even see the House race until she was told to look at the top of the image.

"I thought it was just part of the header," she said. "There is needless confusion in Sarasota. The eye will go for color. That's why you use color, to orient yourself."

Should Jennings get a revote because of this? In my opinion, no, but we'll see what happens when it goes to court.

-- Here's a short breakdown of how some of the different pollsters did in 2006:

In the Senate races, the average error on the margin of victory was tightly bunched for all the phone polls. Rasmussen (25 races) and Mason-Dixon (15) each were off by an average of fewer than four points on the margin. Zogby's phone polls (10) and SurveyUSA (18) each missed by slightly more than four points. Just four of the 68 phone polls missed by 10 points or more, with the widest miss at 18 points.

...The picture was similar in the gubernatorial races (where Zogby polled only online, not by phone). Mason-Dixon's average error was under 3.4 points in 14 races. Rasmussen missed by an average of 3.8 points in 30 races; SurveyUSA was off by 4.4 points, on average, in 18 races. But Zogby's online poll missed by an average of 8.3 points, erring on six races by more than 15 points.

-- From beginning to end, Hillary Clinton was never in the slightest danger of losing her Senate seat, yet she still managed to fritter away 30 million dollars in the process. If that kind of cataclysmic mismanagement of funds is going to be the norm for her campaign, you have to wonder if her spot on the top of the Democratic hill in 2008 is a lot shakier than it looks right now.

-- Huzzah! The GOP finally did something right after the election,

"While House Republicans reacted to stinging rejection from America's voters by refusing to change leadership, their Senate counterparts have tried to use their closing weeks in power to enact a last burst of pork-barrel spending. But that effort was stalled last week by independent-minded Republican senators, spearheaded by two abrasive freshmen and one longtime hairshirt. Before Congress recessed Friday for Thanksgiving, the GOP leadership appeared to capitulate.

The freshmen, Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint, campaigning in 2004 in Oklahoma and South Carolina, promised not to fall in line with GOP leaders. Fulfilling that pledge allied them with the long-termer John McCain. They have been backed by Jeff Sessions of Alabama and another freshman, John Sununu of New Hampshire. In the lame-duck session's first week, they played Horatio at the Bridge by combining to block a pork-filled omnibus spending bill."

If the GOP in the Senate would just follow the lead of Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, they'd seldom go wrong...

John Hawkins | 09:50 AM | Comments (21)

Excerpt Of The Day: The US Vs. Europe On The Economy

"Government spending exceeds 50 percent of the GDP in France and Sweden and more than 45 percent in Germany and Italy , compared to U.S. federal, state and local spending of just under 36 percent. Government spending encourages people to rely on handouts rather than individual initiative, and the higher taxes to finance the handouts reduce incentives to work, save and invest. The European results shouldn't surprise anyone. U.S. per capita output in 2003 was $39,700, almost 40 percent higher than the average of $28,700 for European nations,.

Over the last decade, the U.S. economy has grown twice as fast as European economies. In 2006, European unemployment averaged 8 percent while the U.S. average was 4.7 percent. What's more, the percentage of Americans without a job for more than 12 months was 12.7 percent while in Europe it was 42.6 percent. Since 1970, 57 million new jobs were created in the U.S., and just 4 million were created in Europe.

Dr. Mitchell cites a comparative study by Timbro, a Swedish think tank, showing that European countries rank with the poorest U.S. states in terms of living standards, roughly equal to Arkansas and Montana and only slightly ahead of West Virginia and Mississippi. Average living space in Europe is just under 1,000 square feet for the average household, while U.S. households enjoy an average of 1,875 square feet, and poor households 1,200 square feet. In terms of income levels, productivity, employment levels and R&D investment, according to Eurochambres (The Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry), it would take Europe about two decades to catch up with us, assuming we didn't grow further." -- Walter Williams

John Hawkins | 08:27 AM | Comments (45)

Daily News For Nov 22, 2006

Foreign

Hizballah Leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah Said On Monday That The Current Lebanese Government Would "Go" And A New One Would Take Its Place

Gunned Down: Lebanese Minister Pierre Gemayel Assassinated

US President George W. Bush Accused Syria And Iran Of Fomenting Violence And Instability In Lebanon, As He Condemned The Assassination Of Lebanese Cabinet Minister Pierre Gemayel (Less Talk, More Bombing)

Bush, Maliki To Meet In Jordan

Israel: Qassam Strike Wounds Man During UN Envoy's Visit To Sderot

Israel: In Precedent-Setting Ruling Court Says State Must Recognize Gay Marriage

Claim: American/Israeli Captured By Syria 'Still Alive After 23 Years'

First Daughter Barbara Robbed In Argentina

Domestic

Exit Polls Broken Down By Group From 1982 To The Present

Hillary Clinton Spent $30 Million Dollars Getting Reelected In 2006 (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Mitt Romney: ‘I’m A Conservative Republican’ And He Bashes McCain

More on the Six Traveling Imams

Columns

Carl Bialek: Grading The Pollsters

Walter Williams: Should We Copy Europe?

Newt Gingrich: The Real Meaning of Thanksgiving

Tony Blankley: Making The Last Mistake In Iraq

Left-Overs

There Is No Britney Sex Tape, Federline's Lawyer Says

92 Year Old Woman Killed; 3 APD Officers Wounded In Shootout

A Spanish Teacher At Smithfield-Selma Senior High School Resigned This Week After Handing Out An Assignment That Teaches Hate For America And Jews

Check Out The Right Thinking Girl Cleavage Shot

Website Of The Day: Power Line

John Hawkins | 08:03 AM | Comments (94)

November 21, 2006

The British Government Decides To Micromanage Child Rearing

If you want to see what an all-powerful, overbearing socialist government gone mad looks like, then to Tony Blair's Britain where they're giving new meaning to the term "nannystate:"

"Parents could be forced to go to special classes to learn to sing their children nursery rhymes, a minister said.

Those who fail to read stories or sing to their youngsters threaten their children's future and the state must put them right, Children's Minister Beverley Hughes said.

Their children's well-being is at risk 'unless we act', she declared.

And Mrs Hughes said the state would train a new 'parenting workforce' to ensure parents who fail to do their duty with nursery rhymes are found and 'supported'.

The call for state intervention in the minute details of family life followed a series of Labour efforts to reduce anti-social behaviour and improve educational standards by imposing rigorous controls on the lives of the youngest children.

Mrs Hughes has established a national curriculum to set down how babies are taught to speak in childcare from the age of three months.

Her efforts have gone alongside a push by other ministers to determine exactly how parents treat their children down to how they should brush their teeth.

Tony Blair has backed the idea of 'fasbos' - efforts to identify and correct the lives of children who are likely to fail even before they are born - and new laws to compel parents to attend parenting classes are on the way.

This autumn is likely to see an extension of parenting orders that can force parents to attend parenting classes so that they can be used on the say so of local councils against parents.

For the first time, parenting orders are likely to be directed against parents whose children have committed no criminal offence.

The threat of action against parents who fail to sing nursery rhymes was unveiled by Mrs Hughes as she gave the first details of Mr Blair's 'national parenting academy', a body that will train teachers, psychologists and social workers to intervene in the lives of families and become the 'parenting workforce'."

When the people become servants of the government instead of vice versa, this is what you get, mandatory classes forcing parents to learn state approved nursery rhymes and government officials instructing parents as to how their children, "should brush their teeth." Ugh -- how appalling.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for the story.

John Hawkins | 03:41 PM | Comments (53)

The GOP's Demographic Drop Of Doom In 2006

The New York Times has a fascinating breakdown of exit polling data that goes from 1982 all the way to the present. Here's how the GOP did this time around with some of the key demographic groups, compared to last mid-terms in 2002 (The first number is the percentage of that group's vote that the GOP received. The 2nd number in parenthesis, is the percentage change from 2002).

Men: 48% (-8%)
Women: 44% (-6%)
Whites 52% (-8%)
White Protestant: 62% (-8%)
Catholic: 44% (-1%)
Jewish: 12% (-24%)
Black: 11% (+2%)
Hispanic: 30% (-8%)
Asian: 38% (+4%)
Republicans: 92% (-2%)
Democrats: 7% (-3%)
Independents: 41% (-10%)

So if you smooth off the rough edges, the GOP basically had about an 8 point dip across the board in 2006. While that was bad news for the GOP, most of the Democrat wins in the House were in districts that leaned towards the GOP by 3 or 4 points. If the numbers swing back to where they were in 2002 by 2008, which may be very possible with the Dems in charge of Congress, you see the GOP gain back a lot of the ground that they lost this year in the House next time around. In the Senate, there will be a lot more vulnerable Republican seats than Democratic seats, but with the Dems holding the Senate by such a small margin, who knows? Any way you slice it though, those numbers in 2006 for the GOP were just brutal.

John Hawkins | 03:25 PM | Comments (13)

What Liberals Really Think Part 3, 4, 5 -- Something Like That

Every so often, I like going over to the very popular liberal blog, The Smirking Chimp to see what the libs are talking about. That's because liberal pols like Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, and John Murtha have to hide what they think to keep from scaring the general public, but the Smirking Chimp and other liberal blogs can afford to be honest, since they're trying to draw in other liberals.

With that mind, enjoy these quotes and excerpts from the posts on the first two pages of the Smirking Chimp. Keep in mind that everything you're about to read comes from the actual content at the Smirking Chimp, not from the commenters. So, the sort of sentiment you're about to read below is what helps them build their big, liberal audience.

"Crush, Kill, Destroy: Screw bipartisanship; it’s time for revenge....The question isn’t whether Bush should be impeached; it’s how many decades his prison term should last. And “should” doesn’t really cut it: Bush needs to be impeached....Bush needs to be impeached because Bush worshippers just plain deserve it. It was they that were giddy with self-righteous rage, so desperate to take Clinton down that they didn’t care how pathetic their excuse was. They need to be paid back, and to know they asked for it. They need to be demoralized and dismissed before they take the government back and damage it further...Bush needs to be impeached because the only language these people understand is power....But beyond revenge and humiliation—the reasons that Republicans will actually understand—Bush needs to be impeached because he is a criminal of the highest order..." -- Allan Uthman

"Let's get right too it folks. I've had it right up to here with the Carville/Matalin routine. If George Burns and Gracie Allen had a set of evil twins, they would have grown up to become James Carville and his wife Mary Matalin.

These two characters have pulled off a hat trick politicians can only dream of -- never being out of "the game." Whether Dems are in power or Republicans are in power, James and Mary are in power.

I thought O.J. Simpson had the market cornered on chutzpah, but he can't hold a steak knife to Carville and Matalin. James can rail with apparent genuine passion about Republican misdeeds on Meet The Press and then go home and slip between the sheets with Dick Cheney's very own version of Baghdad Bob.

Carville can pound his chest condemning the bloodbath the administration has created in Iraq, and still break bread that evening with the spokeswoman for Iraq's new Butcher of Baghdad, Dick Cheney." -- Stephen Pizzo

"Bush had to lie, cheat and steal his way out of 'Nam, and later (possibly due to deep personal regrets for such deplorable actions in his youth), started his own damn war, against some amazed, innocent people on the other side of the world, that couldn't defend themselves (But, they seem to be kinda learnin' how to now, don't they?)." -- Bill Bohannon

"I dedicate this essay to the untold millions who suffered as a result of Milton Friedman's creation of an intellectual bulwark for economic brutality. On 11/16/06, Friedman died of heart failure, an ironic cause of death for a heartless individual." -- Jason Miller

"Just six years into the 21st century, one can say this is not shaping up to be anything like an American century. Rather, the US seems much more likely to be faced with a very different kind of future: how to manage its own imperial decline." -- Martin Jacques

"The new Congress should declare an end to Bush's crusade against the Muslim World. But the Democratic leadership will face intense domestic special interest pressures to wage wars against Iran and other Muslim states.

It probably won't happen, but one can still hope the new Congress will reaffirm America's traditional moral values by bringing to justice all those senior administration officials that concocted the unnecessary war against Iraq and then authorized torture, kidnapping, secret prisons, wiretapping and many other grave violations of America's Constitution." -- Eric Margolis

"No more Mr. Nice Guy for me. I say impeach this b*stard (and his evil Veep) so that this world can move on! We cannot wait another 2 years." -- Scott Shuster

"In fact, Iraq is the brittle point that the entire generational policy of borrow and squander economics has been tripping over again and again. In Bush Sr's day, we could not overthrow Saddam because we were too far in hoc from all the Reagan-Bush deficit spending. Today we couldn't spend the money to do nation building in Iraq, because we were busy bailing out everyone who lost a ton of money in the stock market.

The goal was to have big tax breaks for big Bush donors. But how to generate economic activity, if the money we were supposed to be using for a stimulus package was, instead, being sunk into Klimt paintings? The obvious answer was a war. But it had to be a war that would generate both jobs and oil. Greedy eyes turned towards Iraq, and saw a place that could be a lot like Texas - no water, lots of oil." -- Stirling Newberry

John Hawkins | 11:49 AM | Comments (93)

The Democratic Underground Thread Of The Day. An American Flag Means Nothing To Me

Liberals often have a weird way of looking at patriotism. They get extremely huffy if you question their patriotism, but then they often go out of their way to show that they're not patriotic.

Take the American flag. It's not unusual for conservatives to wear flag pins or display flags because they genuinely love their country and feel like displaying the flag is a symbol of that affection. On the other hand, liberals create threads on the Democratic Underground just so they can let everyone know how much they dislike the American Flag. Would they be offended if you said they weren't patriotic? Probably. But, can you be patriotic while simultaneously sneering at the American flag or people who display it? No, you can't.

Let's examine part of this phenomenon in a little closer detail in a thread at the Democratic Underground called, "If you see an american flag, do you"

Here's the first post:

MoseyWalker: If you see an american flag, do you do as my brother does and scream at the top of your voice "God bless america and god bless halliburton" with a huge bit of sarcasm or

do you think and say something else?

what does the american flag mean to you these days? what does any flag really mean?

Here are a few other notable comments from the thread:

EdwardM: An American Flag means nothing to me. I don't like nationalism, it never leads to good things. I support a better quality of life for all people regardless of their flag. All patriotism to me seems to be is a "we are better than you" attitude and I have never understood it.

Raine: It represents the country I live in...I don't think about it beyond that. I'm neutral on it.

spoony: I silently wonder if the "great experiment" is over n/t

Vexatious Ape: The day after Bush won in 04, I peeled the flag stickers off my vehicles and yanked my little flag off my front porch and tossed it all in the can. I am just now getting over that election--thanks to this last election. I know I'm lucky to be an American, but there's a big difference between luck and pride.

John Hawkins | 09:25 AM | Comments (299)

It's Too Early To Know Who'll Win In 2008

Over at the liberal Carpet Bagger Report, they point out, correctly, how meaningless the polls for 2008 contenders are at this stage. To make their point, they posted a Jan 2003 Fox News poll:

Joe Lieberman……29%
Dick Gephardt……15%
John Kerry………..13%
John Edwards…….8%
Al Sharpton……….5%
Howard Dean……..2%

Lieberman? Gephardt? Dean at 2%? Kerry in the middle of the pack? And that was FURTHER ALONG than we are in the race to 2008. So, don't get too worried about McCain and Giuliani slugging it out at the top of the polls while everyone else drags behind. They're getting by on name recognition at this point and as people take a harder look at the positions and other candidates get more press, it'll start to turn into a real horse race.

Hat tip to Outside The Beltway for the story.

John Hawkins | 09:00 AM | Comments (8)

Quote Of The Day: A Statistic You Probably Won't Get From The New York Times

"During its deployment, Cooke's handful of snipers (the exact number is under wraps) with those 120 kills have accounted for about a fifth of the total known kills of the 1/506th. Meanwhile enemy snipers, though generally the most skilled of the enemy fighters and armed primarily with good 7.62 millimeter Soviet Dragunov sniper rifles, have killed 1 member of the battalion. The battalion plus its support units have lost a total of 8 men while killing about 600 – a stunning ratio of 75:1. Think about that the next time you hear of the prowess of the enemy." -- -- Michael Fumento, who's currently in Ramadi

John Hawkins | 08:50 AM | Comments (32)

Daily News For November 21, 2006

Foreign

The Pentagon's Closely Guarded Review Of How To Improve The Situation In Iraq Has Outlined Three Basic Options: Send In More Troops, Shrink The Force But Stay Longer, Or Pull Out, According To Senior Defense Officials.

Iran Plans To Use 100,000 Centrifuges To Enrich Uranium As Part Of Its Nuclear Program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Said Today

What Are The Four U.S. Carriers Doing In The Gulf?

Kremlin Gave Order To Kill Dissident And Former Spy, Claims Top Defector

Dramatic Pictures Of Former Russian Spy Alexander Litvinenko In Hospital After A Suspected Poisoning Attempt Have Been Released.

Up To 100 Foreign Fighters Cross Into Iraq From Syria Every Month, The US Military Said Today

Domestic

White House Dismisses Hersh Article

Despite Democrats’ Control Of Congress, Amnesty Is Far From Being A Sure Thing.

Top House Democrats To Bar Military Draft Plan

O.J. Simpson Book, TV Special Canceled (Applause)

Hoyer Seeks Protection For His Supporters

Columns

Robert Novak: Favor-Factory Shutdown?

Joshua Muravchik: Bomb Iran. Diplomacy Is Doing Nothing To Stop The Iranian Nuclear Threat; A Show Of Force Is The Only Answer. (Free LA Times Reg Req)

Victor Davis Hanson: Will The West Stumble?

Mark Krikorian: Open-Borders Advocates Distort Election Results Voters Did Not Endorse Amnesty

Left-Overs

Kramer From Seinfeld Drops N-Bombs On Stage After Being Heckled

California Court: Websites Not Liable For Libel In Third-Party Postings

Top 10 Books Every Republican Congressman Should Read

Anti-War Activists Plan 'Global Orgasm For Peace'

Tim Blair Will Be The New Opinion Editor At The Daily Telegraph

Video: Dear World: We Jews Apologize For Upsetting You So Much -- The Jews

Website Of The Day: Daily Pundit

John Hawkins | 12:02 AM | Comments (28)

November 20, 2006

Of Course We Can Still Win In Iraq

From the comments section:

"Even all the conservative blogs have pretty much judged Iraq lost. The only man who can keep that from being so is Bush: let's hope he remains dogged to the end." -- CoolCzech

I don't think Iraq is lost at all. Personally, I think we need to:

1) Keep training Iraqi forces -- although faster please.
2) Take apart the militias.
3) Make it clear that no nation unless it is part of the coalition forces will be allowed to send men or materials into Iraq.
4) Keep a significant number of American troops on hand for air support, special forces, and logistics even after our troops are no longer policing the streets (Hopefully, we should be at that point by some time around the end of 2007).

If we do that, I think we can still win. In fact, I think it's highly likely that we'll win if the GOP hangs together and doesn't let the Democrats cut and run and the Iraqi government will go ahead and cooperate with us in cracking down on the militias.

What we're doing in Iraq is bloody, complicated, and unpleasant, but all is not lost. At this point, as much as anything, it's going to all come down to sheer will. If we have enough of it, we'll win and the world will be a better place for it. If we don't, the terrorists will win and the world will be a worse place for it.

Also see

The Way Forward in Iraq
Pentagon May Suggest Short-Term Buildup Leading to Iraq Exit

John Hawkins | 02:56 PM | Comments (191)

Amnesty Math

Estimates on the number of illegal immigrants in the US generally range between 12-20 million. Are all of those illegal Hispanics? No, but the overwhelming majority of them are.

Now, in the last election, only 30 percent of Hispanics voted for the GOP. Of course, legal Hispanics as a whole would be more assimilated and wealthier than illegals, so chances are, less than 30 percent of illegals would have voted for the GOP in 2006.

Still, let's use that number as a starting point for illegals. We'll say that 30 percent of illegals would vote for the GOP if they were citizens and 70 percent would vote for the Democrats. Ok, now we'll extrapolate those numbers out and we get a net gain of 400k potential votes for the Democrats for every 1 million illegal immigrants that become citizens of the United States.

So, if there are 12-20 million illegal immigrants in the United States and they're all given amnesty, that would mean that the Democrats would acquire another 4.8 - 8 million new potential voters.

Even if you set everything else aside, that amnesty is rewarding illegals for breaking our laws, that it will encourage more illegal aliens to come here in hopes of getting in on the next amnesty, etc., no Republican should ever support amnesty based on the sheer number of voters it would undoubtedly deliver to the Democrats.

Now, some people might argue that the very act of putting an amnesty in place would turn a lot of Hispanics into Republican voters. But, doesn't that seem like a pretty illogical theory at this point when Democrats control the House and Republicans in the House and Senate are planning to fight against amnesty? How can anyone believe that if George Bush and the Democratic Party manage to put an amnesty in place over the objections of Republicans in the House and Senate and the GOP base, which will be fighting them tooth and nail, that the result of that will be an enormous groundswell of enthusiasm in the Hispanic community for Republicans? That just doesn't make any sense.

John Hawkins | 10:06 AM | Comments (87)

We Should Issue Demands To Syria, Not Negotiate With Them

The fact that a story like this is out there tells you that Bush isn't being violent or aggressive enough to scare our enemies:

"The Sunday Times reported that Syria is expected to demand American help in securing the return of the Golan Heights from Israel as the price of cooperation over Iraq.

Ayman Abdel Nour, a leading reformer in the ruling Ba’ath party, told the Times that Syrian President Bashar Assad wants America and Britain to use their influence with Israel to raise the return of the Golan Heights, seized by the Israelis in the 1967 war.
“It will be the top demand,” he was quoted by the newspaper as saying.

According to the report, Assad has ruled out cooperating with the Americans in return for the promise of unspecified benefits.

...Imad Mustafa, Syria’s ambassador to the US, told the newspaper in an interview that Baker has asked Syria's Foreign Minister Walid Muallem during a meeting in New York in September: "What would it take Syria to help on Iraq?"

...The Syrians, the Sunday Times said, believe they are in a position of strength.

“Already there is talk that Syria is the winner and will set the new rules of the game in the region,” Abdel Nour told the newspaper."

Now, what are we asking them to do in Iraq? Not cooperate with insurgents in any way? And for that, this little anti-American, pipsqueak, Iranian lackey nation wants the Golan Heights?

How about we make a counter offer. Something along the lines of, "Either stop causing problems in Iraq or we firebomb Damascus to the ground and carpet bomb every military installation in your country?"

The Syrians support terrorism. They're causing instability in Iraq and Lebanon. They are our enemies, not some civilized European nation we can talk out problems with over a few glasses of tea. Instead of negotiating with the Syrians, we should be bombing them until they accept our demands. Nations like Syria understand that. That don't understand having talks. To them, any talking that goes beyond, "Do this or we'll kill you," is a sign of weakness.

PS: We're getting to the point where we have the same problem that the Israelis do. We can decimate our enemies any time that we want, but we're so handcuffed by political correctness that we keep fighting with one hand tied behind our backs. You don't win wars like that. Look at what our ancestors have had to do to win. Look what we did to the Indians in this country. Sherman had to burn Atlanta to the ground to beat the South. We had to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki to defeat the Japanese. We had to firebomb Hamburg to beat the Germans. That's what war is like. When it gets right down to it, you do anything and everything it takes to win because when it comes to war, right and wrong are very minor issues compared to victory and defeat. We seem to have forgotten that and hence, we're putting ourselves in an untenable position in the war on terror.

John Hawkins | 10:02 AM | Comments (56)

Republicans Vs. The Draft

The incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Charles Rangel, is pushing a draft again:

"Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.
ADVERTISEMENT

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.

Rangel said he will propose a measure early next year. While he said he is serious about the proposal, there is little evident support among the public or lawmakers for it.

In 2003, Rangel proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. It was defeated 402-2 the following year. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.

...Repeated polls have shown that about seven in 10 Americans oppose reinstatement of the draft and officials say they do not expect to restart conscription."

If Democrats want to keep putting these sort of crackpot ideas out there now that they're in the Majority, that's fine, but Republicans should make them pay a huge price for it. The GOP should hold press conferences and declare that the American people can count on them to oppose the Democratic party's draft plan and guarantee that the GOP will keep it from passing. Then the Democrats can either be the "part of the draft" or they can explain that Rangel is a doddering old crank and his ideas aren't supported by the Democratic Party. Either result would be a plus for Republicans and as an added bonus, it would insure that the Dems can't play the same trick that they did in 2004: running Rangel's draft bill up the flagpole and then trying to use it as evidence that the Republicans wanted a draft.

John Hawkins | 08:47 AM | Comments (182)

Republicans’ Uphill Fight To Regain The Senate In 2008 By James Joyner

In my morning-after election analysis, I noted that it would be very difficult for the Republicans to take the House back in 2008 but that the Senate was well within grasp if the GOP got their act together. I wrote that without actually breaking down the races, though. Chris Cillizza has and it does not bode well:

A cursory evaluation of the 2008 Senate playing field shows Democrats seemingly well-positioned to build on their 51-seat majority. Of the 33 seats up for reelection, just 12 are held by Democrats. And of those 12, only two Democratic incumbents received less than 54 percent of the vote in 2002 — Sens. Tim Johnson (S.D.) and Mary Landrieu (La.). Johnson took 50 percent in his victory over John Thune (who went on to beat Tom Daschle two years later), while Landrieu won a December runoff against Republican Suzie Haik Terrell with 52 percent of the vote.

Republicans must defend 22 seats and have more obvious vulnerabilities. At first glance, just three GOP senators — Norm Coleman (Minn.), John Sununu (N.H.) and Wayne Allard (Colo.) — look vulnerable, as each won in 2002 with less than 54 percent of the vote. But the complicating factor for Republicans is that there are a number of rumored retirements that may come before 2008, creating more open-seat opportunities for Democrats. GOP incumbents on the retirement watch list include Allard, as well as Thad Cochran (Miss.), Pete Domenici (N.M.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Jim Inhofe (Okla.) and John Warner (Va.).

The five close races from ‘06 could go either way in ‘08 depending on the candidates and the top of the ticket. That Landrieu has won two razor close elections and barely beat Terrell, one of the worst Senate nominees imaginable, is especially promising. Nor am I particularly worried about losing statewide in Mississippi, Nebraska, or Oklahoma.

Warner’s seat will be incredibly vulnerable, though. Virginia is getting bluer by the day as the DC exurbs of Northern Virginia continue to experience huge population growth. And popular former Governor Mark Warner would be an odds-on favorite if he choses to run.

The GOP had just about everything imaginable working against them this past election and just barely lost their majority. They might need just about everything imaginable going their way next time to win it back.

This content was used with the permission of Outside The Beltway.

John Hawkins | 08:25 AM | Comments (20)

Civil Rights In Michigan By Betsy Newmark

John Fund looks at the efforts by proponents of affirmative action to try to block the amendment banning the use of discrimination by race, sex, or color in government contracts or school admissions. Even Sandra Day O'Connor, author of the Grutter decision that allowed the University of Michigan to use diversity in admissions decisions has stated that the vote on the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative was an acceptable thing for the people of Michigan to do.

Justice Sandra O'Connor, who sided with Ms. Gratz but wrote the opinion in Grutter, issued some cautionary language that supporters of affirmative action should heed: "The court expects that 25 years from now the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." After noting that institutions of higher education in California and Washington were pursuing alternatives to racial preferences, she urged that "universities in other states should draw on the most promising aspects of these race-neutral alternatives as they develop." Just last week, the now-retired Justice O'Connor was asked her opinion of MCRI's approval. She replied that it was "entirely within the right and privilege of voters" to enact a ban on racial preferences.

But that is now how supporters of diversity are responding to the vote on the initiative.

Michigan voters struck a blow for equality this month, when 58% of them approved an amendment to the state constitution banning racial discrimination in public universities and contracting. Almost identical measures have previously passed by similar majorities in California and Washington state. That means the original meaning of the 1964 Civil Rights Act--that racial discrimination of any kind is illegal--has won reaffirmation in three liberal states, none of which have voted for a Republican for president since 1988. Supporters now plan to carry the fight to other states.

From the outraged cries of affirmative action diehards, you would think the dark night of fascism was descending with the passage of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. Mary Sue Coleman is president of the University of Michigan, which has already spent millions of taxpayers' dollars defending its racial preferences in courts. She addressed what Tom Bray of the Detroit News called "a howling mob of hundreds of student and faculty protestors" last week. "Diversity matters at Michigan," she declared. "It matters today, and it will matter tomorrow." Echoes of George Wallace, who in 1963 declared from the steps of Alabama's Capitol: "I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

Since the reason that universities think they have to put a thumb on the scale to admit minorities is that they would not have enough qualified applicants otherwise, it would seem that the fault lies in the preparation of those minorities for college rather than ajusting the finish line for them. Support charters and school vouchers and other school reforms and offer auxiliary college preparation for them. Bring the students up to the level required rather than lowering the bar.

As Fund says, we're a long way from the original meaning of the Civil Rights Act.

We've come a long way since 1964, when the late civil rights hero Hubert Humphrey stood on the Senate floor and told his colleagues that if the civil rights bill contained "any language which provides that an employer will have to hire on the basis of percentage or quota related to color, race, religion, or national origin, I will start eating the pages one after another, because it is not in there."

Four decades later, supporters of racial preferences imposed by government agencies are blocking legal efforts to establish the color-blind society that Martin Luther King envisioned. Dr. King's dream is alive in Michigan, and in other states, but a large number of people seem interested in stirring up a nightmare of massive resistance. Such efforts are likely not only to only fail, but to harden the public's opposition to divisive racial quotas.

This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.

John Hawkins | 08:12 AM | Comments (11)

Daily News For November 20, 2006

Foreign

Kissinger: Iraq Military Win Impossible (That's Helpful. Thanks A Lot, Jerk)

Blair 'Disaster' Admission Over Iraq A 'Slip Of The Tongue': Official

John Howard Praises 'Heroic' Iraqis, Defends Invasion

112 Killed Across Iraq

Iran Unveils Nuclear Reactor Upgrade Plan

Israel Orders Killing Of Hamas Politicians (Applause)

Israeli Intelligence: Hizbullah Stronger Than Before War

Human Shield Deters Israel Strike

Domestic

Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft (Free Wapo Reg Req)

Dems Take Aim at Oil Company Tax Breaks

Police Probe Radioactive Find At N.M. Fairground

Huckabee Says Campaign Laws Aid McCain (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Columns

Mark Steyn: 'Free To Lose' Isn't Good Philosophy For The Right Wing

Jeff Jacoby: Antimilitary Bigotry

Michael Fumento: Return To Ramadi

Wesley Pruden: When Purple Prose Can Be Deadly

Left-Overs

Ban Lifted On Silicone Breast Implants

East London: Man Found With Grandmother's Head In Luggage

Humor: Borat And Iranian President A TV Spoof?

Website Of The Day: BitsBlog

John Hawkins | 12:28 AM | Comments (32)