► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for July, 2011

There’s an actual mosque in a Toronto public school cafeteria – and menstruating girls must sit in the back!

by 1389AD ( 13 Comments › )
Filed under Canada, Headlines, Islam, Islamic Supremacism, Links, Multiculturalism at July 15th, 2011 - 1:27 pm

YouTube: Robson & Fatah on Toronto mosqueteria

(h/t: Blazing Cat Fur)

Yes, it’s true. Imams are conducting Muslim prayers every Friday in the cafeteria of the Valley Park Middle School in Toronto. And yes, female students must sit in the back, and females who are menstruating must sit even further back and are forbidden to participate in the prayers. (See SteynOnline: How Unclean Was My Valley.) As you can imagine, the mosqueteria controversy is still going on.

No, I most certainly do NOT agree with everything Tarek Fatah says in the above video – though he has a valid point in objecting to discrimination against women and girls. But Tarek Fatah is completely incorrect in claiming that discrimination against women and girls is non-Islamic. (See “Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid” and Winds of Jihad: Islam in Canuckistan: Menstruating Females Squat in the Back.)

Oh, and by the way, I keep asking whether halal food is being served in school cafeterias, and if so, who is paying for it. But I never seem to get an answer.

More links on other topics – please visit them all!

I am waaaaay too busy to do a proper blog post on each one of these issues at the moment. But there’s a superabundance of news and views that haven’t been covered here yet.

Happy Friday
No Muslim Friday prayers in the school cafeteria!


NRA Delivers Remarks at United Nations

by lobo91 ( 12 Comments › )
Filed under Headlines, Liberal Fascism, Second Amendment, Tranzis, United Nations, Weapons at July 15th, 2011 - 12:59 pm

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre delivered remarks before the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty Preparatory Committee this week.

As expected, he blasted the proposed Arms Trade Treaty’s planned “common sense restrictions” on private gun ownership, which are clearly contrary to our own Second Amendment and traditions of freedom:

This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely monitored this process with increasing concern. We’ve reviewed the statements of the countries participating in these meetings. We’ve listened to other NGOs and read their numerous proposals and reports, as well as carefully examined the papers you have produced. We’ve watched, and read … listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately selfevident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.

We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen – not for the government.

Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them … but they’ve proven to be unworthy of that trust.

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms.” Yet, the proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and – perhaps most importantly – proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms.” Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms.” But then we’re told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms.” Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual destruction. That’s nothing more than gun registration by a different name.

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy.” Well, that’s exactly what is now being proposed — with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a SMALL bureaucracy.

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms.” But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling internationally with firearms.” However, he would have to get a so-called “transit permit” merely to change airports for a connecting flight.

Mr. Chairman, our list of objections extends far beyond the proposals I just mentioned. Unfortunately, my limited time today prevents me from providing greater detail on each of our objections. I can assure you, however, that each is based on American law, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

It is regrettable that proposals affecting civilian firearms ownership are woven throughout the proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is critical and not subject to negotiation – civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom.

Mr. Chairman, I’d be remiss i f I didn’t also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President’s power to negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate’s power to approve them.

To that end, it’s important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is already strongly opposed in the Senate – the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT. Once complete, this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.

Read it all.

The short version: “Go ahead, Ban Ki Moon…make my day!”

Governors Rick Perry and Nikki Haley: Break the spend-and-borrow cycle. Cut, Cap & Balance

by huckfunn ( 10 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Elections 2012, Headlines, Politics, Republican Party at July 15th, 2011 - 11:44 am

 

 

Governors Rick Perry and Nikki Haley outlined their Pledge to Cut Cap and Balance the federal budge in an Op-ed piece  in yesterday’s New York Post.

As governors of states whose residents, like all Americans, are desperate for the restoration of fiscal responsibility in Washington, we are proud to have signed the “Cut, Cap and Balance Pledge” amid the debate over once again raising the federal debt ceiling.

We oppose an increase in the federal debt limit unless three common-sense conditions are met: substantial cuts in spending; enforceable spending caps to put the country on a path to a balanced budget; and congressional passage of a balanced-budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That amendment should include a requirement for a congressional supermajority to approve any increases in taxes.

The pledge reads as follow:

I pledge to urge my Senators and Member of the House of Representatives to oppose any debt limit increase unless all three of the following conditions have been met:

  1. Cut – Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter.
  2. Cap – Enforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.
  3. Balance – Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expense.

I hope Boehner and McConnell are paying attention.

Read the whole article here.

The Amazing Unraveling President

by Flyovercountry ( 73 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Economy, Elections 2012, Politics at July 15th, 2011 - 11:30 am

Let me begin by saying that this is not schadenfreude. I am truly disturbed by what I see, and how we got here on so many levels. When I, along with about 20% of my fellow Americans stated in November of 2008 that I wanted the President elect to fail to enact his agenda, I meant just that. It was never about wishing that President Obama would eventually fail, it was wishing the best for the country and the American people as a whole. I felt passionately that Obama’s agenda, if passed would bring disaster to this wonderful nation. During Obama’s first two years in office, his agenda was inflicted upon us, and the result has been unmitigated disaster. Once he lost his legislative mojo, he used the executive fiat tactic which had served 43 prior chief executives so well during our nation’s history to continue inflicting his agenda upon us. The result has been making the previous disaster so much worse.   So now that President Obama, who for better or worse, owns this economy, owns the state of our involvement in world affairs, faces the reality of the consequences of his decision making, I am seeing an Obama who stands in stark contrast to the Obama presented to us by the alphabet media during the 2008 campaign.

Yesterday, Barack Obama committed the ultimate sin that can be committed by any person who wishes to be elected to any political office, and he did so in the most public manner possible. Our President threw an old fashioned temper tantrum. During the 2008 campaign, we were told by an adoring press that only Barack Obama would be able to reach across the aisle and work with both parties to attend to the business of the nation. Only Barack Obama was level headed enough to see both sides of every issue and be able to hold our elected leaders to the task of the big picture, and that he was the pragmatic, charismatic, great leader we had been waiting for since the days of Reagan, who would save us from our own ideologies.  Americans, 52% of them anyhow, showed up in droves to vote in hopety change, and the idea of an above it all post partisan leader who would heal whatever national pain we were feeling. Since you are reading this, and not listening to it on tape, the 48% of you who saw through the Snake Oil Sales Pitch are free to take a break and vomit.

Reality, often times has a habit of standing in contrast with the legend spun during a political campaign. From the outset of this Administration we have seen very real signs of a leader who was not level headed, very thin skinned, petty, vindictive, corrupt, hypocritical, arrogant, clueless, and more interested in producing Kabuki Theater than in offering up leadership. Literally, the list of examples to support this assertion is too large to print in one article. I’ll just hit the highlights. He saw fit to call the Cambridge Ma. Police Department stupid and racist, he did so seconds after admitting that he did not know any of the pertinent facts about the incident on which he was pontificating. This commentary was offered on the most mundane of domestic police calls which occur in communities all over the country. During the Health Care debate, he singled out a U.S. Senator whom he invited to the White House to discuss the issue and told him flat out that his concerns held no validity since that Senator in fact lost the U.S. Presidential Election. He scolded the U.S. Supreme Court for a decision he did not agree with during a State of the Union Address. In commenting on this at all, he showed his misunderstanding the Constitutional concept of coequal branches of government, while he has been presented to us all as a Constitutional Scholar. He has traveled to border states and decried the objections over a complete lack of border security as being somehow beneath the deserved attentions of a busy nation. He even suggested that the childish inhabitants who are tired of being warned that our own sovereign territory may not be safe for us to inhabit probably wanted a moat with alligators in it, and by objecting to the complete disregard for his sworn Constitutional duty of providing for the security of our citizens, we were all just being unreasonable. He put the Dali Lama out the back door of the White House past the trash, and held a State Dinner for his jailer. He made the Prime Minister of Israel, one of our staunches allies wait for him in a White House meeting room during the middle of the meeting while he went to dine with his family. He invited a U.S. Congressman to a press conference, and then proceeded to single him out for ridicule, on national television, and did so in such a manner where his charges could not be addressed in open debate. The sin of the Congressman? Well, as it turns out the sin was the presentation of a national budget, the first such presentation in 4 years time.

For years, we conservatives have known that the word compromise to liberals simply means capitulate to our demands, and give up completely on your principles. I guess, after decades of seeing this be the result of the political discourse, President Obama really can not be blamed for wishing this to be the case once again. There is a difference however between previous times of compromise and today’s reality. Not only are we at a national crossroads of philosophy today, but we quite literally are stretched to the very limits of what our national economy can handle. During this latest meeting of attempted compromise our President stood up from the table, said, “don’t call my bluff Eric, or I’ll take this directly to the American People.” This literally has me bursting at the seems, so I’ll try to hit it all.

  • Take your case directly to the American People.  37% of them feel as though your leadership on the economy is what they agree with.  63% of them feel that your economic policies need to be stopped, and in fact issued a national restraining order against your economic agenda in November of 2010.
  • Perhaps you had some sort of Reaganesque vision of yourself, possibly comparing Reagan’s meeting in Iceland with Yuri Andropov during the earliest days of his Presidency getting up from the table and refusing to sign the deal which would have forfeited SDI as a result of moving forward.  Today’s situation is different in at least this way, you are not sitting down with the leader of a national enemy, but with the opposition party of your own country who is attempting in good faith to insure the continued survival of our country.
  • You are no where near being Reagan.  It is getting old seeing you compare yourself to the man who  you never missed an opportunity to insult every day of your life prior to being President.  His policies were diametrically opposed to everything you have enacted or talked about enacting.  He took an economic situation which was far worse than the one you took the reigns on and vastly improved the situation, thus improving the lives of every American.  You have taken an economy in a recession, which if left alone would have corrected itself in about a year’s time and created a situation that is far worse, while creating greater hardship for every American.  
  • Standing up from the table to leave because the other side will not blindly accede to your insane demands is not leadership.  You can give all of the verbal lashings you want about how the GOP is not living up to your personal standards of leadership simply because they refuse to cave in, but the fact is that there are very real philosophical differences between you and them.  They were elected for the express purpose of stopping your agenda from continuing.  Leadership, or eating your peas as you so eloquently put it, would be having this debate and finding a way to iron out a deal which will serve the American People, and doing so in a manner which would live up to your lofty campaign promises.

The President has had a rough year.  Between Pigford, the slow burning scandal in which he and other members of his Administration have been implicated in the outright fraud of about $100 Billion, Fast and Furious, the explosive scandal in which he and members of his Administration have been implicated in the deaths of innocent American and Mexican citizens, the days being spent in the White House must be getting tense indeed.  It is starting to show though.  Losing one’s temper is not a good sign.  It means the beginning of the end.  Sales people know to never allow a prospective buyer see you lose your cool.  Politicians also know that allowing the electorate see you obviously out of control means you will not be elected.  If American voters see Obama not be able to withstand the unwavering belief in his position of little Eric Cantor, one of 435 Congressmen, how on Earth will he stand up to America’s enemies?  Being President is a tough job, and requires a strong person to do it well.  Barack Obama does not instill a feeling of confidence nor a feeling of trust in anyone.  His habit of throwing people under his bus has become a national joke, and one which will cost him politically when he can least afford it.  People who’ve been tossed under the bus so to speak may take it for a little while, but once he appears vulnerable, they will pay him back, in kind.  That vulnerability has already been noticed by David Ogden, and he went and testified to Congress in a secret closed session on the 4th of July.  Don’t blink, this implosion will be quick.  

Special note:  For years we have been told that Social Security was not apart of the General Fund of our national fiscal system.  If the debt limit is reached, and Social Security is indeed as it were promised to be, why would those payments be affected at all by any of the current debate?.  That money is supposed to be separate from all other funds, in Al Gore’s lock box.

      Cross Posted at Musings of a Mad Conservative.