The Roots of Muslim Rage by Bernard Lewis

The Roots of Muslim Rage by Bernard Lewis

Why a real war on terrorism brings out the best in us. By Robert Wright - Slate Magazine

Why a real war on terrorism brings out the best in us. By Robert Wright - Slate Magazine

An article in Slate, surprisingly dead on the mark regarding how we should change our foreign policy in the Middle East. To use a piece of lingo from the "new age human potential movement", we need to "hold both." Supporting dictatorships in the Middle East is morally wrong, regardless if they are "our dictatorships", and gives terrorists a reason to hate us and an excuse for why their societies are so backwards. Support should be withdrawn from them. At the same time we should kick Bin Laden's ass.

Why the left HATES, DESPISES, AND CAN'T STAND, Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft.

Cheney, Bush, and Ashcroft represent the "bullying jocks" who harassed the "liberal stoners" with whom the far-left identifies with today. When the left sees Ashcroft, et. al., they see the football coach-cum-phys.ed.-teacher who made them run laps and do pushups when they just wanted to "chill". And while they escaped the intolerant authority figure who looked down at everything from their hair to their clothes to their music to their lack of study habits by graduating (or dropping out)...where can they go now...because now their old gym teacher RUNS THE FUCKING COUNTRY!

Poor sad liberals.

Inherit the Wind: an historical analysis

Inherit the Wind: an historical analysis

Man, after reading this, I was so glad that this movie was just a vague memory, I had seen it so long ago. I will NEVER watch it again. What crap. Liberals have NO shame. Period.

Good Evening, Iraq!

John Derbyshire on Iraq on National Review Online

I love 95% of what he says. The only thing I would be concerned about is Iran arming the Shiites in Iraq and having them take over and abuse the rights of the Sunnis. I'd feel some sort of obligation to protect them and also it would be bad for the region (and our interests) for Iran to get so powerful.

WSJ.com - Aiming for Diversity, Textbooks Overshoot

WSJ.com - Aiming for Diversity, Textbooks Overshoot

Just another example of how liberalism is a mental disorder which is correlated to an inability to face reality.

WSJ.com - Lamont's Win Hurts The Dems in the Long Run

WSJ.com - Lamont's Win Hurts The Dems in the Long Run

I'm reminded of the cocaine-snorting slick would-be-terrorist-negotiator from the original Die Hard movie whose arrogance was only matched by his strategic incompetence. I'll be delighted to see liberals in power after the '06 and '08 elections. After another taste of the fruits of limp-wristed foreign policy (aka "the Jimmy Carter school") , which I think will be two more successful 9/11 scale attacks, we won't have to deal with a democrat in office for another 20 years.

Rebel Alliance Forums -> Honest Question

Rebel Alliance Forums -> Honest Question: "I happen to be a capitalist but am intrigued at the idea of socialism. It sounds like a great idea but I don’t think it would work as a practical matter unless people’s freedoms were taken away from them - something which I agree with socialists would be a bad thing. I have a series of questions ask that you kindly tell me know if you know of a more appropriate forum to ask this. My question is as follows:

Let’s assume one day that we woke up in a socialist society where all “means of production” were owned/controlled by the people in general. I’m assuming that there is private ownership of property, like homes, stereos, furniture and lawn equipment.

What is to stop the following scenario from happening?

Let’s say that one enterprising woman who happens to own a lawn mower (she bought it originally to mow her own lawn) realizes that there are lots of people who don’t like to mow their lawn -- they’d rather watch football or do something else on a Sunday -- who would be willing to pay her to mow their lawn so they don’t have to. This woman starts mowing lawns (she charges $30 per lawn) and making extra money by working on weekends.

If that would be allowed, then what’s to stop the next scenario from taking place?

This woman is particularly industrious and enterprising and realizes that there are more people who would like her to mow their lawns than she can mow. So she saves up her extra money and buys a second lawn mower. She finds somebody who does not have a lawn mower (they live in an apartment and have no need for one) and says to them, “Hey, if you want to, I’ll let you use my lawn mower to mow peoples’ lawns and we can split the money. You can get $15 and I’ll take $15, because I’m letting you use my lawn mower.” The person accepts and starts mowing people's lawns for $30 and give the woman who owns the lawn mower they're using $15 each time.

If this would be allowed, then what’s to stop the next scenario from taking place?

The woman who owns two lawn mowers starts saving more and more money and buys more and more lawn mowers. She finds more and more people who don’t have lawn mowers themselves (and don’t want to buy them) but are willing to mow a lawn using one of her and split the $30 - the woman who owns the lawn mower getting $15 and the “worker” who actually does the mowing getting $15. Pretty soon she has so many lawn mowers and people mowing lawns giving her half their pay that she decides to stop mowing lawns herself and just take care of the maintenance of the lawn mowers - replacing blades, keeping the engines tuned, etc.

If this would be allowed, then what’s to stop the next scenario from taking place?

Eventually, she has so many lawn mowers, that she decides to rent a warehouse (she can’t keep them all in her garage) and hire someone (who happens to an even better mechanic than she) to maintain them. Now, she doesn’t mow lawns or do the grunt work of maintaining them - she just focuses on making sure everybody has enough work, advertising, and paperwork.

Unless something stops this kind of thing from happening (and the only thing I can think of is some kind of force/violence being used to prevent adults from freely agreeing to do thing for/with each other for something in exchange) I think any socialist society would find small businesses like these sprouting up all over, in all kinds of industries. I think you would just find that some people are either more hard-working, enterprising, or just lucky in some cases and would start to accumulate wealth/ownership of "means of production". These small business would grow bigger and bigger until eventually you would have the same kinds of disparity of income/wealth distribution we find in society today.

I would love to know if I missed something in my prediction and welcome your feedback.

Ah yes, the liberal media never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity to show the truth about communism.

U.S. Reporter Attacked by Castro Goons in Argentina

You heard it here first, folks.

I predict there will be no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil until after the 2008 Presidential election. Here's why. Bin Laden, et. al., know that if you fuck with the U.S. while a Republican is in office you will get hammered. (q.v. the U.S. owns Afghanistan and Iraq as a result of 9/11) Terrorists would all much prefer to see a Democrat in office, who probably wouldn't fight back as hard. They know that any terrorist act will galvanize the people into backing whoever is President, especially someone like Bush who will hit back hard. If another terrorist act is committed before the election it will increase the chances of a Republican getting winning the election -- something they don't want. Therefore, there will be no terrorist act on U.S. soil until after the election. Terrorists also remember the last time they tried to influence the election it backfired (q.v. audio tape Bin Laden released a few weeks before the 2004 election) and bolstered Bush. What do you do when your enemy says, "Don't vote for candidate A"? You vote for candidate A. So they won't be making that same mistake again.

Something else to consider. In most Muslim countries, and certainly in the orthodox Muslim religion, women are looked at (and treated) as inferior. They are seen as weaker and unworthy of an education, important jobs, etc. What does someone who holds this view think of a woman running a country? Probably that it is a dumb move and signifies that the country (in addition to being a moral cesspit worthy of being destroyed) is weak and "easy pickins". My prediction is that shortly after the demos take back the White House in '08 (and especially if Hillary is in office) there will be massive attacks by terrorists againts the U.S. who will hold the above described view. I only hope that they're wrong.

The only thing better than liberals being caught is when they blame other liberals for setting them up! It's a two-fer!

Activists: We were framed by Democrat operatives in tire-slashing case
By Chris O'Connell

Ronald Reagan

"A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his."

Bozell's News Column -- 12/20/2005 -- The Media’s Shabbiest Moments -- Media Research Center

Bozell's News Column -- 12/20/2005 -- The Media’s Shabbiest Moments -- Media Research Center

In August, NBC’s “Today” show was in Iraq, and Specialist Steven Chitterer told co-host Matt Lauer that "Morale is always high. Soldiers know they have a mission. They like taking on new objectives and taking on the new challenges." Lauer won the “Good Morning Morons Award” for interjecting: “Don’t get me wrong here, I think you are probably telling me the truth, but a lot of people at home are wondering how that could be possible with the conditions you’re facing and with the attacks you’re facing. What would you say to those people who are doubtful that morale can be that high?” Captain Sherman Powell unloaded a quote for the ages: "Sir, if I got my news from the newspapers also, I’d be pretty depressed as well."

Elections 2000 --- The Leave Us Alone vs. the Takings Coalition

Elections 2000 --- The Leave Us Alone vs. the Takings Coalition:

Grover G. Norquist, MD

There are two competing coalitions in American politics today that are organized around how one views the relationship between the individual and the state.

In the past, the Republican and Democrat parties had within them a broad ideological range. Regional differences --- North vs. South --- and religious and immigrant status had a great deal to say about whether one viewed himself as a Republican or Democrat. The Roosevelt coalition held together in the Democrat party a solid South with ethnic immigrants and Catholics in northern cities.

But starting in the 1970s, the two parties and the liberal and conservative coalitions that surround them began to separate out along lines of policy rather than region or ethnicity.

The Reagan Republican party and conservative movement can best be understood as a coalition of individuals and groups that --- on the issue that brings them to politics --- want the federal government to leave them alone.

The "Leave us Alone" coalition includes taxpayers who want the government to reduce the tax burden, property owners, farmers, and homeowners who want their property rights respected, gunowners who want the government to leave them and their guns alone, homeschoolers who wish to educate their own children as they see fit, traditional values conservatives who don't want the government throwing condoms at their children and making fun of their religious values.

The Leave us Alone coalition also includes those Americans who serve in the military and police as they are the legitimate functions of government that protect Americans' right to be left alone by foreign agressors or domestic criminals.

The modern American left is a "Takings Coalition," a coalition of groups and individuals who view the proper role of government as taking things from one group and giving to another. This often is in the form of money. And the recipients of others money are usually the leaders of the "Takings Coalition."

The Takings coalition consists of the Trial Lawyers, the corrupt Big City Machines, the Labor Union Bosses and the two wings of the Dependency Movement --- those who remain trapped in dependency and those who make $80,000 a year managing the dependency of others and making sure they don't get jobs and become Republicans. They are joined by the various coercive Utopians who want to reorganize society through force to make us stop wearing leather or driving sport utility vehicles or owning large toilets or otherwise run our lives as they see fit.

The Left puts forward the fiction that the Right want to force their morality on others. However, the homeschooler movement does not demand that homeschoolers be recognized as an alternative lifestyle. Gunowners do not insist that schools teach ten year olds books entitled "Heather has Two Hunters."

The good news for friends of liberty is that the "Leave us Alone" coalition is growing. In 1965, only 10 percent of Americans owned shares of stock, in 1980 it was only 20 percent, today 50 percent of Americans own stock in IRAs, 401Ks, and mutual funds. As more and more Americans own shares of stock the politics of hate and envy becomes more difficult. In 1965, a politician could say, "I will steal money from corporations and give it to you," and 90 percent of the people in the room might think this a good idea and only 10 percent would clearly see that they would be paying for this government largesse. Today, the same politician's bluster would find fully half of this audience reacting: "Hey, that is my retirement income you are looting."

As more and more Americans own shares of stock, the idea of reforming Social Security to allow Americans to invest some of their FICA taxes is winning popular support unimaginable only a few years ago.

Americans also want the death tax repealed and the Republicans in the House and Senate --- with some Democrat support --- have just voted to phase out the death tax.

More and more Americans are homeschooling. Increasing numbers of minority parents want to have school choice to send their children to private, religious or parochial schools. They want to be left alone to raise their own children.

More and more Americans are starting small businesses and becoming self-employed, working from home. They are all likely recruits for the Leave us Alone coalition.

The 2000 election will tell us the relative strength of the "Leave us Alone" coalition vs. the "Takings Coalition."

Mr. Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform, http://www.atr.org.

Originally published in the Medical Sentinel 2000;5(6):209. Copyright ©2000 Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).

Bill Moyers interviewing Grover Norquist.

I'm surprised there wasn't an explosion like when matter and anti-matter meet.

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_norquist.html

GROVER NORQUIST: And we now have 27 versions of that at the state capital level, including one in New York City. So we're taking the model of the "leave us alone" coalition from the national level to the state level as well.

BILL MOYERS: "Leave us alone?"

GROVER NORQUIST: Um-hmm. Look, the center right coalition in American politics today is best understood as a coalition of groups and individuals that on the issue that brings them to politics what they want from the government is to be left alone. Taxpayers, don't raise my taxes. Property owners, don't restrict or limit my property. Home schoolers, let me educate my own kids. Gun owners, don't restrict my Second Amendment rights. All communities of faith, Evangelical Christians, conservative Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, people want to practice their own religion and be left alone to raise their own kids.

.....

BILL MOYERS: But what about those real people we saw in that film, the woman who needed the health insurance, who needed the health coverage, who was going to have to take $400 out of her $800 a month salary to meet medical costs that she didn't have?

GROVER NORQUIST: I think you have to look at the total level of what government does to her in terms of the taxes that they impose on...

BILL MOYERS: She's not paying much taxes, though, at $800 a month.

GROVER NORQUIST: And she's got...well, she's paying sales tax in that state, she's paying Social Security taxes in that state.

BILL MOYERS: But aren't all of those taxes sort of the membership dues we pay for living in a cooperative and collaborative society?

GROVER NORQUIST: Well, first we have to decide what we want the government to do. What is it legitimate to require with force people to pay for? It is not charity. I mean, guys with guns will show up if you don't pay your taxes and take that money from you. And I think that we want in order to have a free society to have as little as possible done coercively.
....

BILL MOYERS: What would you do about real life situations like this? This is a story out of New Jersey, the caseworker who closed a child abuse investigation and to a mother whose son was found dead in a locked basement here on Sunday had been working on more than 100 other investigations at the same time. That's more than six times the national standard recommended by national child advocacy groups. The New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services says its field agents juggle an average of 35 cases. Why shouldn't those of us who are well off be taxed a little more to try to make a system like this work for those who have nothing at all?

GROVER NORQUIST: Because I'm not interested in saving that system. I'm interested in saving and protecting the kids that that system is supposed to help.

BILL MOYERS: How would you do it?

GROVER NORQUIST: Well, I've been active with groups, the Institute for Children and some of the pro-adoption groups in Washington, D.C. The last numbers I saw, there are about 500,000 kids in foster care, about 50,000 kids free to adopt, and more than a million parents looking to adopt. And we have state rules and federal rules that are being liberalized, but that up until this point have made it difficult for kids to get adopted. And, the rules are...the Federal government gives subsidies to state governments, institutions like that, for every kid they keep in foster care, and they lose the subsidy if they get the kid adopted. That is the wrong kind of incentive to have. Nobody should have 100 kids they're chasing after...

BILL MOYERS: This is the real world, this is the only system these people have.

GROVER NORQUIST: We need to get them out of that system and into families where they're adopted. There are more people who want to adopt than there are kids that need to be adopted. And the government is in the way of having that happen.

BILL MOYERS: But in the meantime, can we hire more caseworkers, more people, to look after these children?

GROVER NORQUIST: As we're finding out, the government isn't looking after those children, and no government can look after children the way a family could, the way parents could. Let's get those kids into real families and adopted by real families who will take care of them.

More Great Grover Norquist

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/interviews/norquist.html

In addition, the age cohort that is most Democratic by party ID are people who grew up and became 21 years of age between 1932 and 1952. People of that age who came of age during the New Deal and the Great Depression are now 70 to 90 years old, and every year 2 million of them pass away. So the Democratic Party -- the Yellow Dog Democrats are passing away, and the 20- and 30- and 40-year-olds coming up are more likely to be Republican than Democrat. So they have a demographic disaster ahead of them for the next 15 years that mirrors what happened to the Republicans from '60 to '75. That was the period where the older people who were passing away were Republicans who had become 21 years old before the Great Depression, and if you were north of the Mason-Dixon Line, you were Republican.

So there are these period[s] of times when younger people look around and decide to be more Republican or more Democrat, and they hold that until they die. And so the Republican Party had this implosion in their numbers from '60 to '75, and the Democrats are in the middle of that now.

http://reason.com/9702/fe.int.norquist.shtml

He argues that there is an emerging "Leave-Us-Alone Coalition" of property owners, anti-tax activists, gun owners, home- and private-schoolers, small business owners, religious conservatives, and libertarians who want the government to stop interfering in their lives. By contrast, the constituencies of the New Deal alliance (what he calls the "Takings Coalition," because they want to transfer money and power from some people to others) of labor unions, government employees, trial lawyers, government contractors, and government grant and welfare recipients are shrinking. As government shrinks, Norquist says, the Takings Coalition implodes.

The distinction between the Leave-Us-Alone Coalition and the Takings Coalition is that we think the proper role of the state is to protect people. The abortion issue will never be solved because the disagreement is over whether there are one or two people involved. The question isn't who should be left alone--the question is, "How many people are there?" With abortion, if there's one person, then the role of the state is to protect that person and let her have an abortion. If there are two people, then both of them deserve protection.

I don't know any pro-choicers who say, "There are two distinct human beings here--kill one." And I don't know any pro-lifers who say, "No, there's only one person here and we want to compel her to have a baby." But that doesn't mean they should disagree about whether the government should steal people's property or grab their guns or about school choice.

I know lots of people who are pro-choice and are radical libertarians.

Two Great Norquist Quotes:

"We do not have two prices of bread - one for the poor and one for those who earn more. All goods and services have one price for all Americans," Norquist said. "Government should be the same. We should all pay the same price (tax) for government."

"Some politicians are elected by voters that do not pay the true cost of government," Norquist said. "We should not be surprised that voters who get subsidized government want more of it."

Going Stronger; What conservatives understand about taxes

Going Stronger; What conservatives understand about taxes

BY: Peter Beinart, The New Republic
DATE: May 21, 2001
SECTION: Page 18
LENGTH: 1170 words

Why isn't there a liberal Grover Norquist? Norquist runs a group called Americans for Tax Reform. But that's not his real job. His real job is to host a meeting every Wednesday that brings together every species of conservative--gun nuts, home schoolers, anti-environmentalists, capital gains tax cutters--to plot strategy. Why is this important?

First, it keeps conservatives on-message. If the White House says America needs a tax cut because the economy is tanking (as opposed to last year, when it said America needed a tax cut because the economy wasn't tanking), Norquist's meeting makes sure everyone is reading from the same script.

Second, Norquist's meeting facilitates inter-conservative back-scratching. It reminds UPS (to take a hypothetical example) to donate money to the Christian Coalition's gay-conversion program so the Christian Coalition will tell its members that federal ergonomics rules violate Judeo-Christian morality.

But, most of all, the meeting helps the conservative movement set priorities. It's through Norquist's conclaves that conservatives learn that the White House isn't going to push for school vouchers, or an immediate increase in defense spending, or a loosening of the arsenic standard. And it's through them that conservatives disgruntled with those decisions are told to play along--or else.

One reason there isn't a liberal Grover Norquist is that Norquist is an unusual guy--shrewd, fanatically committed, catholic in his devotion to all right-wing causes, big and small.

Another is that Norquist has access to money--from corporations looking for tax breaks or freedom from regulation--and that money gives him the leverage to keep fractious conservatives in line.

Liberals don't have an activist of Norquist's stature and savvy. And given their often adversarial relationship to corporations--which provide most of the real money in politics--they don't have his finances, either. But there's a larger reason conservatives have produced a Grover Norquist and liberals haven't: Conservatives have a central, unifying purpose, and liberals, at least right now, do not.

A great deal of ink has been spilled in recent years on the crisis of post-cold-war conservatism. Conservatives no longer have the Soviet Union to define themselves against; they no longer have welfare; they no longer have soft-on-crime liberals. All that is true--but they still have taxes. Economic conservatives may hate taxes because they believe they undermine liberty, and social conservatives may hate taxes because they believe they undermine the family, but both groups hate them with a passion. Norquist understands this, and it's what holds his Wednesday meetings together. It's no coincidence, after all, that the man convening them is first and foremost an anti-tax crusader. His congregants know that while they may occasionally have to cave on education, the environment, or affirmative action, they will all go to the mat on taxes, and a victory on taxes will justify everything else. George W. Bush understands this too. He saw his father, the man who won the Gulf war and nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, nonetheless denounced by conservatives because of his apostasy in raising taxes. And W. has governed accordingly. The tax cut is his number-one priority; number two isn't even close.

This is why Bush, and conservatives, are winning the tax cut battle: They care more. While support for tax cuts is clearly the top priority for conservatives, opposition to tax cuts isn't the top priority for liberals. Ralph Neas, director of People for the American Way, has gamely enlisted an array of liberal groups in a "Fair Taxes for All" coalition. But while Neas may be able to get lots of liberal organizations to say they oppose the tax cut, he can't get them to make it a priority.

Feminist and civil rights groups are hoarding their resources for the fight over judicial nominations.

Environmentalists have taken to the airwaves against Bush's environmental policy, not his budget.

The AFL-CIO is more concerned about permanent normal trading relations with China, Bush's assault on ergonomics rules, and various anti-union guidelines instituted by the Labor Department.

The Naderites care more about stopping the Free Trade Area of the Americas.

You can see the difference between conservative and liberal priorities in the recent budget votes in the House and Senate.

Republicans who opposed the tax cut genuinely feared conservative retribution. And for good reason: As Michael Crowley reported in tnr ("Central Casting," May 14), the Norquist-allied Club for Growth threatened to back primary challengers against GOP moderates who didn't support the president. The result was that every single House Republican voted for Bush's tax cut, and the three Senate Republicans who didn't were the subjects of attack ads in their home states. By contrast, House and Senate Democrats who defected from their party's position to support the tax cut feared--and received--no such retaliation.

You could make a case that taxes shouldn't be the top liberal priority of the Bush era. Or, at least, you could make a case if you had a good alternative. But liberals don't. The alternative favored by culture-war liberals, as far as I can tell, is the judiciary. Last month 42 of the 50 Senate Democrats participated in a retreat at which feminists, civil rights leaders, and academics rallied them against Bush's impending nominations to the courts. (As far as I know, liberals never held a similar event on the tax cut.) Fights over judges are really proxies for fights over abortion and affirmative action. But there's simply no way those identity-politics battles can serve as liberalism's overriding purpose, because they hold little or no appeal to that large chunk of the left motivated by economics. Unlike tax cuts, they are inherently parochial. The alternative focus suggested by the economic left--globalization--is even worse. The unions were clearly more galvanized by the nafta and fast-track fights than they are by the tax cut; and, by sinking Al Gore, the Naderites made it clear they considered his support for free trade more significant than his opposition to tax giveaways for the wealthy. To the extent it is allowed to define left-liberal politics, the anti-globalization movement will wreak political disaster and moral catastrophe. And it will alienate upper-middle-class pro-choicers as much as abortion rights alienates blue-collar hard hats.

Grover Norquist is right: Taxation, defined broadly to encompass government redistribution of wealth, is the central political question of the moment. A tax cut as large as Bush's effectively predetermines how government will (or will not) respond to a vast array of other issues--entitlements, defense policy, environmental regulation, health care, education, welfare, you name it. Conservatives understand this. Liberals, for the most part, don't. And that's why conservatives are winning.

The Adrenaline Vault Forums: Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy

The Adrenaline Vault Forums: Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy: Jim Meyers
Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2005


This is a great book. Schweizer is dead on in scewering liberals. It may appear self-serving for a conservative to say, "When I commit hypocrisy it's different than when liberals do it, so let me say as a libertarian, it is different; in exactly the way Schweizer describes. Perhaps conservatives need to learn to be more tolerant of people's vices but liberals need to just drop fuckin' dead.

Bumperstickers I'd like on my SUV

Gun control is a tight group. (picture of tight group of bullet holes)
This SUV protected by Glock .45 Security System.
Buddhist on Board.

To be continued...

Rwandan Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where were all the liberals and blacks in America in 1994 when the Rwandan Genocide was going on?

Apparently they were too busy congratulating themselves over protesting South Africa's apartheid to issue nary a peep. What a classic "do what feels good" hypocritical liberal moment. We care more about blacks being discriminated against by whites than about blacks being massacred by blacks.