Oh jeez, I think the Perrier water has gone to their heads.
The Europeans are beating their chests and jumping up and down with glee over the President's decision to lift the steel tariffs. They think this strikes a major victory over the US, and also indicates what tremendous power they have to force events here. A triumph for the EU!
This is from Alan Cowell at the New York Times (registration required?). I'll switch to an IHT link if/when it shows over there.
One day after President Bush abandoned American protective tariffs on imported steel to avert a trade war with Europe, Pascal Lamy, the European trade commissioner, said he would use the same tactics again in another long-running trade dispute with the United States.Mr. Lamy said the European Union would press ahead with punitive tariffs on some $4 billion worth of goods from politically pivotal regions of the United States if Washington did not end tax breaks for American corporations' offshore operations....
(emphasis mine)
So, again, Europe publicly threatens to try to influence US elections. A particularly low thing to do, especially for someone who is supposed to be your "friend" and "ally". But what's laughable is that they think they actually have any effective power.
I think they've all been getting hit with secondhand smoke in certain establishments in Amsterdam - if they haven't outlawed that yet.
From their own mouths,:
Mr. Lamy's remarks reflected assessments by some European trade experts that after the American retreat on steel, the power balance of global trade had shifted in Europe's favor."We in Europe, by standing together, by using the World Trade Organization and saying we're going to uphold the rules of world trade, we've played our hand very, very effectively indeed," said Patricia Hewitt, Britain's trade minister.
In a telephone interview from Brussels, Mr. Lamy said the outcome of the steel dispute should demonstrate that Europe "punches its weight."
"It's a message sent within Europe," he said. "It's a basic lesson: union equals might and strength. It's why we are building Europe."
Heh, getting a little desperate over in EU-land, are we? Trying to grab at the tiniest little (imaginary) scrap of international power or relevancy? Trying to reassure your citizens that your failing experiment is not becoming increasingly irrelevant?
We're out kicking ass and taking names (partly to your benefit, I'll remind), while you, who have little significant military capability, are going to "punch your weight" with your.....taxes?
ROFLMAO!
Listen to yourselves, really.
Banagor over at SFPAAGBS gives us a passionate piece showing why Israel should leave the anti-Semitic viper's den that the United Nations has become. And he's right on all counts as to justification, but perhaps he doesn't go far enough.
The organization which created the State of Israel has now not only completely abandoned it, but has turned around and seeks its total destruction - openly and viciously. The Secretary General Kofi Annan, a man who may be singlehandedly responsible for preventing action in the Rwandan Genocide sits on his inept posterior and surveys yet another attempt at Genocide - politically and militarily. He and his fat spider-like cronies in the bloated bureaucracy of the United Nations claim to speak for all those in need but it is simply apparently beyond words that they are now the enemy which perpetuate the problems in the world and do nothing to actually solve them.This latest round at the United Nations comes at a time when Israel, and Jews, are being singled out in the world as the Evil Empire behind the scenes. There is no longer any need for hidden anti-Semitism because it has become acceptable to believe that Zionism equates Racism and hence the United Nations no longer even needs to try to pass that resolution yet again. Every day, every minute in that body, their words ring clear: it is okay to kill Jews because Jews are evil.
Can I sit here and gainsay that? I can't. It's a fair saying.
And in that case, what does that say about the United States? Why do we still participate in this outrage? Why do we allow this to pollute our greatest city?
If Banagor's case is good, and Israel should leave the UN due to said organization's moral turpitude, doesn't that say, equally or even more strongly, that we should be leaving as well? And calling Truly Nolen to fumigate over by the East River?
Oh, I am loving this item (credit NYT via IHT).
James Baker 3rd, the former secretary of state, was chosen Friday by President George W. Bush to be his personal envoy to Iraq to help the country grapple with its debt problem. . "Secretary Baker will report directly to me," Bush said in a statement, "and will lead an effort to work with the world's governments at the highest levels, with international organizations and with the Iraqis, in seeking the restructuring and reduction of Iraq's official debt."
(emphasis mine)
Translation?
France, Germany, Russia, you didn't want to kick in a billion or so at the donor's conference? Ok, fine. Now we're going to play hardball over Iraqi debt.
Very hard ball.
<Pres>
Blow off James Baker, my personal envoy? Me, the President you can't stand in part because I take things personally? You might well hurt my feelings.
And not only is your future relationship with me at stake (and I'm looking likely to get reelected), but The Whole World Is Watching.
Also watching will be the Iraqis, whom you probably delude yourself into thinking you can go back to doing business with once this unpleasantness blows over.
</Pres>
Somehow I think this is going to cost you more than a few billion. Many more.
Bwaaaaahahahahahahaha!
And don't intend to in future. And yet I'm a proud member of the National Rifle Association.
Why? Because I support the right to keep and bear arms. I believe it is the right that underpins all rights in a civilized country.
The intent of the Second Amendment, revisionists notwithstanding, is clear: the People have the right, and must retain the means, of removing their current government by force, should need arise. The framers of the Constitution clearly did not trust any government any farther than they could kick it, and indeed it is as much or more a disabling as an enabling document for just that reason.
What's interesting about the anti-gun advocates, in the US and Europe, is that they are virtually all collectivists. I assert their anti-gun stance springs directly from collectivism.
A collectivist believes the State, or society, is more important than the individual. Indeed he believes that an individual has no worth other than whatever role the State bestows on him. He has no rights, other than the privileges granted by a benevolent State. The State is the creator, keeper, and dispenser of Civilization. Yes, it pinches a little sometimes, but the safety and protection of the State are well worth the sacrifice. Right?
In other words, a collectivist believes it is better to be a pampered slave than a hungry freeman.
The whole point of the Second Amendment is to spit in the eye of The State. Much of the Constitution lays out the structure and duties of the various branches of government. The Second Amendment is different. It's an enforcement clause for the rest of the Constitution. It's like the "serious consequences" clauses in UN resolutions - except this one is enforced by the American People, not sycophants of dictators.
So, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, even though I don't own or desire a gun, because I'm a strong supporter of the Constitution and America. Weakening the Second Amendment has the effect of weakening all the rest of the Constitution that tries to limit government. And that would be a Bad Thing.
Do you love America? If you do, and you're not yet an NRA member, I urge you to join today. There's a link over there at the left, "NRA-ILA".
Why? "... that Government of the People, by the People, and for the People, shall not perish from the Earth." - President Abraham Lincoln, Nov 19, 1863
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States of America
No law.
Not a few laws, or reasonable laws, or laws that serve an overriding government interest, or laws that reflect a prevailing community moral standard.
No law.
NO LAW.
There is nothing to interpret here.
To demonstrate, pose this little thought-experiment:
Assume America was to come to its senses tomorrow (from my point of view) and decided they really, truly wanted their Constitution to completely guarantee the freedom of all speech and press, without exception, and started agitating for a constitutional amendment to that effect. How might such an amendment be worded? Could it, to be effective, be worded very differently from:
"Congress shall make NO LAW abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"?
I think not.
But people, and most disgracefully the courts, have proven all too ready to throw away the protection of the 1st Amendment for "good reasons".
It's reprehensible. Worse, it's dangerous.
In both Canada and Europe we now have so-called "hate speech" laws prohibiting freedom of speech. That wasn't so very controversial (although I think it should have been) when these laws were enacted, essentially against the Nazis. But now they are being used to harass and even criminalize people who are merely expressing what their religion tells them, and has for thousands of years.
People, even religious leaders, are being threatened with criminal prosecution merely for uttering the opinion, based on the traditions of their religion, that they do not approve of gay marriage. Support homosexuality and gay marriage, keep your mouth shut, or go to jail.
That's where "hate speech" laws lead us.
And what does THAT have to do with living in a civilized society?
Update: Emperor Misha passes along another outrageous example of this Idiotarianism. Are we going to give our own liberties the Death of a Thousand Cuts?
Daniel Pipes points out another slam against America from one of our yellower newspapers: The Washington Post Whitewashes Muzaffar Iqbal.
The Post makes Iqbal look like an innocent scientist, picked out for persecution by automatonic thugs. Slurs of America are thrown in where desired. Let's examine the Post article, and Iqbal
Starting right off with the title:
He's just an innocent scholar. Of course. And that terrible America, they certainly are ugly, aren't they? But he, righteous Scholar, is going to Confront us. This is shaping up to be David & Goliath.
In an effort to curry sympathy for the guy, we get this: "...had been invited to Washington by Georgetown University's Center for Christian-Muslim Understanding, to take part in planning a conference..". He was working for Christian-Muslim Understanding fer cryin' out loud! Why are we picking on the poor Moderate Muslim® peace worker?
As an aside, was this a conference on dhimmihood? Because that's my Understanding of the Muslim perspective on the Muslim-Christian relationship.
The article goes on to relate Iqbal's experience of various procedures relating to the NSEERS program to try and keep terrorists out of America - sneering the whole time.
After dramatic and tear-jerking accounts of Iqbal's terrible persecution (He was sent to a room! He missed his flight! They made him fill out papers! What has happened to my America?), the article finishes with this:
He asked an agent: "Do you think I'm a security threat to your country?"The reply was: "I'm just doing my job. If I don't do it, I will be fired."
"I said, 'I don't want to go to your country,' " Iqbal recalled. "I took my passport and I just left quickly." Iqbal said he has decided to stay away from the United States "until they remove this condition."
Terrible. Isn't that, terrible, America? You harass this innocent scientist Muslim-Christian Understanding sort of a guy when he tries to visit your country. America is so unjust.
Or so DeNeen L. Brown, the writer of the Post piece, wants you to believe.
Hmmm, ok. Me, I think I'm darn glad the guy doesn't want to visit America, and I hope we do whatever we can to reinforce his decision. But let's move on to what Daniel Pipes has to say about this:
About Iqbal himself, the Post article (written by DeNeen L. Brown) informs us only that he moved to Canada in 1979 and was entering the United States at the invitation of Georgetown University's Center for Christian-Muslim Understanding, nothing more. But a cursory internet search turns up much information on Iqbal, information the Post reporter chose not to make available but which helps understand both why he was under suspicion and why he responded so huffily.
The short version, via snipping from Daniel? Simple web searches (but apparently too difficult for the Post reporter) reveal Iqbal:
Hmmm.
And finally, Iqbal
Denies the validity of any Islamic truth but that of the Islamists: "It is also to be noted that in clear contradistinction to the propagators of this new brand of moderate Islam, there is no category of moderate Muslims in the Qur'aan. The Qur'aan only mentions three categories of people: the believers, the unbelievers and the hypocrites."
Lovely. I thought I knew what Muslim-Christian Understanding is all about. I was right.
None of the above qualifies this guy as necessarily being a terrorist, or even a direct terrorist supporter. But it sure as heck qualifies him as an enemy of the United States, and someone we should keep out of the country.
Hat's off and thanks to the agent for "just doing my job" - protecting America.
The back of my hand to DeNeen L. Brown and the Washington Post. When are they going to start protecting America? Or even being fair to America? Or even, to ask the very least, telling the truth to America?
I'm not holding my breath.
Wow, I had given up hope on ever hearing that again.
The rumor that President Bush is going to push for a new Moon mission is very, very exciting.
I have to run off to work now, but I'll have more about this later. For now, I just had to get down a Woo-Hoo!
That should be our chant about the Palestinian situation. ptah at Crusader War College has the suggestion, and I like it.
No Peace, No Land!
Yup, sounds fair to me.
The Imperial Armorer passes along a great piece of real journalism - the old-fashioned kind - from a reporter embedded with Bravo Company in The Kingdom of Suck, err, Mosul.
It sounds like things are tough, but our troops are the very best, and have gained a tremendous amount of street-smarts. This I figured.
it also sounds like the infighting between State and Defense is screwing the pooch. This I also figured. State ought to be fired. The whole place. Turn it upside down and empty it out. Oh well. I guess all us citizens can do is keep the pressure on our representatives.
My hat's off, and thanks, to the brave soldiers of Bravo Company, 1st of the 502nd Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division. You are defending all of us here at home, and we know it and appreciate it. Stay safe.
I offer the same thanks and wishes to all our service people, and those of our allies. Bravo Company just gets to be the poster child today, due to that great article. Don't miss it.
Hat tip to Blackfive for the link.
Me too.
But I don't mean the Iraq war. I mean the war of American self-defense via genocide. That's the one we don't want to happen.
People think this is beyond the pale. They think it could never happen. America would never do that.
Guess again. I made this point back in May in "North Korea's mistake", and again more recently in October in "What the war in Iraq is really about": To whit:
There is no limit to what we will do to retain our freedom. My impression is that Europe, and several other countries around the world, don't believe that. They believe that there are things the United States would never, ever do, no matter how provoked - like first use of nuclear weapons, for example.I ask that you consider this question: just what did the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), and the tremendous overkill capability the US developed during the Cold War, imply? Just this: the United States was saying to the world, quite clearly, that we would destroy the world many times over before we would suffer enslavement. Literally. And we spent hundreds of billions of dollars backing that statement up with military capability. So folks might want to keep that in mind when they decide just what the US will and won't ever do.
We sincerely want peace. But we have become convinced that the only way we will have peace at present is to take the war to those who have declared war against us. The war will stop when they stop, or are dead. Nothing else will stop us.
So, to the fellow who wrote Steven asking, essentially, "how far would you go", the answer is "as far as it takes". There are no limits. I'm not happy to have to say that, but it's the truth. So have a care.
More evidence of who the good guys, bad guys, and morally dead guys are.
FrontPage magazine reports the recent ritual murder of Jews in Paris. The motive? Well, they were Jewish.
After this infamy:
...a Muslim neighbor slit Sellam’s throat twice, according to the Rosenpress interview. His face was completely mutilated with a fork. Even his eyes were gouged out.
the murderer, a member of the Religion of Peace, did this:
...the Muslim perpetrator mounted the stairs, his hands still bloody, and announced his crime. “I have killed my Jew. I will go to heaven,”...
I shudder just to paste that in.
And the reaction of the representatives of French justice?
The police warned one victim’s family not to call the crime anti-Semitic.
And how did we hear of this? Was there an outcry in the French press? Well, no. Actually, there was a conspiracy of silence.
A minor tabloid, Le Parisien, reported the grisly events. But not a single major French newspaper—Le Monde, Figaro or Liberation—picked up the story...
It's enough to make you puke.
I hereby urge the US Congress to open our doors to any Jew who wants to immigrate, on humanitarian grounds.
Hat tip to Merde in France.
The Mayor and City Council of Lakewood, Ohio, appear to think this is Europe, not America. Their outrageous government taking via a perverse interpretation of eminent domain would have had the Founding Fathers reaching for firearms.
In a move that has become too common (although even one occurrence would be too many), the government of Lakewood is going to confiscate the homes of citizens, demolish them, and turn the land over to developers who will make millions by building a shopping center.
Isn't that nice? And here you thought that private property was sacrosanct unless the government could show a "compelling interest". and take it for a "public use". Making money for your friends is now apparently "public use".
Does that sound like America to you?
It sure as heck isn't the America I want to have.
I don't think the people behind this even understand what America is all about.
The Institute for Justice is at the forefront of the fight against this. I support them, and I urge you to do so as well.