The day the world went away

Because I'm a sucker for dystopian stories about free people struggling against tyranny — in whatever form it takes.

And because it just looks like it's going to be freaking good:

Another doozy of a cover from Newsweek

Let's learn to live with Radical Islam?

Are these people kidding me?



Maybe they're right. After all, this comment on Gateway Pundit probably represents a majority opinion:

There is no such thing as "radical", "moderate", or "liberal" Islam. There is only Islam itself, which is the complete way of life prescribed by Allah (swt) for all of humanity.

Look about you. Everywhere you look, Islam is advancing and the corrupt and man-made societies are in disorganized retreat.

Every day, more people embrace Islam. New mosques rise everywhere while churches and pagan temples fall into disrepair or are used as public latrines. Every day, more Muslim children are born while the cross worshipers and Jews slaughter their unborn children in filthy abortion mills.

The long struggle is nearly finished. It is time to act. Renounce your false religions now. Embrace Islam and live in peace in submission to the will of Almighty Allah (swt).

Your grandchildren will be Muslim.

Allahu akbar!
American Muslim | 03.02.09 - 9:16 pm |

Read more about this insanity here.

And people ask me why I'm pessimistic.

With each passing day there seems to be more evidence that a large number of Westerners — including many Americans — are willing to just raise the white flag and submit. Apparently believing that this is just a new reality we must accept. "This war is lost," as Harry Reid might say.

And hey, it's probably mostly our fault for creating Radical Islam in the first place, right?

Mr. Zakaria, and for that matter, "American Muslim", you should probably note that despite my pessimism I still believe there are many Americans who will resist Radical Islam with every ounce of their beings. Perhaps, if necessary, until their last breaths.

Count me as one of them.

There will come a day when the death-cult that is Radical Islam is dispensed upon the ash heap of history, like so many other failed ideologies before. Until that day comes, there is no 'learning to live' with it.

There should be only defiance of it.

10 reasons to disengage

Some may have wondered why I've been posting less frequently — and when I have, it's been of the more frivolous variety. *

Well, I guess all the gloom and doom is actually starting to have an effect. It certainly makes one want to disengage and turn off the news.

Here are 10 reasons why I'm getting less and less interested in our current state of affairs:

1) We have a President and a political party that constantly tells us how broken, destitute and horrible our country is. It's kind of a buzzkill.

2) Nationalization becomes the norm as Federal power bloats. The Era of Big Government is reborn and most people seem to be just fine with that.

3) Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have not been tarred and feathered for their culpability in the housing mess, nor have they taken any responsibility or shown any contrition, and no one seems to care.

4) Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chucky Schumer, Dick Durbin and Henry Waxman are all prominent leaders of the Democratic party in Congress. This reason alone could pretty much trump all the other ones on this list.

5) Thugs like Hugo Chavez essentially become lifetime dictators through "democratic" elections in Venezuela, and not only does no one care, the Left in this country and much of the media praises his "spunk" and "revolutionary socialism".

6) The "go green" nonsense will not go away, and in fact only seems to be getting stronger. I still believe (hope?) in 10 years or so it will be viewed as the junk science-fad-trend-thing that it is — just a ridiculous product of the worst kind of groupthink. But through wacko policy decisions that will ultimately do nothing but control more of your daily life and constrict movement, prosperity, and liberty, a lot of damage can be done before then.

7) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton perpetuates further an absurd moral relativism by apologizing for past Christian indiscretions while in Indonesia. This is just one example of a wider weakening that continues to disturb me. I keep wondering when the West will stop apologizing and start demanding one instead.

8) Ultra-rich puppetmasters like George Soros have entirely too much hidden influence.

9) Real journalism is dead and buried.

10) "Lost", "24" and "BSG" are all back on, stronger than ever, and serve as welcome distractions from the real world.

So, what does all this mean? In the grand scheme of things, not much. But for this blog it could mean you'll see a little less politics and maybe a bit more about other things that interest me: Pop culture, science, music, Mongolian agricultural trends...okay, maybe not that last one.

There will always be plenty of nutty Leftwingery to mock, and I'll never get bored with that, but for my own sanity I may need to rant about other things as well.

* No one has wondered.

Sunday must-reads

Victor Davis Hanson — Recessional: Conservatives Have Themselves to Blame

Mark Steyn — The Six-Trillion-Dollar Man

Michelle Malkin — These Foreclosure "Victims" Deserve No Sympathy

Heritage Foundation — The Obama Health Care Budget: Hopeful Savings and Costly Change

Larry Kudlow — Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More

Trenton Newell — Government to the Rescue?

George Will — Not-so-hot reporting job

Investor's Business Daily — Venezuela's Elected Dictatorship

Deroy Murdock — The Continuing Saga of Geert Wilders

Charles Krauthammer — Obama's "Kick Me" Diplomacy

Bill Maxwell — On race, blacks are cowards too

Travis Rowley — No Country for Black Men

And finally, on the useful idiots front, see this and this.

Because it's Friday

A few more Obamicons.

Greeniness

Oh boy. Here it comes.

From The New York Times:

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.

The decision, which likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, building standards, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States’ negotiating position at United Nations climate talks set for December in Copenhagen.

The E.P.A. is under order from the Supreme Court to make a determination whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant that endangers public health and safety, an order that the Bush administration essentially ignored despite a near-unanimous belief among E.P.A. experts that the research points inexorably to such a finding.

As expected, the junk science of man-made global warming is rearing its ugly head in what is quickly becoming a disturbing presidency.

Fortunately, there are some voices of reason in Congress according to Human Events:

Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), proposing new rules for greenhouse gas emissions. If passed the new rules would mean that the EPA would have sole power to regulate greenhouse gases and define what constitutes as a greenhouse gas.

Under the proposed rule businesses that use fossil fuels would be regulated, products and buildings would have requirements and even farm animals would be subject to taxes.

So far this new rule -- which would have enormously negative effects on our economy -- has sat on the back burner. But under an Obama administration, with the environment a hot button issue, the new rules could become a reality. That’s why some in Congress are taking steps to try and stop action before it happens.

H.R. 391 is a bill being spearheaded by Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). This amendment to The Clean Air Act would provide that greenhouse gases are not subject to regulation by the EPA.

More on this topic soon.

Galaxy has 'billions of Earths'

There are 8 times more dollars in the Stimulus bill than possible Earths in the galaxy.

From the BBC:

There could be one hundred billion Earth-like planets in our galaxy, a US conference has heard.

Dr Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution of Science said many of these worlds could be inhabited by simple lifeforms.

He was speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago.

So far, telescopes have been able to detect just over 300 planets outside our Solar System.

We'll make great pets.

Sunday must-reads

George Will — On our way to Waterloo

Scott S. Powell — The Culprit Is All of Us

Veronique de Rugy — Here's What $800 Billion Buys Today

Rick Martinez — One stimulus for sale

Rich Lowry — Last Gasp for Limited Government?

Monica Crowley — They're Just Not That Into You

Charles Krauthammer — Iraq: Good News is No News

Andrew C. McCarthy — It's Not the Prison, It's the Prisoners

Even more fun with Obamicons

Boredom.

It's a good thing I was already a "24" fan

...and casting decisions don't keep me from watching it.

A few Janeane Garofalo words of wisdom from Ecorazzi:

E: What are three things you’d like to really see Obama change in this country?

JG: I’d like to see him be a proud liberal and say it. You know what I mean? There’s no shame in being a liberal – it’s something to be very proud of. He should say it – cause he is one – and he should be proud to be one. And since it is clear and has been clear since Reagan that the republicans, the “conservatives” will NEVER play ball…NEVER…fu%$ um.

Their policies have destroyed us and most of the world – that’s a fact not an opinion. Their policies of deregulation, pre-emptive strikes, unmitigated support for Israel to the detriment of the Israelis, Palestinian’s, Americans, the British. Every single policy that “conservative republicans” have put forth since Reagan has destroyed us. And we affect most of the world, so why do they still get a say? That’s what blows my mind. It’s almost like self-flagellation or masochism in some way. We keep going to that portion. They are NEVER going to compromise. The thing is that the more you give in to something like that, the more they take advantage.

The reason a person is a conservative republican is because something is wrong with them. Again, that’s science – that’s neuroscience. You cannot be well adjusted, open-minded, pluralistic, enlightened and be a republican. It’s counter-intuitive. And they revel in their anti-intellectualism. They revel in their cruelty.

I don’t know if you heard me talking to Jenny a while ago, but I was saying that first you have to be an asshole and then comes the conservatism. You gotta be a dick to cleave onto their ideology.

E: This might be an appropriate time to segue into Sarah Palin. I would love to know what you think about Palin.

JG: Probably what most people think about Sarah Palin. She’s small-minded and mean-spirited. It has nothing to do with gender — I don’t give a shit about her gender — she is what the Republican Party has become: obstructionist, contrarians, small-minded, all of these things. She just happens to be attractive. There’s definitely something wrong with her. She’s lacking in so many areas. Of course she’s successful with a segment of the country because she represents that lesser segment of the country. It’s people’s lesser nature – their human frailty. You know whatever’s wrong with them is what she is about.

E: I think it’s safe to say she’s done some pretty nutty things.

JG: It’s not even nutty. It really is neuroscience. I truly believe that it has something to do with their limbic brain. I really believe that some people’s limbic brain dominates more than others. Our limbic brain controls all our emotions and it causes us to be irrational. Our limbic brain goes into action when we’re ecstatic, frightened, when we’re having sex. I really believe that if a neuroscientist examined the brain of somebody who identified as a conservative, they would find it’s wired differently.

Noun
Hate
1. intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
2. extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing

More fun with Obamicons

Fun with Obamicons

Dutch politician Geert Wilders banned from the UK

Great Britain, a once great empire, has been eroding from the inside for some time now. Unfortunately, it's becoming a case study in how extreme political correctness leads to national suicide.

While the streets of London are filled with hate-spewing imams, a Dutch politician named Geert Wilders was denied entry into the UK simply because he has been critical of Islam.

From the BBC:

A Dutch MP who called the Koran a "fascist book" has been sent back to the Netherlands after attempting to defy a ban on entering the UK.

Freedom Party MP Geert Wilders had been invited to show his controversial film - which links the Islamic holy book to terrorism - in the UK's House of Lords.

But Mr Wilders, who faces trial in his own country for inciting hatred, has been denied entry by the Home Office.

He told the BBC it was a "very sad day" for UK democracy.

The Dutch ambassador was also at Heathrow to make clear his government's opposition to the ban on Mr Wilders entering the UK.

'Free speech'

Mr Wilders' film Fitna caused outrage across the Muslim world when it was posted on the internet last year.

After being questioned at Heathrow, the MP said he had been to the House of Lords two weeks ago and there had been "no problem".

He added: "I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm not protesting or running through the streets of London."

Mr Wilders added: "Democracy means differences and debate. It's a very sad day when the UK bans an elected parliamentarian... Of course I will come back."

He said the government's actions had proved that Gordon Brown was the "biggest coward in Europe".

Mr Brown's spokesman said the prime minister "fully supports the decision" taken by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.

Mr Wilders was invited to the House of Lords for a screening of Fitna by the UK Independence Party's Lord Pearson.

The peer said it was a "matter of free speech", telling the BBC: "We are going to show it anyway because we think MPs and peers should see this film."

'No purpose'

He added: "The film isn't offensive unless you are a violent Islamist. Most of my Muslim friends think it's a very good film."

Fitna's opening scenes show a copy of the Koran followed by footage of the 9/11 attacks in the US and the bombings in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005.

The Lords screening went ahead as planned, despite Mr Wilder's non-attendance.

Read Andrew McCarthy's excellent column at NRO about all this here. It begins:

It has come to this: If you are an Islamic radical, trained to carry out terrorist atrocities in al-Qaeda’s jihad against the United Kingdom, the British will welcome you with open arms. Not content with that, Great Britain will lobby insistently for your release from custody so that you may freely roam British streets—and the halls of Westminster.

If, by contrast, you are a duly elected representative in the democratic government of a country to which England is bound in the European Union, and you speak about the undeniable—though mulishly denied—nexus between Islamic doctrine and jihadist terror, Great Britain will slam her door in your face.

Up is down, my friends.

Read about Geert Wilders' movie Fitna here.

Tea with Soros

I'm a reformed conspiracy nut, but?



From Politico.com:

Currently burning up the tubes: Rep. Paul Kanjorski's description, late last month, of how close to the brink the global economy came on September 18. That was the day, recall, when Congressional leaders emerged stunned from a meeting with Henry Paulson, and gave him broad authority to spend $700 billion.

Part of what he said:

On Thursday at 11:00 a.m. the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the U.S., to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic out there.

If they had not done that, their estimation is that by 2:00 p.m. that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the U.S., would have collapsed the entire economy of the U.S., and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it.

More on this at Media Splatters.

Sleep tight.

It really is that easy

Billy

from Jim Treacher

Camille Paglia on the Fairness Doctrine

I haven't had a chance to really write much about the Fairness Doctrine, but you can be sure I'll have more to say about it in the future. I don't think there's any doubt a serious debate is coming on this issue. Although, in the end, I don't see any meaningful legislation being passed. When all is said and done, I think most Democrats won't have the guts to vote for it.

Of course, there's always the chance I could be wrong and this blog will soon be coming to you over pirate WiFi from a "reeducation camp" somewhere.

Anyway, there will be much more on this topic in the future but in the meantime I thought it was worth pointing to this very good piece by Camille Paglia at Salon.com. She's certainly no conservative, and the main thrust of the column is about Obama's rough start as President and the economy, but she goes into a bit about the Fairness Doctrine and makes some fine points:

Speaking of talk radio (which I listen to constantly), I remain incredulous that any Democrat who professes liberal values would give a moment's thought to supporting a return of the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle conservative shows. (My latest manifesto on this subject appeared in my last column.) The failure of liberals to master the vibrant medium of talk radio remains puzzling. To reach the radio audience (whether the topic is sports, politics or car repair), a host must have populist instincts and use the robust common voice. Too many Democrats have become arrogant elitists, speaking down in snide, condescending tones toward tradition-minded middle Americans whom they stereotype as rubes and buffoons. But the bottom line is that government surveillance of the ideological content of talk radio is a shocking first step toward totalitarianism.

One of the nuggets I've gleaned from several radio sources is that Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who has been in the aggressive forefront of the campaign to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, is married to Tom Athans, who works extensively with left-wing radio organizations and was once the executive vice-president of Air America, the liberal radio syndicate that, despite massive publicity from major media, has failed miserably to win a national audience. Stabenow's outrageous conflict of interest has of course been largely ignored by the prestige press, which should have been demanding that she recuse herself from all political involvement with this issue.

The rest is here.

Arrogant career politician insults curious taxpayers

Chuck Schumer of New York, who served in the House of Representatives before becoming a Senator, has been in Washington since 1981. He doesn't think you care about wasteful pork spending. Why? Because he thinks you're a stupid, annoying member of the "chattering class".

How dare you question where your money is being spent. Fools!

Adjective
smug (comparative smugger, superlative smuggest)
1. Irritatingly pleased with oneself; self-satisfied.

How to commit suicide...if you're a magazine

...or just reinforce how irrelevant you've become.

Memo to the Republicans

Dear Repubs,

While I'm enjoying your renewed interest in standing up for principles and your opposition to the Stimulus (pork) bill, you'll forgive me if I tell you that you don't exactly have a lot of credibility on this issue.

Recall, many of you voted for the $700 billion TARP bill just a few months ago. A bill which sent hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to morons on Wall Street who failed to manage their companies wisely. Instead of letting those companies' shareholders and executive boards figure out how to deal with those morons, you turned me and every other taxpayer into unwitting shareholders of those companies.

Additionally, in case you forgot, many of you already voted for the largest infrastructure bill in history in 2005. $286 billion for highways, bridges, etc. Have any of you reported back to the people how that money's been spent, or what's been accomplished with it?

Many of you have been just as guilty as the Democrats in lustfully tossing taxpayer money into the giant sucking abyss that is the U.S. Treasury.

So, while I'm certainly glad to see your renewed sense of principle — fighting against wasteful spending and government expansion, I'm wondering why those principles weren't on display in the above two examples.

Sincerely,
Capitalist Fanboy