by Pamela Geller:
Last Thursday, Fox News Detroit aired a revealing segment on my AFDI/SIOA Jessica Mokdad Human Rights Conference on honor killing and Islamic law, which will be held on April 29 in Dearborn, Mich. The segment was originally supposed to air last Sunday, the day that the multiple first-degree murder verdict came down in the Shafia mass honor killing in Canada, but was inexplicably delayed. The segment focused on the fact that Mokdad family members, one in particular, are livid that we are using Jessica’s name in connection with “honor killing.” Various female Mokdad family members, including Jessica’s “stepmother,” Cassandra Mokdad, alleged that Jessica’s murder was not an honor killing, despite the overwhelming evidence that it was.
The report was typical for the mainstream media and unworthy of Fox, which, while not perfect, is generally much better than its competitors:
by John J. Xenakis:
Throughout my lifetime, one historical question I’ve heard raised over and over again involved the Nazi Holocaust: How was it possible that ordinary Germans participated in the genocide of millions of perfect nice, loyal German citizens, simply because they were Jewish? One might attribute the attitude of Adolf Hitler himself to some kind of psychosis, but how is it conceivable that ordinary Germans apparently had no “moral compass,” and willingly proceeded in this genocide? More broadly, why is it that Jews in particular have been persecuted in many countries throughout history? Generational Dynamics theory provides a proposed explanation for all of these questions.
From the point of view of generational theory, there is a catastrophe in progress in the current time that is equivalent to the Holocaust: The financial crisis, caused by “financial engineers” in banks and other institutions around the world that purposely created highly complex but fraudulent synthetic securities, and then paid off peers at ratings agencies to give them AAA ratings. How could so many ordinary professionals, including lawyers, accountants and regulators, consistently abandon their professional ethics to create such a massive fraud that’s destroyed so many lives, with the worst yet to come?
The Holocaust is a uniquely violent event in human history, and no Gen-Xers have killed Boomers in the financial crisis. But the two events share the same kind of underlying generational behavior, differing only in degree.
Yes, yes, I know…the FBI isn’t saying here that ALL people who oppose taxes and regulations are terrorists. But I can imagine them spying on tea party members just to make sure.
By James Delingpole:
„Seit 12 Jahren ist die Erd-Erwärmung gestoppt!“
When the Germans start running headlines like that in their biggest tabloid newspaper, you know that for the eco loons Der Krieg ist Verloren. It means “Global Warming stopped twelve years ago,” and it’s part of a serialisation being run by Bild (circulation: 4 million) of Germany’s newest surprise bestseller – a climate sceptical book called Die Kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun). (H/T Jay)
What’s even more surprising is this: one of the authors, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, is a former environment minister and well-known green activist. P Gosselin at No Tricks Zone has the story:
By Jim Meyers:
Mitt Romney is vociferously attacking a provision in Obamacare requiring religious employers to cover birth control in employee health plans — but the healthcare bill he enacted as governor of Massachusetts also contained that requirement.
C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, told the Boston Globe that Romney’s criticism of President Obama is hypocritical because as governor he did not lift the state-level requirement of contraception coverage.
“The initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration, but from the Romney administration,” Doyle said.
By Robert Shibley:
Since the Supreme Court’s sharply divided and startlingly wrongheaded decision two years ago in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, those concerned about religious liberty on campus have known that the fallout was on its way. At Vanderbilt University, it has arrived — and it’s as bad as anticipated.
In Martinez, the Court determined that public institutions like the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law could require all student groups — even those based on shared belief, such as religious and political organizations — to admit members and even leaders without regard to their beliefs. Groups like the Christian Legal Society (CLS), whose constitution required students to have traditional Christian beliefs (such as in Christ’s bodily resurrection) and morals (no sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage), could be required to remove those provisions from their constitutions and admit “all comers,” or else face “derecognition” and the corresponding loss of access to meeting space and other benefits that all other groups enjoyed. To lack recognition is basically not to exist at all on today’s college campus.
Justice Alito, writing for the minority in the 5–4 decision, warned that the decision would be used as a “weapon” against groups with viewpoints that are unpopular among the vast majority of college administrators, since the immediate negative impact of the decision would fall mostly upon the religiously and politically conservative groups those administrators already disfavor. Other critics such as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE, where I work) warned that an all-comers policy would sweep within its ambit political groups as well, and invite takeovers and spying by members of opposing groups who wished to cause mischief or even destroy their rivals. At minimum, such a policy guarantees that a group will have no mechanism to maintain a consistent message.
By Mark Steyn:
Since John J. Miller got the ball rolling at dawn, the NR bigwigs have spent the day weighing in on that New York Times story about how the U.S. Constitution is now as pitifully déclassé as a 2006 Blackberry:
In a television interview during a visit to Egypt last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court seemed to agree. “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” she said. She recommended, instead, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the European Convention on Human Rights.
As it happens, I have been on the receiving end of the “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” a characteristically modish piece of Trudeaupiana foisted on the country in the early Eighties. As I wrote here:
Since this magazine and I were ensnared in the “human rights” machinery, I’ve come to regard Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms as—what’s the legal term?—oh, yeah, a worthless piece of crap.
If that’s insufficiently legalistic, I’ve also described it as “a worthless piece of junk.” By design, it excludes property rights, which Locke, Montesquieu, and other irrelevant dead guys all saw as an indispensable condition for liberty. It embeds identity-group preferences as a constitutional principle. And it empowers hack bureaucrats to determine the appropriate balance between genuine rights such as free speech and the pseudo-“rights” doled out by the state’s social engineers. It represents, as do many of the more fashionable constitutions admired in the Times piece, a precise inversion of the definition of “rights.” As I put it to one of the Charter’s many admirers:
Girls as young as 13 have been fitted with contraceptive implants at school without their parents knowing
by Eric Allen Bell:
[Editor's note: The article below is written by Eric Allen Bell, a filmmaker who was recently banned from blogging at the “Daily Kos” because he wrote three articles that ran afoul of the mindset there, specifically naming “Loonwatch.com” as a “terrorist spin control network.” Frontpage invited him to tell his story, which he does below.]
A strange thing happened to me the other day when I was driving past the Federal Building in Los Angeles. There were a crowd of people assembled there with signs which said that Israel is an aggressive force in the Middle East and that Iran is being picked on. As I stopped at a red light I heard a man with a mega phone lead the protesters in a chant charging Obama with genocide. I saw many young people and several Muslim women with their heads covered. It was an anti-war demonstration that probably a year ago I would have supported. But although I am not in favor of military action, I know that Iran is not another Iraq, and that in fact there is more going on here than the overly-simplified picture that the protestors were painting, as cars drove by honking in support. As the light turned green another sign caught my eye – a picture of the Twin Towers burning which read “911 Was an Inside Job”. As I looked at a sea of Palestinian flags and college kids banging on drums I felt a certain frustration – frustration based on a series of events that have changed my world view.
by Joseph Klein:
Every Supreme Court justice is required, under Article VI of the United States Constitution, to be bound by his or her oath or affirmation “to support this Constitution.” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has just broken this commitment by insulting, in front of a foreign audience, the very document she is sworn to support.
In an interview during her visit to Cairo, which aired January 30, 2012 on Al-Hayat TV, Justice Ginsburg advised the Egyptian people to ignore the U.S. Constitution in preparing their own new constitution. It’s just too “old,” she said. Instead, Justice Ginsburg lavished praise on several post-World War II foreign documents such as the South African constitution, Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the European Convention on Human Rights.
“I might look at the constitution of South Africa,” Justice Ginsburg said. It is “a great piece of work that was done.”
“You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights,” she continued.
by Walter Williams:
Let’s think about the kind of mess that we’re in. Federal 2010 Medicare and Medicaid expenditures totaled $800 billion. The projected annual growth of both programs is about 7 percent. Social Security expenditures are more than $700 billion a year. According to the 2009 Social Security and Medicare trustees reports, by 2030, 49 percent of federal revenues will go for Social Security and Medicare payments. The unfunded liability of both programs is already $106 trillion.
But not to worry. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it’s possible to sustain today’s level of federal spending and even achieve a balanced budget. All that Congress would have to do is raise the lowest income tax bracket of 10 percent to 25 percent and the middle tax bracket of 25 percent to 66 percent and raise the 35 percent tax bracket to 92 percent. That’s a static vision that assumes that people will have no response and they’ll work just as hard and send more money to Washington. If Congress did legislate such tax increases, it would be the economic equivalent of committing national hara-kiri.
by Peter Martino:
What will happen if the euro collapses? Politicians such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy say it will be an unmitigated disaster. They depict a gloomy future in which complete chaos follows and the nations of Europe go back to their past habit of waging war on each other.
Swiss professor Bruno S. Frey of the University of Zurich, however, is not impressed. Last week he published an article in which he called these scaremongering statements “careless” and “totally misleading.” The euro, the EU, and Europe are far from being identical, he points out. Not all the countries in Europe are members of the European Union – Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Ukraine, and a number of others are not. Nor do all the EU member states use the euro as their currency – such as Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Poland and a number of others.