Apr 30, 2008

Eric Dondero, Lib/Rep, Hard Hitting Stuff.

(Snarling dog image is Dondero being lampooned as an "extremist for property rights" - Seattle Post Intelligencer, Sept., 2006)


One of my daily calls is ‘Libertarian Republican,’ Eric Dondero’s blog. Eric does a lot of the work himself, but has from time to time published other writings including mine. Lately the blog has featured the work of a number of other like-minded people and has expanded dramatically.

The idea of libertarian republicanism is that it is not necessary to be a purist to be a libertarian, but to be significantly libertarian in outlook. The basis for the idea is to support the concept of limited fiscally responsible government, which is socially tolerant and pro-defence.

Lib/Rep as well as supporting good Libertarian Party candidates such as Wayne Root, Bob Barr, also promote a number of moderate Republicans. In fact Lib/Rep is delivering some really good hard hits on the Democrats, and is definitely a great asset to both the Republican Party, and the LP although tending often to infuriate the purists in the latter.

Two recent articles that have really caught my attention are: - Why Mince Words, Obama is an outright Communist, by Andrew Murphy, and Torn between Bob Barr and John McCain, by Eric.

In the first some of the extreme connections of Obama are looked at and helps to give an understanding of his endorsement by Chevaz, Hamas, and other anti freedom groups. Some of what is included : -
Investor's Business Daily last month did an editorial on why captured Columbian terrorist computers, Barack Obama name keep coming up. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), is a terrorist Marxist-Leninist guerrilla group that is trying to overthrow the Columbian government.

In a Feb. 28 letter, FARC chieftain Raul Reyes cheerily reported to his inner circle that he met "two gringos" who assured him "the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support 'Plan Colombia ' nor will he sign the TLC (Free Trade Agreement)."

And: -
Also as reported by Ace of Spades, American Thinker and Newsbusters.org, it turns out that in Barrack Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," the man named "Frank" it turns out is actually Frank Marshall Davies, a member of the US Communist Party.

"Barack Obama is very vague about his actual politics and few have bothered asking. Now comes a well-nigh conclusive case that the "Frank" referred to in Dreams From My Father is in fact Frank Marshall Davis, a noted member of the Communist Party USA.

Horne, a history professor at the University of Houston , noted that Davis, who moved to Honolulu from Kansas in 1948 "at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson," came into contact with Barack Obama and his family and became the young man's mentor, influencing Obama's sense of identity and career moves. Robeson, of course, was the well-known black actor and singer who served as a member of the CPUSA and apologist for the old Soviet Union. Davis had known Robeson from his time in Chicago."

"As Horne describes it, Davis "befriended" a "Euro-American family" that had "migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago."

Check the rest of it out. The second article ‘Torn between McCain and Barr’ is a great guide to those libertarians who find themselves on the horns of a dilemma.

Apr 28, 2008

Hilaly, OK Anonymous I was Wrong.


Last night I was taken to task in the comment section over a statement I made about the level of support for Liverpool's Sheik Faiz Mohamad.

I made the statement that; “The problem I have with this is of course the other 12.4%, though some of this is no doubt influenced by the fact that the speaker is a religious leader and in this faith the adherents are not inclined to think for themselves.”

Anonymous (I appreciate your comment however if possible in future use a name or pseudo name, I like to address people personally), said; “You clearly haven't had much exposure to Muslim communities in Australia or elsewhere. If you knew how much crap Hilaly had copped and continues to cop for his statements FROM MUSLIMS THEMSELVES, you'd not have written what you wrote.”

The term “are not inclined to think for themselves” is probably unfair and I should have said something along the lines of “ are discouraged from thinking for themselves”

The fact is that after Sheik Faiz Mohamad made the rather inflammatory statement “that women who were raped only had themselves to blame because they dressed immodestly,” 87.6 per cent of respondents on a Sydney Islamic website disagreed with what he had to say.

The problem, and a serious one is that other 12.4%. It is bizarre that such a high proportion could agree with such a statement. Then I found this: -


The above video is found in a more complete form here.

This is taken from excerpts from an interview with him taken from Memri. 



Someone who is ignorant, who does not know any Arabic, or who has no knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence wants to issue rulings?! They say: 'We reinterpret the texts.' 

There is a very dangerous conspiracy against the religion of Islam in newspapers and in what these people say. A journalist, or one of those lowlifes, wants to... 



These people are a mixture of Western, local, and imported ideologies, but they want to express their views with regard to religious rulings. This is the prerogative of religious scholars, not of ignorant people - the prerogative of knowledgeable people, not of fools or heretics. ……………………. 



"Then they will talk about freedom of belief, and say that anyone is entitled to believe in whatever he wants... If you want to become an apostate - go ahead. You like Buddhism? Leave Islam, and join Buddhism. No problem. That's what freedom of belief is all about. They want freedom of everything. What they want is very dangerous. ……………



"Freedom of thought, within some constraints, is blessed. Islam calls for thinking, for interpretation, and for the use of the mind. But as for freedom of heresy, which allows anyone to criticize whatever he wants in Islam, saying, for example, that he does not like the punishment for apostasy, that he doesn't like the punishment for drinking alcohol, or that he does not like the punishment of stoning adulterers - this is barbarism.

Where problems start in any faith is with the fundamental issue in human nature of authority. Some elements tend to use their role as spiritual advisor to control those who seek that advice, and essentially turn it into an authoritarian one. In doing so they lose sight of one of the fundamental teachings, which was to place no man between yourself and God.

The above cleric takes pride in the fact that there are rules in sharia for everything, including 70 on how to urinate and defecate. This is weird, I mean why not just “wash your hands after you go.” These clerics really have to lighten up a bit.

Apr 27, 2008

Hilali, 'the Thick Sheik' is back.

Muslim cleric Taj Din al-Hilali, dubbed ‘the Thick Sheik” by Australian media and the ‘ Australian Muslim’s sir Les Patterson’ by Catallaxy says the Bible "mandates" the wearing of the veil by Christian women.

Sheik Hilali, lost his job as mufti of Australia after comparing scantily clad women to uncovered meat, has apparently learned nothing and now claims that the Bible and the Koran make similar demands of a woman's modesty.

"Through this I hope to raise awareness and understanding and eliminate apprehensions and misunderstandings about the veil," he writes.

Sheik Hilali also says the Virgin Mary is often depicted with a veil covering her head.

The claims are made in a book, “The Legitimacy of the Veil for Women of the Scripture - Evidence of the Veil in the Bible,” (Sounds like a nice bit of light reading for a wet afternoon.)

This is a report on the guy in person.


I have written about this idiot before: -
Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali alluded to the infamous Sydney gang rapes, suggesting the attackers were not entirely to blame.

While not specifically referring to the rapes, brutal attacks on four women for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and immodest dress ... "and then you get a judge without mercy and gives you 65 years".

"But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he asked.

In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

"The uncovered meat is the problem."

The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men.

"It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement."

This is not the first such statement of this nature by a cleric, in Fairfax Digital from May 2005, I found the following: -

Liverpool's Sheik Faiz Mohamad did himself no favours trying to justify his comments that women who were raped only had themselves to blame because they dressed immodestly.

His comments at a lecture to more than 1000 people last month at Bankstown Town Hall caused a storm of anger after they were revealed in The Sun-Herald last Sunday.

"A victim of rape every minute somewhere in the world. Why? No one to blame but herself," he said. "She displayed her beauty to the entire world. She degraded herself by being an object of sexual desire."

During the week, Sydney-born Faiz, 34, attempted to justify himself in an interview on Channel Nine, but only dug a deeper hole.

"What I meant is a lady, if she wears any kind of alluring clothes or adorning [sic] clothes or clothes that beautify her beauty, she is eligible for rape." Eligible for rape?

To be fair to the Islamic Community there appeared in the same article: -
A group of more than a dozen Muslim organisations issued a collective statement objecting to Faiz's statements about rape. Sydney lawyer Irfan Yusef, self-described Aussie Mossie (Muslim), wrote an article for The Sydney Morning Herald speaking for "most in the Muslim community [who] feel revulsion at his comments".

The Islamic Sydney website has been full of lively discussion of the topic all week, with any attempts to justify the sheik's comments soundly rebuffed. A poll on the website found that 87. 6 per cent of respondents (of a total of 412) disagreed with: "The comment made by Sheik Faiz that a woman that dresses provocatively becomes eligible for rape?"


The problem I have with this is of course the other 12.4%, though some of this is no doubt influenced by the fact that the speaker is a religious leader and in this faith the adherrents are not inclined to think for themselves.

It's worth remembering what the American scholar of Islam Daniel Pipes said, on a visit to Sydney three years ago, about combating militant Islam.

First, he warned of the need to rebuff incremental radical Islamic encroachments on our Western secular society, such as any attempt to limit a woman's right to wear whatever she wants.

"If there are two ways which are reconcilable - the militant Islam way and the Australian way - you will need to assert the Australian way."

Obama, Reverend Wright, and Ethical Campaigning.


By Jim Fryar.


Note; In the cartoon which was drawn prior to the clinging to guns statement Obama seems to have his nose in the air. The snob thing really is obvious.

John McCain is very strongly against the advertisement run by the North Carolina GOP using the Reverend Wrights God damn America sermon. I feel that this is shortsighted as it allows Obama to run the agenda in the same way as Kevin Rudd ran it over here in the last federal election.

I don’t see how a legitimate criticism of a candidates weaknesses is negative as Obama insists. I really think that John is being too much of a gentleman for his own good. I have a great deal of respect for him and his principles are one of the reasons for this. When it comes to attacking Obama over his association with Wright, I have no problems. It is not going into private areas that are none of our business.

This is the advertisement.


The association with Wright is something that defines the candidate; indeed he has himself described Wright as some sort of father figure. This man has had a dramatic effect on the attitudes of Obama himself.

I can understand the desire of John McCain for a positive campaign however to ignore the weaknesses of the opposition in the face of an unethical campaign by his opponents is political suicide. Unethical campaigning by opponents includes the recent articles in the Washington Post and NYT, both of which were done as mouthpieces for the Democrats.

The deliberate misrepresentation of McCains position on Iraq is classical of this phenomena.

The claims by Obama that he was not present at those sermons that have been highlighted just doesn’t cut it. Unless he is such a snob that he does not relate to the other parishioners, he would have been told of such highlights by others.

The Rev. Wright thing is big because of the extensive audiovisual proof of what was said. On elitism: Barack Obama went to the preeminent prep school in Hawaii. He went to Columbia and Harvard Law School.

There are some good people who graduated from those schools (Judge Roberts on the Supreme Court for example) but they seem to fill most graduates with a sense that they're superior to everybody else. This is another defining aspect to the character of the candidate, explaining his contempt for small town America.

Clinging to guns and religion, hostile to outsiders, that is not the impression of the Americans I have met, and they don’t all come from big cities.

The character of Obama and his associations are a legitimate part of the campaign. They should be highlighted so that come November Obama is left with only his natural constituency, the fat cat liberals, the elitists, the obsequious, and those college kids who have not yet learned to understand the concept of 'empty rhetoric.'

Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the podium just to get some sort of retraction of his support of Wright in relation to the "God damn America" and "Chickens coming home to roost" statements. These are however only the more obvious statements taken in by Obama.

Wright works at a much more insidious level as well as can be seen in the following statements from 'The Audacity of Hope' sermon which has had a profound effect on Obama. The first is: -

Abraham Lincoln is remembered as the “Great Emancipator” of the slaves, but in reality, he did not see black Africans as equal with whites. (The issue of slavery was paramount for him because it threatened the unity of the country. The primary reason that the Civil War was fought was not to free the slaves, but to save the United States...

While I am not in a position to judge whether Lincoln believed in actual equality, this is a blindly bigoted statement. Ask yourself " What was Lincoln trying to save the US from?" Wright conveniently ignores the fact that the issue dividing America at the time was slavery. This is basically a claim that whitey is not capable of using a sense of decency and that only an ulterior motive will inspire him.

The next one is about MLK: -

.....he was iced and isolated by all the establishment blacks. And in order for him to hang in and hold on, in order for him to have the audacity to hope, he had to have a vertical hookup that assimilated Negroes had forgotten all about.

Note the attempt to create a divide, not just between black and white, but to isolate those of his own race who are not 'his', those who have risen above race and worked as Americans to make a life for themselves.

These people are the ones that he has no appeal for, those who reject Wrights appeal to victim hood, those who stand up for themselves and are standing with white America on equal terms. This sort of logic if it can be called that is the sort of thing that serves to divide and separate people.

Those who have successfully integrated and made good should be an example to inspire others. It can be done, but the people who do are not the sort of audience the reverend Wright has, so they have to be isolated as some sort of cultural traitors.

To him and his acolytes they are therefore, "establishment blacks" or "assimilated Negroes".

I say yes, publish this stuff, Wright is as relevant to the campaign as Obama is.

Apr 25, 2008

Russell gets Chance, Veterans for Congress.


I have posted previously on William Russell who is running for Congress in John Murtha's district. William is a war veteran who has distinguished himself and had Murtha on the run, to the point where he had to admit at one stage that the surge was working.

Recently in an effort to rid himself of what has turned out to be an effective challenger Murtha tried a new stunt. Russell's signatures were challenged in court and it resulted in Murtha's only GOP challenger being thrown off the ballot.

This ploy has now been blown out of the water in the recent Pa poll when Russell got enough write in votes to go back on the ballot.

Murtha an outspoken critic of the Iraq war and powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, secured earmarks in the defense budget for to the tune of $162 million on behalf of 26 beneficiaries. Every one of them has contributed to his campaign, giving a total of $413,250, according to the newspaper Roll Call.

Very little of this if any has reached the voters of the district, as it is still one of the most economically depressed areas in the state.

Probably one of the worst acts Murtha has committed was to accuse the Haditha marines of cold-blooded murder. As the case wears on it is becoming obvious that this action of his was purely political, with all murder charges dropped and all of those who have had cases heard exonerated.

Murtha refuses to apologize, perhaps hoping something will stick so that he can feel justified.



Seventeen Iraq combat veterans are running for House seats as Republicans, pledging to continue their support for war once in Congress and linking themselves to Sen. John McCain's candidacy for president.

Since its inception in January, the group has enlisted candidates from key states such as

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and California. In Maine's 1st District, deployed Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Summers is campaigning from Iraq.

Some of those standing have taken on really difficult seats with long standing Democrat incumbents.


28-year-old Lee Zeldin, an Army reservist is courting New York's 1st District, on the east end of Long Island.

And in New York's 19th District, which includes parts of Orange, Rockland, Putnam, Dutchess and Westchester counties, the group's founder, Marine veteran Kieran Michael Lalor, is chasing Democratic incumbent John Hall of Dover Plains.


John Hall has devoted his term to a U.S. defeat in Iraq. The real John Hall chose not to defend General Petraeus who is from his district for the simple reason that he feared retribution from MoveOn.org and the far left, which he knew are the lifeblood of his re-election campaign.

Hall is spitefully against the troops in Iraq to the point that he adopted the Pelomurtharist line to vote against funding to build and ship mine-resistant humvees to the war front (despite the fact that 70% of U.S. casualties come from roadside attacks on American vehicles).

Lalor laid it on the line and stated what it is really about when he made the claim, “we can reclaim our seat in the House of Representatives so it reflects our values, not those of Hollywood elites and liberal extremists.”

Apr 24, 2008

Anzac Day.

Australian troops landing at Gallipoli.


At dawn on the 25th 0f April 1915, Australian, New Zealand, and other allied troops landed at Gallipoli in a move to open a new front against the axis powers. The landing and the subsequent campaign was an unmitigated disaster, owing to the fact that it was predictable after the British naval attempt to force the Dardanelles earlier.

In an 8 month campaign Australia lost 8,709 dead, and around 18,000 wounded. We observe the anniversary each year to remember the sacrifice made by our forces in all conflicts.

In 1934 Kemal Ataturk who as Colonel Mustafa Kemal, commanded the Turkish forces opposing the allied forces at Gallipoli in 1915, wrote a tribute to the ANZACs killed there.

Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives... You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side now here in this country of ours... you, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land. They have become our sons as well.

This inscription appears on the Kemal Ataturk Memorial, the only memorial honoring an enemy commander on Anzac Parade in Canberra, or as far as I am aware anywhere in Australia.

At the beginning of WW1 Australia had a total population of about 4.5 million, of which 417,000 enlisted in the AIF, (about 40% of the eligible male population) around 317,000 of whom were sent overseas, suffering over 215,000 casualties (about 65%). Of these 61,928 were killed.

The incompetence of British commanders, and their lack of concern for the lives entrusted to them was legendary, especially the lives of "colonial, or imperial" troops. Australians and New Zealanders tended to be used as shock troops and suffered disproportionately.

One of the expressions Australians used in both world wars was, "England will fight to the last imperial soldier."

"They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old. 

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. 

At the going down of the sun and in the morning 

We will remember them".



Apr 22, 2008

McCain, the Washington Post, Truthers, and Slow News Days.

The WaPo article “McCain: A Question of Temperament,” appears to be the greatest press beat up since the NYT effort, and the non-event of the week. It seems probable that before Michael Leahy turned up the front page was to be: -

Dog Chases Car
Democrats Demand Inquiry.
Mark Salter, a McCain aide interviewed for the article has stated that it is 99 % fiction and that much of what he said was ignored and some appears to have been misrepresented.

Now check this out: -



So that’s two down. Its starting to look rather tatty now, so how about three strikes and your out? One of the sources for the article is Karen Johnson whom McCain tried to block from a political job in Arizona and who later went on to become a state senator in Arizona.

Much was made of her complaints about John McCain. Johnson is actually used in the article's concluding paragraph with this (From National Review Online’s Media Blog) : -

One man's bulldozer is another's bully. "I don't think that he forgets anyone who ever opposed him, that he can ever really respect or trust them again," said Karen Johnson, the targeted secretary-turned-state senator. "That goes for people here and overseas."

While Googling her, however, I came across this that makes me question why she's a source for the article. She's a truther:

But legislators who voted against altering the memorial said they believe it needs to represent various viewpoints and feelings about the events leading up to and following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And that, according to Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, includes the still-open possibility that Americans have yet to learn the full story.

"There's many of us," she said, "that believe there's been a cover-up," ranging from who was really behind the attacks to questions about whether what flew into the World Trade Center towers were pilotless drones and the passengers had been taken off beforehand.

"And there's a lot of statements on that 9/11 memorial that reflect a lot of our views that we have about it," Johnson said. "And I think all of those need to be represented."

She also accuses President Bush, and I assume John McCain with his push for immigration reform, of enacting a secret plan to merge the U.S. with Mexico:

A veteran Republican lawmaker is accusing President Bush of pushing a behind-the-scenes agenda that will result in the United States being merged with Mexico and Canada.

Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, said she believes the Security and Prosperity Partnership, being run out of the White House and the U.S. Department of Commerce, is little more than a secret plan to end U.S. sovereignty by 2010. And she said Congress is being kept in the dark until the point that it becomes a done deal.

Johnson, who will head the Senate Education Committee this coming session, said the signs already are there, from an “inland port” in Kansas City and construction of a superhighway corridor through Texas to the lack of any real action in building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

I suppose that apart from the fact that many of the so called ‘victims’ of his anger now supporting McCain that pretty much writes it off.

News Flash, Michael Moore Backs Obama.


Michael Moore has backed the candidacy of Barak Obama in the culmination of a long standing campaign by both Democrat frontrunners in relation to his support.

Obama could not be contacted for comment at the time of publication, however a spokesman for the Hillary campaign has stated that the former First Lady appeared happy that a satisfactory conclusion has been reached and expects her campaign to get back on track as a result of this..

The Libertarian Republican Interview with Khalim Massoud of worldwide Muslims Against Sharia


This is an article From Libertarian Republican which Eric Dondero has been kind enough to offer, and for which I am greatful for the opportunity to spread it a little further.

Editor's Note - This interview was conducted by our Senior Editor Andrew Murhpy with great care for security. Khalim Massoud does not appear in public nor permit interviews at public forums, for fear of death threats from Radical Muslim extremists. We are thankful that Mr. Massoud took such risk to talk with LR Blog.

ANDREW: Khalim Massoud, thank you for taking the time to speak with Libertarian Republicans.

MASSOUD: Thank you very much for having me on your show.

ANDREW: Can you give our readers a brief background of who you are and why you felt the need to start up your organization, Muslims Against Sharia?

MASSOUD: I am one of several people who started “Muslims Against Sharia”. We felt that we had no voice. Western Muslim establishment that claims to represent all Muslims in the West is comprised of radicals; it certainly does not represent us or other moderate Muslims. On the other hand, Western non-Muslims have many misconceptions about Islam, the biggest misconception being that Muslim people are a monolith. That could not be farther from the truth. Islamic extremists are waging global Jihad to eliminate or subjugate Infidels whom they see as an enemy. 

However moderate Muslims are considered even a greater enemy by jihadis. One of the best-kept secrets in the war with Islamofascism is that Islamic extremists kill more Muslims than everybody else combined. Most Westerners often confuse Islam, the religion with Islamism, the political ideology. Yet other types, mostly found in media, academia and governments, refuse to acknowledge the threat of radical Islam and write off Islamic terrorism is perversion of Islam by a few misguided Muslims. Unfortunately, this is an absolute false. These “few misguided Muslims” are in the majority these days. To clear up the misconceptions about Islam was another reason we started our organization.

ANDREW: Being classified as a "moderate" Muslim is that something which bothers you? Do you agree with Christopher Hitchens that,”.... the anti-fascists of Islam, who have borne much of the heat and burden of the day, deserve a much more honorable title than that of "moderate".

MASSOUD: Not at all. I think “moderate Muslim” is a descriptive and widely accepted term. The term itself is fine, but it is often being misapplied. Many radicals call themselves moderates and media, academia and government representatives are often too lazy or too dumb to do a little research, so they keep repeating this nonsense. Terrorist fronts like CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, etc. are constantly being called moderates by many public figures, from local TV reporter to the head of the FBI and higher. Of course, Mr. Hitchens' term is much better; it is more descriptive and definitely more honorable. I hope it will be widely used in the near future.

ANDREW: You have mentioned in previous interviews that polls taken by your own website, indicated that nearly 20% of Muslims want you beheaded. Can you speak about the Islamo-Fascist mentality, which exists here in the USA?

MASSOUD: Poll numbers are fluid and at this point it looks like about a third of Muslim responders want us beheaded. However, our polls are open to anyone in the world, so we don't know where our “well-wishers” are actually from. I don't think that Islamofascist mentality in the USA is any different from Islamofascist mentality in Saudi Arabia. Muslim fundamentalists believe that it is their religious duty to wage Jihad to conquer the world. It is summed up very well in Muslim Brotherhood's credo: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the service of Allah is our highest hope." This is religious fanaticism at its worst. Human life has no value. If they have no compunction about blowing themselves and other Muslims up on the way to paradise, how much do you think infidel's life is worth? Especially considering that infidels and apostates (technically, people who left the faith, but in reality any Muslim who does not subscribe to radical vision of Islam) are regarded as less then human. The Koran is very clear about apostasy; it is punishable by death. 
While Islamic fundamentalists are religious fanatics, they are not stupid. They understand that at this point in time they cannot win militarily. That is why many radical Muslims say that reject terrorism. Not because they find it morally abhorrent, but because, in some instances it could be counter-productive. Democratic ways of taking over the West are much more effective. That is why we often see radical Muslim playing a victimhood card and equating Islamophobia with racism, a false premise that Dhimmi media is more than happy to perpetuate.

ANDREW: How are moderate Muslims, victims of radical Islam throughout the world? Isn't it true in places like Darfur and Algeria for example, it is Muslims who are being killed by the Bin Laddenists type extremists?

MASSOUD: Well, you pretty much answered your question. Due to geographic proximity as well as weak or corrupt law enforcement in Muslim countries, moderate Muslims are easy targets. And the media is also to blame. Muslim killing Muslim is not “sexy” enough for the news. That's why when thousands of Muslims are killed in Israel or tens of thousands of Muslims are killed in Iraq it is often front-page news. But when hundreds of thousands of Muslims are killed in Sudan, not many people seem to care. It would be funny if it weren't so sad that Arab-Israeli conflict defines modern conflicts involving Muslims, even though almost every other major conflict involving Muslims is a lot bloodier: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bosnia, Chechnya, Darfur, etc.

ANDREW: You have on your website a link to -Freedom House Special Report about all the money that comes to the USA by Saudi money to fund Wahhabism. Most Americans have very little clue about all the Wahhabi-printed Korans that end up in our prison system, for example. Can you speak briefly about this all?

MASSOUD: Wahhabism as a prime example of extreme version of Islam. Unfortunately majority of the population of the Gulf countries, including people in Saudi Arabia practice Wahhabism. With oil being way over $100 a barrel, radical Muslims have virtually unlimited sources of money, but this danger is being ignored by most Westerners. American prison system is one of the many areas where Wahhabis are successfully recruiting new followers. It boggles my mind how stupid prison official should be to allow this process to go on. Al Qaeda is making no secret of the fact that they are actively seeking new members who don't look Middle Eastern or South Asian, but American prison officials seem to be totally oblivious to that fact.

ANDREW: Are you familiar with the story of Yaser Said the Egyptian Cab Driver who murdered his two daughters in cold blood in a Dallas suburb on New Years Day. How under played in the national media are stories about honor killings in the USA?

MASSOUD: Yes, I am familiar with this terrible tragedy. In fact, we have several posts on our blog dedicated to this issue. As for how underplayed honorcide stories are in the national media, compare the number of hours given to Elizabeth Smart or JonBenet Ramsey with the number of minutes given to Amina and Sarah Said or Aqsa Parvez and you've got your answer.

ANDREW: On to politics, how do you personally compare Obama in contrast to John McCain in fighting the War on Terror?

MASSOUD: Senator Obama is obviously a much weaker leader in terms of fighting the War on Terror. But what is really scary about Senator Obama is that he seems to be universally supported by every kind of radical Muslims, just as Congressman (Ron) Paul is supported by every kind of Nazis. Back in September 2007 we asked Senator Obama to denounce his al Qaeda supporters (http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2007/09/muslims-against-sharia-call-on-senator.html), but we never heard back. When the people whom you are at war with clearly prefer one of the candidates, it is a pretty good indicator. Unfortunately many Americans do not seem to mind Islamofascists' affinity for Senator Obama.

ANDREW: Why do you suppose that individuals like yourself and others like Ayaan Hirsi Ali are largely ignored by liberals and many libertarians?

MASSOUD: Whether we like it or not, the media drives public opinion and it almost completely ignores ex-Muslims or moderate Muslims. The main reason is that Western Muslims establishment has unlimited financing and a great PR machine. That is why when a Muslim opinion is needed; the media calls on the Muslim establishment, ignoring moderate Muslims by default. The other reason is that people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali do not sugarcoat, and many in the media cannot handle the truth.

ANDREW: If Khalim Massoud were an advisor to any of the presidential candidates this fall, what would be a couple of national security issues that you would absolutely insist the candidates speak about?

MASSOUD: Number One would be to stop financing any radical Islamic entity. That would me ceasing doing business with any country, i.e., Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the like, that supports terrorism and revoking tax-exempt status from every terrorist front masquerading as an Islamic charity, i.e., CAIR, MPAC, ISNA, ICNA, MAS, MSA, etc. Number Two would be to stop treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue and start treating it as a military issue. That would mean that every Islamic extremist, including every person working for the aforementioned terrorist fronts, to be placed in prison until the War on Terror is over.

ANDREW: Last question, how optimistic are you that moderate Muslims will win the debate against Islamic Fascism?

MASSOUD: Islamic fascists have financial support from the Middle East and political support from the Western media and government officials. Moderate Muslims have neither. Unless the situation changes, we have no chance of winning anything. That is why we are trying to educate the public about the need to support moderate Muslims and to reject the radicals masquerading as moderates. We are also developing tools for Westerners to be able to differentiate between the moderate and the radicals.

http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-is-moderate-muslim.html

Hit job on McCain from WaPo.

With Soros and company raising $40million for a smear campaign on John McCain it seems that the Washington Post is putting in an early bid for its share with its own dishonest smear job. I an article (front page) ‘A Question of Temperament,’ by Michael Leahy, an attempt to raise the hoary old story of a ‘vile temper’ is given another run, or at least hobble.

Interestingly in “The Corner” is an Email from a McCain aide Mark Salter who was quoted in the article giving his side of what happened in the interview.

Mark Salter says: -

Saw your post about the WP story on the McCain temper. If one half of it were true, it would give me pause. As it happens, the piece is 99% fiction. [Reporter Michael] Leahy is a nice guy, but the story was one of the more dishonest I've read in a while. I talked to him for over two hours.

Some of the instances, like the Bob Smith one, he never even raised with me so I could respond. For others, he declined to print my rebuttal. He used my quotes in ways that made them seem as if I were confirming his thesis when I insisted that McCain's temper is no greater than the average person's, and that I personally know 20 or 25 Senators with much worse tempers. He argues, sometimes heatedly, with his peers, but he doesn't hold grudges or pick on people subordinate to him.

If you want to tell what members of Congress have ungovernable tempers, you need only look at how rapidly their staffs turnover. As a twenty-year veteran Hill staffer, I can assure you that is the best indicator of which members have bad tempers. McCain's staff serve tenures well beyond the norm, because they are treated exceedingly well by him. …………….

When he asked me about Karen Johnson, who says McCain tried to block her from getting a job, I asked for details: what job; who did he call, when did it happen, etc. He said he couldn't give them to me because he had promised his source he wouldn't share those kind of details with McCain in advance of publication. Source didn't ask for her identity to be protected and didn't put the details off the record.

They all appeared in the story. I explained to Leahy that this was a very unusual form of confidentiality, that an incident that was given to him on the record could not be shared with the subject of the story so that we could provide an informed response. There is only one reason that a source would act for that kind of selectively targeted and temporary confidentiality, to deny us the ability to disprove the story, which we could have done in ten minutes.

The story consists of old news rehashed, I mean an argument with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) from 1992, concerning prisoners of war “most notably whether any American servicemen were still being held by the Vietnamese.” Seriously, in all fairness the man was tortured in a POW camp for 5 years, and a careless remark could justifiably upset anyone of that background. Conveniently WaPo doesn’t mention the actual issue.

Bob Smith claims "His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him." He later admits to not liking McCain very much, wow the stuff that comes up on slow news days.

Apr 20, 2008

Property Rights and state Theft.

Illustration from 'Defending the Undefendable' 'The Curmudgeon' by Walter Block. Click to enlarge.


The first part of this post appeared in ‘Thoughts on Freedom’ under the title of Do You Own Your House? and was written by Terje Petersen.

The Sydney Morning Herald carries an article on Saturdays front page lamenting the power the state of NSW is giving itself in regards to bipassing property rights.
“THE State Government plans to give its agencies and councils power to compulsorily acquire private land to re-sell to developers at a profit - or, if they choose, at a reduced price so the developers make even more money.

Legal authorities describe as “quite remarkable” a section of new planning laws flagged by the Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, to acquire land by force to onsell to private developers.”
I agree with the concerns raised in the article. However I do find odd the notion that governments stealing your land and selling it is somehow worse than stealing your land and keeping it. And is there really any distinction between stealing your land so a private for profit road can be built for the public good or stealing your land so a private for profit shopping mall can be built for the public good? In one sense I think there is a distinction in so far as new road corridors are not easily or readily created through private market means, whilst shopping centres are. However the key legal constraint on governments (at all tiers) really ought to be a proper and transparent assessment process of the public benefit of such a forced acquisition which is open to legal challenge, and a system of just compensation.

Thanks Terje.


The article goes on to state: -

"Under the current law, the minister is not able to re-sell land which has been acquired or transfer it to another person. The new scheme expressly allows that, and makes it clear that it may be done as part of a profitable proposal by a private developer."

Mr Sartor insists the law will only be used to ensure developments for the greater public benefit cannot be blocked, but the Greens - who have helped to expose the extent of developers' donations to the Labor Party - say it could invite corruption.

"Given the whole stench surrounding developer donations, it lends added weight to the view that this Government is introducing the most developer-friendly laws ever seen in this state," the Greens MP Sylvia Hale said.

A similar US state law to transfer land from one private owner to another for an urban renewal plan in New London, Connecticut, caused national uproar several years ago. In 2005, the US Supreme Court upheld the law by the narrowest of margins but it was widely criticised as a gross violation of property rights and 42 states passed laws to limit the impact of the court's decision.
This wont just invite corruption, it will ensure it, and in the process will downgrade ownership of property to a form of tenancy that will only exist until some official wants it for a pet project, or a developer wants it enough to bribe the local authority for that area.

This has all the worst aspects of the notorious ‘eminent domain’ laws in the US.

While Mr. Sartor insists the law will only be used to ensure developments for the greater public benefit cannot be blocked, it is not what he says now that is the case, it is what law he puts on the books and how it is interpreted in the courts.

Mr. Sartor's spokeswoman said it followed two court cases that might have frustrated good planning, and the ability to compulsorily acquire land for "important public outcomes" had been a longstanding, accepted practice for Government.

The gaul of the bastards, what of the owners rights – I am sure their plans for the land were good from their perspectives, even if they didn’t have the grand designs of Sartor, and they had the right to keep theirs as they owned the land.

What after all is the most important public outcome, Mr. Sartor’s pet developers ideas or secure property rights?

Apr 18, 2008

Democrats and the DTs


By Jim Fryar.

Dubious truthfulness, and difficult times, the Democrats are suffering from it.

They supported the war effort when public support was strong, with an enthusiasm in which they couldn’t wait to say, “me too.” When the conflict started to drag on and casualty figures mounted, public support began to fade.

The administration dug in its toes and settled in for the long haul while the Democrats dropped any pretence of principle and rather than continue to support the troops to give them the solid bi-partisan backing back home, opted to pursue a divisive course of the sort that did so much damage to those who fought in Vietnam.

The trouble for them is that after a great deal of urging by Senator McCain, the administration agreed to ‘the surge,’ which has turned the war around. While it has not in any way popularised the war, it has gained an acceptance that a satisfactory result can be achieved. This is the last thing Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, Murtha, and company wanted to hear.

Now they are committed to the line of Code Pink, Move On, and such like and have boxed themselves into a corner they can’t get out of and are staring down the barrel of defeat. As result they are franticly trying to use character assassination and lie their way out of it.

John McCain released a positive ad highlighting his lifetime of service to the American people, which nobody would deny. The reaction from Howard Dean was to accuse him of being an opportunist.

Obama continues to falsely state that McCain "wants" another 100 years of war in Iraq. Even though at least two non-partisan entities have found that Obama is grossly misrepresenting what Senator McCain actually said.

What he actually said was: - Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

Obama then compounded his falsehood by claiming; John McCain got upset today apparently because I had repeated exactly what he said, which is that we might be there [Iraq] for 100 years if he had his way. This is not what he said, and could only be considered a deliberate distortion of the situation.

Clinton has made the same claims of a 100 year war, and Obama has repeated them since.

Hillary has made the claim of landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, when the film of the event clearly shows that was not the case. Bill Clinton has repeatedly lied to justify her deceit; I guess he can’t understand why anyone would have a problem with it.

Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Barack Obama supporter claimed, “McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit.” “What happened when they get to the ground? He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people.

The truth is that John McCain was engaged in low-level attack on a heavily defended power plant in Hanoi when he was shot down. Rather than dropping bombs from the relative safety of 35,000 feet, McCain and his comrades were willing to put their lives at great risk in order to hit specific, high-value targets without the assistance of guided munitions. The laser guidance system was not use until the next year.

Be prepared for more of this. Wealthy Democrats plan to fund a $40 million, four-month attack barrage against McCain, reports Politico. It will be independent of whoever is the Democratic nominee, but is yet another sign of Democrats' worry about McCain.

Probably one of the worst attempts at character assassination came from Matt Ysglesias in the ‘Atlantic Journal’ who uses unfounded allegations from anonymous sources contained in an anti McCain book by obscure extreme left ‘author’ Cliff Schecter to allege that John McCain used rather vile language towards his wife, Cindy in an incident in 1992.

This story made a brief appearance in the 2000 primaries before being repudiated by Cindy herself. If the story were true, how come it only comes to light now? It’s 16 years ago that it is supposed to have happened. But it gets better; Ysglesias then got all noble and issued a retraction, or at least the kind of retraction you have when you are not having a retraction.

Making sure that he linked to the original story, so that it got another run he said, “The story was the kind of thing that's known in the journalism business as "too good to check," which is to say I just kind of linked to it thoughtlessly without considering the sourcing.” This in fact means, “It was such a good story that I refrained from checking the sources as I didn’t want the truth to spoil it.”

I believe that this story was invented to play on the fact that John McCain is on record as having from time to time used colorful language, after which he is known to apologize, we mostly all do, though not all of us have the decency to express our regrets later. After thirty years on drill rigs I have a good turn of phrase myself. The following quote puts it in perspective: -

"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." Mark Twain.


I am not sure what term my American readers use for this sort of thing, but in Australia we tend to use the term, “lying like pigs in shit.”

Shared with the My Fellow McCain Victory 08 Bloggers at
84 Rules,Adam J Schmidt,Agkyra,Agora politikos,Ahwatukee Musings,America For John McCain,Americas Best Choice,Armchair Everything,ARRA News Service,Asian Americans For McCain,Asymmetric,AzaMatterofact,Basils Blog,
Blogs For John McCain's Victory,Blogs For Victory,Blogs4McCain,
Blue And New,Blue Grass Red State,Blue Star Chronicles,Born Again Redneck,Brainster,BroadSideoftheBarn,But I Am A Liberal,California For McCain,Campaign2008VictoryA,Catskill commentator,Chas' compilation,coleCurtis-The McCain Monitor,College Republican Federation of Virginia,Conservative For Change,Curtis Schweitzer,DC Republican,Deomocrats & MediaSpin Vs. Facts,Democrats For Sale,Election 2008,Election Night HQ,Elyery Landavazo,EvangelicalsForMcCain,Falling Panda,Faultline USA,Frog Blog Of Louis la Vache,Generation X Dad,Georgians For McCain,GOP Convention Blog,Hoosiers4McCain,How I Lost My Heart,Il rumore Dei mie Venti-RDM20,Independent Jim,Iraqi For John McCain,Johnny Miller blog,Lee Volger's Political Points,Les Recettes de Louis la Vache,Liberal Republican,Liberalstein Political Limozeen,Libertas01,
M-J in the Republic,MacPac08,The Mad Irish Man's Conservative Consortium,The Mad Irish Man On TownHall.com,
Marathon Pundit,Mass For McCain,McCain Blogette,McCain Blogger Resources,McCain Blogs,McCain Jewish Coalition of Illinois,McCain Mondays,McCain Online Volunteer,McCain States,McCain Talk,McCain Volunteer,McCainHQ08 Yahoo Group,McCainiac,McCainocrats,McCainVictory08,Metaxupolis,
Michael Johns,Missourians for McCain,Moms for McCain,My vast right wing conspiracy,MyMcCainBlog,Myth Debunker,New Jersey for John McCain,New Mexico for John McCain,NH4McCAIN,NJ for McCain,NY for McCain,Official McCain Blog,Ohio for John McCain,Oklahoma for John McCain,Only Electable Conservative,PA Educators for McCain,Pajama Pack,Pardon My French,Partisan American,Pennsylvania for John McCain,Pink Flamingo,Pirate's Cove,Politico Mafioso,Porter County Politics,Primary Cuts,Provocateur,Purple People Vote,Real World Libertarian,Reality Bytes,Right Wing Nation,Right Wing Sparkle,Rudy Supporters for McCain Blog,Rudy Supporters for McCain Yahoo Group,San Francisco Bay Daily Photo,Sanity 102,StandUpForMcCain,Steve Maloney GOP,Thought Stew,Todd Biggs,Tree Hugging Republican,Unite McCain Campaign,Vets 4 McCain,Vets For McCain,Virginia 4 McCain,Voting McCain 08,watersblogged!,Why McCain?,Wisconsin4McCain,With Both Hands

Apr 16, 2008

Hillary and Obama flip flop on guns.


Hillary and Obama are trying to avoid taking a position that will alienate either side in Pennsylvania on the issue of gun control, according to CBS News.

One of the strongest opponents of gun control, the National Rifle Association, has 250,000 members in Pennsylvania, more than in any other state. This month the Pennsylvania House soundly defeated a bill to require handgun owners to report the theft or loss of their guns to police.

As the state's hotly contested April 22 primary approaches, the Democratic presidential candidates have struggled to avoid alienating either side, to the point of pandering.

Unlike most members of Congress, neither senator has taken a position on the historic case before the U.S. Supreme Court over whether the District of Columbia's ban on handguns violates the Constitution's Second Amendment.

Democrats have shied away from gun control since 2000, when they blamed presidential and congressional losses in part on their aggressive stance at the time.

Clinton that year supported far-reaching measures including a federal mandate for state-issued photo gun licenses, as well as a national registry for handgun sales. Obama repeatedly backed tougher state gun controls as an Illinois lawmaker.

Such proposals have been brushed aside in favor of vague talk about “common sense” regulation and assertions by the candidates that they honor the Second Amendment.
‘Common sense’ is one of those terms that suit politicians as the picture formed by the listeners is of course framed by their own perceptions of what common sense is in relation to that issue, while the speaker can and probably does think something entirely different.

Obama assures people he has “no intention of taking away folks' guns,” However his past history denies him any credibility on this issue. It certainly is at odds with his remarks that embittered blue-collar voters “cling to guns and religion,” which gives a truer picture of his contempt for the sort of people who own guns.

Apr 15, 2008

Biofuels, a Recipe for Disaster.


Back to Biofuels. The decisions by western governments to mandate or subsidize the production of ethanol could be one of the most disastrous blunders in modern history. Biofuels will be used without state intervention when and if they become economic in their own right.

Not since the communists with their ridiculous and grandiose great leap forward, and other forms of mass social engineering have entire nations created the circumstances for mass famine, warfare, social unrest, and economic chaos as this populist idea whose time has already passed.

Only intervention by governments has the power to cause such a vast shift of production and resource use to cause such massive disruption. Natural disasters tend to be localized to a region or if really serious a country, combined action by force of governments can and do affect the world.

ANDREW MARTIN, has written an article in the NY Times, “Fuel Choices, Food Crises and Finger-Pointing”, highlighting some of what is going on. (Quoted in part)

The idea of turning farms into fuel plants seemed, for a time, like one of the answers to high global oil prices and supply worries. That strategy seemed to reach a high point last year when Congress mandated a fivefold increase in the use of biofuels.

In some countries, the higher prices are leading to riots, political instability and growing worries about feeding the poorest people. Food riots contributed to the dismissal of Haiti’s prime minister last week, and leaders in some other countries are nervously trying to calm anxious consumers.

At a weekend conference in Washington, finance ministers and central bankers of seven leading industrial nations called for urgent action to deal with the price spikes, and several of them demanded a reconsideration of biofuel policies adopted recently in the West.

Many specialists in food policy consider government mandates for biofuels to be ill advised, agreeing that the diversion of crops like corn into fuel production has contributed to the higher prices. But other factors have played big roles, including droughts that have limited output and rapid global economic growth that has created higher demand for food.

Work by the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington suggests that biofuel production accounts for a quarter to a third of the recent increase in global commodity prices.

According to the World Bank global food prices have increased by 83 percent in the last three years. Rice, a staple food for nearly half the world’s population, has been a particular focus of concern in recent weeks, with spiraling prices prompting several countries to impose drastic limits on exports as they try to protect domestic consumers.

Skeptics have long questioned the value of diverting food crops for fuel, and the grocery and live- stock industries vehemently opposed an energy bill last fall, arguing it was driving up costs.

A fifth of the nation’s corn crop is now used to brew ethanol for motor fuel, and as farmers have planted more corn, they have cut acreage of other crops, particularly soybeans. That, in turn, has contributed to a global shortfall of cooking oil.

Europe’s well-meaning rush to biofuels, scientists concluded, had created a variety of harmful ripple effects, including deforestation in Southeast Asia and higher prices for grain.
August Schumacher, a former under secretary of agriculture noted that many of the upheavals over food prices abroad have concerned rice and wheat, neither of which is used as a biofuel. This is totally wrong, a web page for Australian Biofuels Pty Ltd says as follows: -

The Condobolin Ethanol Project is planned to produce 200 million litres per year of fuel ethanol. The project will use a mixed feed stock of corn, wheat, barley and sorghum and will require 600,000 tonnes of grain per year at full production.

Apr 14, 2008

Ron Paul only "No" Vote in Congress on condemning China for crackdown on Tibetan Protestors


by Eric Dondero & Andrew Murphy

Ron Paul famously told a Fox News debate audience last May that the War in Iraq was a failure and that there was no valid reason for rescuing the Iraqi people from the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Later on in his quixotic Presidential effort he came out against efforts to oppose the dictatorship of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, stated in another debate that the "Vietnamese Communists were now our friends," and more recently, said that the US had no interests in overthrowing Castro in Cuba.

Now CNN reports that Texas Congressman Ron Paul was the only "no" vote on a House Resolution condeming China for squelching Tibetan protests for greater sovereignty and free speech rights.

All Libertarian Republicans serving in the House voted for the Resolution including Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California, Cong. Tom Feeney of Florida, and Congressmen John Shadegg and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

From CNN:

The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution Wednesday calling on China to end its crackdown on Tibet and release Tibetans imprisoned for "nonviolent" demonstrations.

The vote was 413-1. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas... was the lone congressman voting against it.

The resolution passed just hours before runners were to carry the Olympic torch on a six-mile route around San Francisco Bay.

This appears to be a turnaround for Congressman Paul. He's quoted as saying the following:

November 10, 1997

"Each year the people of the United States write a check to subsidize China, one of the most brutal, anti-American regimes in the world. It has been in vogue of late for everyone in Washington, it seems, to eagerly denounce the egregious abuses of the Chinese people at the hands of the communist dictators. Yet no one in our federal government has been willing to take China on in any meaningful way"

*Note - Eric Dondero is a former 6-year Senior Aide to US Congressman Ron Paul, and Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus. Andrew Murphy lives in Knoxville, Tennessee and served in the 1990s as the TN RLC Chairman, and as an RLC Executive Board member.

Libertarian Republicans

Fiscally Conservative, Socially Tolerant & Pro-Defense!

For the latest libertarian political news http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

Eric Dondero is a US Navy Veteran, former Libertarian Party National Committeeman, Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus and fmr. Senior Aide to US Congressman Ron Paul R-TX. He is now a national Republican Political Consultant based in Houston, Texas.

Apr 12, 2008

Elton John, and Hillary.


The Democrats are now between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Well-known political pundit Elton John has laid it on the line to them with: - "I've always been a Hillary supporter. There is no one more qualified to lead America. Having said that, I never cease to be amazed at the misogynistic attitude of some people in this country. And I say to hell with them... I love you, Hillary. I'll be there for you."

So to be politically correct and avoid the accusations involving the big M-word they have to vote for Hillary.

But hang on a minute there is another problem. If they are misogynistic for not voting for Hillary, what is the situation if they don’t vote for Obama? Every leftie knows that they must not be seen to exercise free will if it involves not supporting a minority, and well isn’t Obama, I mean …………

I haven’t seen a response to this from Obama, it must be difficult for him as he has pointed out that he doesn’t want race to be a part of the campaign. I guess he can dismiss Elton as a “typical white person,” like his grandmother.

About the only solution to this situation I can suggest to them is to sign on as Republicans and vote For McCain.

Other astute political statements made by Elton in the past include this gem: - To Al Gore in 2000, "I think you're going to win it, baby."

Don’t give up your day job Elton.

Apr 9, 2008

Ethanol Wrecks Conservation Effort.


I recently did a post on this theme and came across more evidence of the social, environmental, and economic cost of misguided government efforts to push for ethanol production. Today the New York Times has this: -

Out on the farm, the ducks and pheasants are losing ground.

Thousands of farmers are taking their fields out of the government’s biggest conservation program, which pays them not to cultivate. They are spurning guaranteed annual payments for a chance to cash in on the boom in wheat, soybeans, corn and other crops. Last fall, they took back as many acres as are in Rhode Island and Delaware combined.

Environmental and hunting groups are warning that years of progress could soon be lost, particularly with the native prairie in the Upper Midwest. But a broad coalition of baking, poultry, snack food, ethanol and livestock groups say bigger harvests are a more important priority than habitats for waterfowl and other wildlife. They want the government to ease restrictions on the preserved land, which would encourage many more farmers to think beyond conservation.

Kerry Dockter, a rancher in Denhoff, N.D., has about 450 acres of grassland in the program. “When this program first came about, it was a pretty good thing,” he said. “But times have definitely changed.”

The government payments, Mr. Dockter said, “aren’t even comparable anymore” to what he could make by working the land. He plans to devote some of his conservation acres to growing feed for his cows and some to grazing. He might also lease some land to neighbors.

For years, the problem with cropland was that there was too much of it, which kept food prices low to the benefit of consumers and the detriment of farmers.

Now, because of a growing global middle class as well as federal mandates to turn large amounts of corn into ethanol-based fuel, food prices are beginning to jump.


Cropland is suddenly in heavy demand, a situation that is fraying old alliances, inspiring new ones and putting pressure on the Agriculture Department, which is being lobbied directly by all sides without managing to satisfy any of them.

Born nearly 25 years ago in an era of abundance, the Conservation Reserve Program is having a rough transition to the age of scarcity. Its 35 million acres — about 8 percent of the cropland in the country — are the big prize in this brawl. ………………….

The bakers and their allies have a different set of overriding issues: high commodity prices. The rising cost of feed is hurting ranchers, the rising cost of corn is hurting ethanol producers and the rising cost of wheat is hurting bread makers.

“The pipeline for wheat is empty,” said Michael Kalupa, a bakery owner in Tampa, Fla., who is president of the Retail Bakers of America. Mr. Kalupa said the price he paid for flour had doubled since October. He cannot afford to absorb the cost and he cannot afford to pass it on. Sales have been falling 16 percent to 20 percent a month since October. He has laid off three employees.

Apr 8, 2008

How the Beijing Olympics Got their Logo

Click to see larger size, or use the link below to see even better.

I just had to post this from my politically incorrect daughter, Which came from Vincent Chow.net.

Green Cows & Baby Taxes

If the Zealots have their way this will be reversed, it will be a healthy tax liability.


By Viv Forbes From The Carbon Sense Coalition.

1. Taxing Animal Emissions

For all of its history, the backbone industries of Australia have been agriculture and mining. The Lucky Country always seems to have one buoyant primary industry, and we all feed off it. Today it is coal, gas and metals. Tomorrow it will be food. Yesterday it was wool, gold, butter and beef.

However the Global Warming alarmists have their sights set on all primary industries. Carbon taxes will kill jobs and profits and push up the cost of everything - food, fibre, energy, housing, electricity and transport prices will rise. Some of those using Global Warming scares to achieve different agendas would go much further than a simple carbon tax. Senator Bartlett has already called for a "No Meat Day". Some extremists will not be happy until all cows and sheep are eliminated, and we eat organic onions and bio-dynamic beans by the light of a candle (don't tell them that candles emit CO2, and beans increase flatulence).

The silence of most farmers and farm groups in the face of these imminent threats is amazing. Some have been fooled into thinking they will somehow benefit by claiming carbon credits for increased soil humus. Others look forward to selling their land for carbon credit forestry. Both will prove to be high risk mirages, but the carbon tax will be real.

We aim to get this release into the hands of every farmer, every director of a farm group, every rural politician, every rural newspaper and many consumers and their representatives. We need your help. Please circulate this email as far as you can. Don't worry if we overlap. Challenge them all to protest this unjustified tax on our livestock, our food and our livelihood.

Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you! 
-Pericles (430 B.C.)

“All cows are green”.

The Carbon Sense Coalition today called on all farmers and those who eat farm products to raise their voices in opposition to the silly proposals of Australian and New Zealand governments to include emissions and motions from farm animals as a taxable carbon emission.

The chairman of “Carbon Sense” Mr Viv Forbes, claimed that New Zealand has already agreed to include farm animal emissions in their taxable emissions output and Prof Garnaut is also thinking of driving Australian farmers to the Kyoto bail for a similar milching.

“We smart farmers in the South Pacific must have the longest cows in the world – they feed on farms in Queensland and Queenstown and are about to be milked in Canberra and Wellington.

Forbes, who is an animal breeder, pasture manager and soil scientist, said he could not believe the lack of noise from farm groups and consumers on this matter.

“Any farmer would know that no cow, sheep, pig or goat has yet managed to create carbon out of nothing. Nor do they eat fossil fuel. Every bit of carbon sequestered in meat, bones, wool and milk, or expelled in solid, liquid or gaseous animal waste, was extracted from the air by the pastures and grain crops the animals ate. Pastures, crops and soil fungi live on carbon dioxide, the universal plant food from the atmosphere, and water and minerals from the soil. Ultimately, all carbon in the food chain comes from the air (apart from some artificial “foods” made from coal or petroleum derivatives, and very minor soil humus derived from oxidised coal or oil shale).

“This carbon extraction process starts the day the animal is conceived and ceases on the day it dies. This is the carbon food cycle we all live by.

“In fact all farm animals should get a carbon credit, because they sequester part of the carbon extracted from the air in bones, meat, milk and wool. Much of this carbon then gets transferred to the bones and flesh of the growing human population, and eventually gets sequestered in sewerage (often, unfortunately, on the sea floor), bones in the coffins, and soil in the cemeteries. This is a proven process which provides more secure and far cheaper carbon sequestration than some of the billion dollar schemes being investigated.

“In this respect grazing animals are just like trees; both sequester CO2 for their lifetimes, sometimes much longer.

“Of course other parts of the food chain generate net carbon emissions for agricultural machines, processing, chemicals and transport. Each of these activities would attract its own carbon tax. None are essential elements in the raising of domestic animals – the essentials are soil, water, grass and the atmospheric gases, especially oxygen and carbon dioxide.

“No matter how you do the sums, farm animals cause a net removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Thus they should get a carbon credit, certainly not a carbon tax.

“We all know the moon is made of green cheese. It is time to educate politicians that
“All cows are also green”.

(To see photographic proof that cows are green see THIS.

2. Carbon Tax on Babies Next?

Some of them do not intend to stop at taxing cows and sheep. If you think that's just my wild imagination, see this from the Medical Journal of Australia Web site:

"Every new-born baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing, but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society."

"Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and thereby rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour, a "Baby Levy" in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the "polluter pays" principle. Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children (Sustainable Population Australia suggests a maximum of two) should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being."

"This infers a levy per child of at least $5000 at birth (to purchase the land needed and plant trees) and an annual tax of $400-$800 thereafter for the life of the child (for maintenance of the afforestation project) (based on 1990 figures, and probably much more now). [2007]"

- Barry N J Walters, Clinical Associate Professor of Obstetric Medicine, Department of Women's and Infants' Health, University of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, WA.

Apr 7, 2008

“Politics vs. Petraeus”

After consistently promising to “always listen to our commanders on the ground,” Barack Obama has blatantly ignored Gen. Petraeus’ recommendations and pledged to enact an immediate and dangerous withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq if elected President. And despite warnings from Gen. Petraeus that “a premature drawdown of our forces would likely have devastating consequences,” Senator Clinton has promised to begin a precipitous withdrawal of American troops within 60 days.