Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Spencer/Geller ban: "This is the day Britain surrendered"

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Here is an excellent summation of this whole sorry episode: "Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller Banned from Britain," by Jonathon Narvey for The Propagandist, June 26:
"…it (Islam) is a religion and a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose of establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western Society because media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown." 
Ignore the ungrammatical nature of the awful transcription for the moment (The sheer laziness of the UK government, which might have taken the time to punctuate this blurb, or perhaps find a paragraph from one of Robert Spencer's bestselling books, isn't the worst part, of course). The gist is clear.
The important question here: do you agree with it? Does the Koran mandate warfare against Infidels? Is Sharia -- the law where thieves' hands are chopped off; that women must find four witnesses in the event that they are raped, or they will charged with immorality crimes; or that converts from Islam to Christianity are to be jailed -- compatible with Western society? Do you think the media and government are generally unwilling to remind the public that jihad terrorism is inspired by Islam?
Really? You believe that? Well, hopefully you haven't told anyone your vile views, or you can forget about that vacation in London you were planning with the family.
If you're a jihadist already in Britain, the government will fund your jihad activities. The authorities will stand alongside Islamic organizations who routinely host jihadist hate preachers in order to condemn a wave of hate against Muslims that has actually never occurred. But if you criticize this kind of thing and try to point out the inconvenient fact that jihad naturally is inspired by core Islamic texts and teachings -- well, you're not welcome in Britain. This is what has happened to Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller.
The pair were coming to Britain in the wake of the jihadist murder of the soldier, Lee Rigby, to show solidarity with those who believe in freedom for all from the threat of theocratic fascism -- something that all Britons ought to support. Not the Home Office, apparently. No, their speeches and writings were judged to result in some or all of the following violations:
foment or justify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs.
seek to provoke others to terrorist acts.
foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts.
foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.
Neither speaker has ever justified terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs -- they've criticized jihadist terror. They certainly haven't provoked others to terrorist acts, unless the Home Office feels that merely talking about jihad terrorists in any context is enough to spur jihadists to action (Essentially, the "you shouldn't have said something to provoke your husband into beating you" line of argument).
The UK government is essentially saying that making reasonable, informed statements about the connection between Islam and jihad will create terror.
This is it. This is the day Britain surrendered. The family of Lee Rigby and the victims of the 7/7 bombings and other acts of jihad terror ought to feel ashamed of their country right now.

What’s the Half-Life of a “Temporary” Tax Increase?


Daniel J. Mitchell/ Townhall Finance

Milton Friedman famously noted that, “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program”and Ronald Reagan sagely observed that “a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”
Two great Americans
They’re both right, but they should have included the other half of the fiscal equation. Repealing a tax, even a “temporary tax,” is just as difficult as getting rid of wasteful spending.
Simply stated, once politicians get access to a source of additional revenue, it’s feeding time at the zoo and good luck getting them to give the money back. Here’s a sobering example from Philadelphia.

Skeptics say there’s no such thing as a “temporary” tax. Like the two-year property tax increase City Council passed in 2010 that, lo and behold, is still with us. Or another dreaded levy: the wage tax. It was passed in 1939 as a short-term fix for the city’s finances, but succeeding generations have nonetheless been forced to accept its bite in their paychecks. The latest tax under consideration for immortality is the 1 percent sales-tax increase the state allowed Philadelphia to impose in 2009 as a bridge through the recession.The increase – which raised the tax on most goods and services in Philadelphia from 7 percent to 8 percent – is slated to expire next June. City and state leaders are now talking about making the increase permanent, with the extra money being put toward one or both of the city’s greatest needs: the struggling School District and the vastly underfunded public employee pension fund.
The bulk of that excerpt is a straightforward recitation of how temporary tax hikes become permanent tax hikes, but I have to object to the final sentence. The “city’s greatest needs” are replacing the failed government education monopoly with school choice and reducing the excessive pensions for over-compensated government bureaucrats – such as the city’s former “managing director” (whatever that is), Camille Cates Barnett.
I also can’t resist commenting on the craven behavior of the city’s Chamber of Commerce. I though the national Chamber of Commerce was bad when it endorsed TARP and the faux stimulus, but the local Chamber may be even worse.

Joe Grace, director of public policy at the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, said, “We have not seen any evidence that extending the 1 percent is going to have any negative impact on the local businesses.” The chamber is also backing a $2-a-pack cigarette tax dedicated to the schools. “Our belief is the School District needs resources,” Grace said. “We’re working, along with many others, to close the school-funding gap, really by any means necessary.”
So Mr. Grace thinks more funding for a failed education bureaucracy should be achieved by “any means necessary.” Well, I think a 100 percent tax rate on Mr. Grace should be at the top of the list.
Heck, if France can tax at 100 percent, then so can the City of Philadelphia, and Mr. Grace is a deserving recipient of such a levy.
But there are some opponents of the tax, though they’re not exactly libertarian heroes.

…members of the nearly all-Democratic Philadelphia delegation have raised concerns about using the 1 percent to help fund the schools because it lets the state off the hook for its share of education funding. Danilo Burgos, president of the Dominican Grocers Association, argued that giving sales-tax revenue to the schools was “a Band-Aid.” The state, which has control of the city’s schools, should be responsible for devising “a real solution for our schools.”
In other words, they want more money to waste, but they want to take it from people in the rest of the state.
Sort of reminds me of what the great Frederic Bastiat wrote more than 150 years ago, “The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.”
But if enough people act as if that fiction is reality, then you get too many people riding in the wagon and not enough people pulling the wagon. That’s a good description of what’s happening in places such as Philadelphia and Greece.

The Mindset of the Left

Thomas Sowell / Townhall Columnist


When teenage thugs are called "troubled youth" by people on the political left, that tells us more about the mindset of the left than about these young hoodlums. 

Seldom is there a speck of evidence that the thugs are troubled, and often there is ample evidence that they are in fact enjoying themselves, as they create trouble and dangers for others.

Why then the built-in excuse, when juvenile hoodlums are called "troubled youth" and mass murderers are just assumed to be "insane"?

At least as far back as the 18th century, the left has struggled to avoid facing the plain fact of evil -- that some people simply choose to do things that they know to be wrong when they do them. Every kind of excuse, from poverty to an unhappy childhood, is used by the left to explain and excuse evil.

All the people who have come out of poverty or unhappy childhoods, or both, and become decent and productive human beings, are ignored. So are the evils committed by people raised in wealth and privilege, including kings, conquerors and slaveowners.

Why has evil been such a hard concept for many on the left to accept? The basic agenda of the left is to change external conditions. But what if the problem is internal? What if the real problem is the cussedness of human beings?

Rousseau denied this in the 18th century and the left has been denying it ever since. Why? Self preservation.

If the things that the left wants to control -- institutions and government policy -- are not the most important factors in the world's problems, then what role is there for the left?

What if it is things like the family, the culture and the traditions that make a more positive difference than the bright new government "solutions" that the left is constantly coming up with? What if seeking "the root causes of crime" is not nearly as effective as locking up criminals? The hard facts show that the murder rate was going down for decades under the old traditional practices so disdained by the left intelligentsia, before the bright new ideas of the left went into effect in the 1960s -- after which crime and violence skyrocketed.

What happened when old-fashioned ideas about sex were replaced in the 1960s by the bright new ideas of the left that were introduced into the schools as "sex education" that was supposed to reduce teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases?

Both teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases had been going down for years. But that trend suddenly reversed in the 1960s and hit new highs.

One of the oldest and most dogmatic of the crusades of the left has been disarmament, both of individuals and of nations. Again, the focus of the left has been on the externals -- the weapons in this case.

If weapons were the problem, then gun control laws at home and international disarmament agreements abroad might be the answer. But if evil people who care no more for laws or treaties than they do for other people's lives are the problem, then disarmament means making decent, law-abiding people more vulnerable to evil people.

Since belief in disarmament has been a major feature of the left since the 18th century, in countries around the world, you might think that by now there would be lots of evidence to substantiate their beliefs.

But evidence on whether gun control laws actually reduce crime rates in general, or murder rates in particular, is seldom mentioned by gun control advocates. It is just assumed in passing that of course tighter gun control laws will reduce murders.

But the hard facts do not back up that assumption. That is why it is the critics of gun control who rely heavily on empirical evidence, as in books like "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott and "Guns and Violence" by Joyce Lee Malcolm.

National disarmament has an even worse record. Both Britain and America neglected their military forces between the two World Wars, while Germany and Japan armed to the teeth. Many British and American soldiers paid with their lives for their countries' initially inadequate military equipment in World War II.

But what are mere facts compared to the heady vision of the left?

Support Israel...Defeat Jihad

 
Last night on Hannity my hero Pamela Geller was called a murderer by a muslim guest over this sign in the NYC subways. In support of Pamela I proudly post it here and hope others will do 
so also.



It's Bowe Tuesday...way past time to bring him home...


Op-ed: Egyptians demand freedom but will that demand end in civil war

By: Diane Sori
 
Muslim Brotherhood controlled ‘puppet president’ Mohamed Morsi has been in power in Egypt for just one year and the people are unhappy…unhappy about a weak and faltering economy…unhappy about deteriorating national security…and unhappy about rising islamism with its accompanying sharia law in their once secular country.

Unhappy enough to take to the streets en-masse over the weekend as the head of Egypt’s armed forces, defense minister General Abdel Fattah al-Sissi gave Morsi and his group of thugs 48 hours (countdown started on Monday) to answer the demands of the Egyptian people…or have the military issue its own “road map for the future”…a read on state TV statement serving as a warning to those on both sides that if they failed to reach some sort of agreement the army would step in, intervene, and assume power once again.

The statement added that the military will “not be a party in politics or rule” but that it has a responsibility to find a solution because Egypt’s national security is facing a “grave danger.”

And in direct contrast, after the military statement, officials of Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood controlled government issued their own statement saying that the military and ‘street protesters’ CANNOT and will NOT overturn the legitimacy of the Morsi’s election, calling on all Egyptians “to rally in defense of legitimacy and reject any attempt to overturn it”.

“Any coup of any kind against legitimacy will only pass over our dead bodies,” said Muslim Brotherhood official, Mohammed el-Beltagi.

Typical muslim jihadist words.

Now add into all this the ultimatum issued by the Tamarod (Arabic for ‘Rebel’), the group who organized the protests and who have their own plan for transition (after Morsi steps down the head of the Supreme Constitutional Court would become an interim president and a technocrat government would be formed, then an expert panel would write a new constitution to replace the one largely drafted by islamists, and new presidential elections would be held in six months), this group gave Morsi until Tuesday afternoon to step down or it would escalate the rallies even further.

And there’s your proof of yet another Obama initiated and supported Arab Spring gone horribly wrong…so wrong in fact that Egypt’s future could include civil war…Egyptians fighting Egyptians…civil war NOT unlike the situation in Syria.

But Egypt right now remains under the control of both the military and Morsi, yet Egypt still has NO lawful parliament because its constitution was created without the input of any secular democrats, and that coupled with this total anti-democratic Morsi regime...a regime that recently convicted three dozen Egyptian and western employees of pro-democracy non-profits sentencing them to prison for conducting voter education efforts...fuels these demonstrations for freedom and rights...demonstrations that started in 2011 against former president Hosni Mubarak and continue on with hordes of people…an estimated 17 million people…but this time with people who are shouting slogans of pan-Arab nationalism.

And with the Muslim Brotherhood controlled Morsi government now facing a pan-Arab nationalistic uprising NOT unlike the movement that ushered Gamal Abdel Nasser into power….maybe a situation like that in Syria can be avoided because a movement based on nationalism can only grow in numbers...numbers that will eventually overtake any opposition in their way.

And when you add in that military helicopters continue to circle overhead and drop Egyptian national flags on the protesting crowds gathered in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, maybe the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi himself know they are in big trouble.

And that trouble includes Egyptian security forces arresting 15 armed bodyguards of senior Muslim Brotherhood leader Khairat El-Shater on Monday; that trouble includes former Egyptian prime minister Ahmed Shafik saying the reign of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood will end within the week; and that trouble includes five key ministers…Tourism Minister Hisham Zazou, Communication and Information Technology Minister Atef Helmy, Environmental Affairs Minister Khaled Fahmy, Utilities Minister Abdel Qawy Khalifa and Parliamentary and Legal Affairs Minister Hatem Bagato…all resigning on Sunday.

It sure doesn’t look good for Obama’s buddies now does it.

So what of Barack HUSSEIN Obama and his support of Morsi and his brethren the Muslim Brotherhood…guess what…the Egyptian people aren’t too happy with him either, and showed that by carrying placards of US Ambassador Anne Patterson, herself accused of garnering favor with the Muslim Brotherhood, alongside those of President Morsi with both defaced with large red exes, and carrying banners with anti-Obama slogans on them.

And what does Obama do in response…he issues a statement saying he’s ‘concerned’ about the violence and urged all sides to work towards a peaceful solution using restraint. Like those mamby-pamby words will accomplish anything for Morsi knows that Barack HUSSEIN Obama will NOT desert him, and that feeds his rage and determination to stay in power.

So will it take these protests turning into a revolution that turns into a civil war to secure the Egyptian people’s much wanted transition into democracy…or will those 17 million Egyptian protesters making it obvious that they do NOT want a return to the dark ages of devout islamism and sharia law end this standoff within the 48 hour time limit issued by the military…we will know that answer by the end of the week, and hopefully that answer will signal the end of an Obama supported terrorist regime run amok.