About Me

Name:Warner Todd Huston
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Muslim Mutilation of Little Girl In Atlanta, Georgia

-By Warner Todd Huston

(This is part two of my women and Islam discussion)

If you are one who is squeamish, do not read this story of this common Muslim practice of the mutilation of a little girl's private parts. However, if you want to learn of yet one more barbaric Muslim practice, read on. Again, I apologize for the graphic nature of this report, but it is a very important thing for westerners to hear about and understand.

There is a practice among many African Muslims (rarely African Animists, as well) that is euphemistically called "female circumcision". It is not, though, anything like the safe and common --though often considered needless-- operation that males go through in this country. No, it is a brutal mutilation of a girl's vagina.

This "circumcision", more properly called a mutilation, is not done by a Doctor nor is it done in a hospital. It isn't even done with precision instruments and in sterile conditions. Sometimes it is done with shards of broken glass, sometimes with belt knives or scissors. Those who perform this mutilation are mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles or local tribesmen or village "specialists”. Paradoxically, it is done by those who are supposed to love the child being mutilated. And it is done in the name of religion.

The Mutilation

The practice differs slightly in levels of brutality from one Muslim region in Africa to another and can range from the removal of the vaginal lips, the outside of the vagina, to a cutting out of the entire clitoris along with the lips. This practice is forced upon prepubescent girls to "prove" their virginity.

In some regions, the mutilated vaginal opening is then sewn shut with a needle and thread to "prove" the girl is a virgin by preventing penetration the “proof” being that the ragged opening will heal together leaving the vagina closed. The tradition is observed that, upon marriage, the man will forcefully slice open his new wife's vaginal scaring and show the village the bloody knife to prove that she was still a virgin at the time of their marriage.

This virginity assurance is one reason that this outrage is done, but there is another, even more oppressive, reason. Once a female's lips and clitoris are removed, she can never experience sexual satisfaction. She is simply physically incapable of deriving any pleasure whatsoever from the act of intercourse.

Imagine a culture that desires to destroy the God given ability of a woman to enjoy the sensations of sexual intercourse? Imagine the hatred for women such a culture exhibits? Imagine the oppression and brutality experienced by women in such a barbaric culture?

This disgusting practice has been made illegal in the USA by act of Congress in 1996. However, not every state in the US has followed through with similar rules in their own legislatures. Additionally, until now, no prosecution for violating this law has ever occurred, due most likely to the fact that such a thing is not so easy to discover.

A Prosecution in Georgia

Dad stands trial over daughter's mutilation

A father stands accused of the unthinkable: brutally cutting his daughter's genitals.

The girl was only 2.

Khalid Adem is accused of circumcising his 2-year-old daughter with scissors.

For the first time a Muslim has been arrested in the USA for perpetrating this brutal attack upon his own child. I am not prepared to say, from the report I cite in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, that this father is necessarily the one who mutilated this poor child. The story reports that there was a messy divorce and that the father is claiming the mother did this crime.

I have no desire to necessarily attack the father for this crime, but we must to get to the truth of the matter and discover who was responsible for this barbaric attack on such a young child. My desire is to discover the perpetrator of this crime and send them to jail for a long, long time regardless of who did it. We need to see a conviction for this shameful Muslim practice to set the precedent of the illegality of this monstrous, barbarity.

News Report Fails to Mention Islam

On a side note, the Journal-Constitution went weak in the knees on the fact that this is a Muslim practice mostly in Africa but one that exists throughout the Muslim world. Once again, an American newspaper refuses to delineate clearly that this is just one more brutal, barbarity of Islam.

Neither the word "Muslim" nor "Islam", nor any permutation thereof, appears even one time in the Journal-Constitution's story.

Instead of defining this as a common Muslim practice the Journal-Constitution calls it an "African custom they call genital mutilation". Unfortunately, this is a very misleading explanation. It is not merely an "African custom", but a practice of Muslims the world over in varying degrees.

In any case, we need to understand just how brutal Islam is in how it treats its most vulnerable members: girls and women.

If we are ever to get past the era of Islamic terrorism being visited upon the world today, Islam needs the same sort of reformation that Christianity experienced several hundred years ago. Islam needs to most especially reform its treatment of women and minorities to step into modernity and bring safety, prosperity, and advancement to its peoples.

Pressure from the west cannot but help to bring this reformation about. But we will not be able to assist such a reformation by constantly turning away from these brutal Islamic failings in the name of "tolerance" and politically correct considerations. A spotlight on these brutal, inhuman practices must be realized to help Islam confront its worst failings.

Islam needs introspection but with western excuse making for Islam we do nothing but help them ignore such failings and keeps reform a distant possibility.

We can only be hopeful that this prosecution in Georgia can help bring about Islam's reformation and, in the meantime, save untold young girls the horror of genital mutilation.

See part One of my Women and Islam discussion: Is Muslim Veil Issue Western Intolerance
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The BBC's Support of the Taleban

-By Warner Todd Huston

Once again taking "tolerance" to the level of societal self-destruction, the BBC has decided that showing the human side of the Taleban is an important story to cover.

They have ridiculously embedded a reporter with the Taleban in Afghanistan. Reporter David Lyon has been reporting from the Taleban and has filed a report filled with laudatory terms and brimming with respect for his subject.

Travelling with the Taleban

There is no army on earth as mobile as the Taleban.

I remember it as their secret weapon when I travelled with them in the mid-1990s, as they swept aside rival mujahideen to take most of the country.

Along with his wonderment at their "secret weapon", Lyon calls them "hardy" and gives them the opportunity to pass on this little bit of Taleban propaganda...

The Taleban deny British claims that hundreds of their soldiers have been killed.

They say that since they wear only the loose long cotton shirts and trousers - shalwar kameez - of any local villager, then the British cannot easily tell them apart.

In a village damaged by a British attack on the night of 7 October, some people were too angry to talk to me because I was British.

One merely pointed to the torn and bloody women's clothing left in the ruins of the house and said bitterly, "Are these the kind of houses they have come to build - the kind where clothing is cut to pieces?".

Why does the BBC feel it such a great idea to give an enemy of civilization a forum to dispense their message?

It was once said of the U.S. Constitution that it isn't a suicide pact. Much can be said of a culture, western culture in particular. Our laws and principles, our ideals and systems are specifically set up to further liberty, freedom and equality. Our democracy is the most enlightened in history.

Unfortunately, when faced with systems that are specifically set up to be a direct opposite of freedom and liberty, like the Taleban, socialism, communism, or other oppressive and regressive systems, societies based on freedom of expression cannot seem to understand the simple concept of self-preservation.

The BBC, with this embedded reporter, is holding the razor to the throat of western society. Giving excuses to enemies of liberty and providing cover for their depredations by making them seem reasonable and aggrieved is what they end up doing with this reporter's efforts. Putting doubt in the minds of fellow westerners and making them feel that their own society is what is at fault here is the end product.

And, that, in the end, will do nothing but assist in the tearing down of our own confidence in our society and ideals at a time when we face enemies who want to destroy us root and branch.

But, is it surprising that the BBC is filling this helpful role for our enemies? In light of recent BBC history, it shouldn't.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Australia's Top Muslim Leader Blames Women for Rape

-By Warner Todd Huston

Women are oppressed, second-class citizens in Islam. It's really just that simple. The abuse and hatred that Islam shows its women is one of Islam's most disgusting, backward, and evil aspects ... among so many such evils.

The Muslim Veil, for instance, is just one of Islam's many oppressions of women. But, the hate they display of women in general is endemic in the religion. And, Australia's supposed Muslim leader, Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, has displayed this fact once more by blaming women for the notorious gang rapes perpetrated by a gang of Muslims there.

Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks, by Richard Kerbaj

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 (rahma) and gives you 65 years".

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


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 (igraa)."

Disgusting... but all too common a sentiment in Islam. Men are too stupid to control themselves and women are merely the "tools of Satan" because of that "igraa" all about them!

This kind of hatred expressed toward women is a concept so against the moral concepts of freedom, liberty, and equality that we and all forward thinking people hold dear and such hatred should be universally condemned. Unfortunately, too many will turn a blind eye to this and other examples of Muslim hate in the misguided name of "tolerance".

It is just one more reason that Islam needs a reformation to come into modernity. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

AP: Michael J. Fox 'Powerfully Vulnerable' Advocate for Dems?

-By Warner Todd Huston

The AP appears to be star struck by Michael J. Fox with the debut of his campaign ad for Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill and several other Dems this week. So star struck that the AP has pronounced him a great success in a puff piece today. But how can they possibly know for sure if his ads are working?

Michael J. Fox Makes Stem Cell Vote Push, by Jake Coyle.

The symptoms of Parkinson's disease that all but ended Michael J. Fox's acting career are making him a powerfully vulnerable campaign pitchman for five Democrats who support stem cell research.

"Powerfully vulnerable campaign pitchman"? But, what is this assessment based on?

Seemingly, it's based just on the AP's being star struck because the elections haven't happened yet to see if Fox's ads even worked! Worse, they have claimed Fox so successful but a few days after the ads debuted. By what measure are they proclaiming this "powerful" impact?

AP offers that Fox's Youtube.com ad has been seen by "more than 1 million people", making that seem a big number presumably.  But there are more than 5 million voters in Missouri alone, so the percentage who have seen this ad must be small, indeed. Is that success? And, remember, this one million viewers number is from the whole country, not just Missouri. (It has also shown on TV during the World Series -- a new low for viewership at only just over 8 million nation wide -- making a possible total of around 10 million viewers or so)

The AP quotes Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director for the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center to the effect that Fox is a "powerful" spokesman.

"The reason that he's powerful is that he's comparatively young,"...

Jamieson notes that the issue of stem cell research has the potential to be an advantage to Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections since polls have shown the majority of Americans favor some form of stem cell research.

Now there is another problem with this puff piece. Stem cell research is going strong in this country if you are talking adult stem cell research. Yet, this AP report makes it seem as if there is a battle against "stem cell research", not making clear exactly what the issue is.

Now, it's true that embryonic stem cell research has been restricted by the Bush administration and is opposed by Conservatives and religious Americans. And it is embryonic stem cell research that people like Fox and politicians like McCaskill are trying to get approved.

But, embryonic stem cell research has not seen a single successful cure or even a possible cure as the Family Research Council reports.

With increasing frequency, American citizens and others from around the globe are experiencing newfound freedom from disease, affliction, and infirmity. Individuals' lives are forever changed with the strengthened faith and renewed hope that arise from healed bodies and physical restoration. These seemingly miraculous cures are the result of adult stem cell treatments. Yet the debates in the popular media tend to ignore and obscure the medical breakthroughs made by adult stem cell research--success that has conspicuously eluded embryonic stem cell treatments.

While the potency and success of adult stem cell treatments are becoming evident, treatments using embryonic stem cells have not produced any clinical successes. Rather, embryonic stem cell treatments tend to create tumors in numerous animal studies. The public should ponder these issues and ask why the media do not cover such results. In a world with limited funds for research, why are we arguing about unproven and often dangerous embryonic stem cell treatments when treatments using adult stem cells are today producing real results for real patients?

So, why does the AP report a story without revealing the utter lack of success of the type of research that Fox is advocating for? If the research he is advocating for has proven entirely unsuccessful, why did that go unmentioned in this discussion of how "powerful" Fox's campaign pitches are?

Of course, if they mentioned any of that, they might be tarnishing their beloved star's reputation!

And we can have that from such great fans, I suppose.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

'Green' Celebs Who GUZZLE Gas!

-By Warner Todd Huston

I usually couldn't care less what J-Lo or Brad Pitt do. Sure, I watch an occasional movie they are in but when it comes to their empty headed blather on matters they know nothing about (that would be just about anything other than clothes designers and high class restaurants) I find their prattle nothing but an annoyance. So, when I see celebrities unleashing their hot-air about the environment, I tune out rather quickly.  

But this story is just too funny...

The website TMZ.com has done a revealing little survey of the amount of fuel that self-proclaimed "green" celebrities waste at the same time they are claiming to be so environmentally friendly.

JULIA ROBERTS
-On the Road
Drives a Prius (60 miles to the gal.- nice savings)
-In the Air
In a private jet, just once, flew Chicago to LA, 1,749 miles (2,100 gallons of jet fuel- WOW!)
-Result
Julia could drive her Prius 30,000 miles, or once around the whole globe, to match her one plane trip!

Remember, that was only ONE of Julia's fancy flights. Her Prius ownership seems a bit pointless if she is going to fly all about the planet wasting many thousands of times more fuel than her little Prius could ever save.

They also find similar findings with Jennifer Lopez, George Clooney, and Brad Pitt.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservatives Who Won't Vote GOP Deserve Lost Influence!

-By Warner Todd Huston

"Judges do not cease to be human beings when they go on the bench. In important cases, it is my humble opinion that finding the right answer is often the least difficult problem. Having the courage to assert that answer and stand firm in the face of the constant winds of protest and criticism is often much more difficult... The Founders warned us that freedom requires constant vigilance, and repeated action. It is said that, when asked what sort of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin replied that they had given us 'A Republic, if you can keep it.' Today, as in the past, we will need a brave 'civic virtue,' not a timid civility, to keep our republic."
-- Justice Clarence Thomas

Many of us are quite mad at the GOP today. And we are 100% right to be mad. Republicans today have become worse spenders than the Democrats, seem to have walked away from the Conservative principle of smaller government, and have had a difficult time pushing their political agenda at a time when they are in a majority.

We have every reason to want to scream bloody murder at them for these failings at a time when they have the power and capabilities to do better.

On the other hand, this teach-them-a-lesson type of thinking going around Conservative circles, where Conservatives are saying not to vote GOP, is the most stupid campaign tactic I have ever witnessed in my life.

Only a Conservative could be so stiff necked, so self-defeating, as to advocate for his own removal from the process.

Here is the best analogy I can think of to describe how foolish this don't-vote-GOP thought process is...

Imagine you are starving.

Then imagine that you are told you may come to the diner table, but may only have half a meal.

Then imagine how STUPID you'd be to turn down the invitation on the grounds of not being allowed to gorge yourself!

That is what you get when you refuse to vote GOP this Fall. As a conservative, you have a seat at the political table with Republicans. You may not get all you want -- in fact you WILL not get it-- but at least you can get the proverbial "half a loaf" by sticking with the GOP and pushing your agenda. However, with the Democrats in power you will get absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Democrats won't give you a single scrap from their table, Conservatives. And, as you are peering into their kitchen from the street, they will laugh at you as your ideas and policies are starved to death.

Nice going, Conservatives.

One of the reasons that Conservatives have become such a power since the Goldwater campaign and the Reagan revolution is that we’ve became engaged in the process. We’ve written, thought, and advocated. We’ve elected grassroots candidates and brought together the disparate Conservative groups, working with each other to build a viable coalition.

Coalition building is necessarily done by compromise. Sometimes that means not getting your way. But it also means having the possibility of getting it, if not now, perhaps later. As the saying goes, Politics is the art of the possible.

Allowing your enemy to win, though, means you get nothing and deserve nothing.

All that being said, one must necessarily weigh the factors in a vote for a Party. The benefits must outweigh the negatives, naturally. And there are three things that a vote for the GOP will affect, two things that outweigh all other factors at this time.

One is security -- and the first of the two that outweighs all others. Nearly every major Democratic Candidate and leader is advocating for a withdrawal from Iraq, a dampening of our capabilities to conduct surveillance on terrorists and gather intelligence on them, and a retreat from the war against Islamofascism.

The GOP, while sporting a somewhat spotty record, will at least make a good faith effort to resist those dangerous and stay clear of the kind of self-defeating policies Democrats want. That's a half-a-loaf we can work with.

The second is that a vote for the Democrats is a vote to raise taxes. Bush's tax cut is one of the main reasons our economy stayed strong in the face of Sept. 11, 2001 and Katrina, but the Democrats would erase that boost and raise taxes to the detriment to the economy.

Thirdly, and this is the second point that outweighs all others, a Democratic Congress or a Democrat president in 2008 will turn back Bush's trend of placing constructionist judges on the bench. From the Supreme Court to the lower Courts, we will be right back to the efforts of Democrats and other leftists of attempting to put judges who will be "progressive" (meaning socialist) on the bench. We will be right back to judges that treat the Constitution like so much toilet paper, if you’ll excuse my vulgarity?

Despite his less than stellar conservative bona fides otherwise, Bush has done a good job with his judicial appointments. But, electing a Democratic Congress will instantly put an end to that. Further it should be noted that Bush never was a strict Conservative in the first place and his style of governance should be no surprise at all.

So, Conservatives, unless you want to damage our security, raise taxes and turn our courts into a socialist social experiment once again, you'd best vote GOP. Stay with the Party. Stay seated at that table where we can at least have some impact on policy and the debate in the public square.

Otherwise, you deserve to get nothing for all your efforts. And that IS what you will get.

Nothing.

So, despite the many problems between Conservatives and the GOP it makes more sense to continue voting GOP and try to work from within to affect the policies to get we want.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why are the Dems Already Claiming Victory?

-By Warner Todd Huston

Testing a Theory...

By now, we have all seen this business where the Media Dinosaurs are touting the upcoming midterm elections as already in the bag for the Democrats. But, we are also starting, just this week, to see stories disputing that assumption.

Rove and Bush are said to be strangely buoyant and upbeat about the chances of the GOP keeping their majorities.  Several pundits and magazines as well as some pollsters are beginning to say that, while the GOP will lose some seats, the Party won't lose all power in some great midterm Democratic landslide.

So the question becomes, how could all the leftist pundits, poll skewers and Democratic Party fellow travelers be so far off with their predictions for a total Demo take over?

Maybe they aren't. Well, not in private anyway. Maybe they have known all along that this is going to be but a mildly successful Democrat Party election, with the Dems taking a few seats in both houses of Congress. But maybe they know full well that this won't be a tidal wave of Demo success.

And, maybe they are misreporting it all on purpose?

Why would they do that, you ask? To further the false claims they have spouted since the 2000 election that the system is "rigged" against them, that's why. They know full well that the American electorate has been leaning centrist to moderately conservative since 1980 and they also know full well that their ideas are dragging them further left every year.

So, how do they reconcile their steady decline as a leading Party in the country? Do they alter their stance and drive to the middle to try and satisfy the electorate? No, they drive further to the left and then try to blame the system for rigged elections.

So, perhaps this whole mantra of a Demo landslide is being misreported so that when it doesn't actually occur the left can then come back and claim that it is all just more "proof" that the system is rigged against them.

Again, why do that? Well, if the Dems can undermine the trust people have in the system, this will alienate moderates -- or swing vote -- who might stop voting out of disgust (taking part of the GOP's votes with them in the process) and they can anger their base enough to come out full force to "get even" with the evil Republicans who are rigging the vote.

Scotching the centrist vote in a time when elections are so often won by 3 and 4 percentage points is quite an interesting and possibly successful strategy. Get rid of the people that could vote either way and gin up your base with inflammatory claims of GOP vote fraud and you get a won election as well as the elbow room to continue your drift left without being slapped by the electorate for it.

And who can doubt that the mainstream media would fall all over themselves to assist such a plan? Or, if they aren't necessarily in on the plan from the beginning, who can doubt they will at least be inclined to slavishly report Democratic Party happy-talk since they so lovingly root for their pals in the DNC anyway?

So, there goes my theory. The MSM and the Demos are over reporting a success in November so that they can then come back afterwards, after it doesn't pan out, and say they have further proof that the system is "broken" and "rigged" against them in order to drives centrist or moderate voters out of the electorate. This, in turn, will eliminate enough GOP votes and pump up their own base enough to win close elections in the future.

The Dems are trying at their own concept of a "Rovian battle plan". Unfortunately it is a plan that doesn't deal honestly with the electorate. But who could be surprised at that?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Wash. Post- 'U.S. Power' Finished

-By Warner Todd Huston

In a column by Sebastian Mallaby, t
he Washington Post today has announced the "nadir" of U.S. power.

Mr. Mallaby goes on a long diatribe that contradicts itself so many times that an informed reader would get whiplash from the experience. And all those head turing points are attacks against the effectiveness, sincerity, and well-meaning of American policy.

He begins his screed by negatively invoking a Ronald Reaganism, saying "It's not exactly morning in America", after which he regales us on how nothing worthwhile has come from Iraq, "a special Rumsfeldian screw-up".

It isn't just Iraq policies he attacks, but the entire Bush doctrine and all our military efforts connected to it. Obviously he thinks they are failing miserably calling them "faltering" efforts and saying that our "tough talk" on terror has backfired.

Then, inexplicably, he leads into the current reversal from democracy being indulged in by Russia's Valdimir Putin, the Islamic militants taking over in Somalia, and the genocide in Darfur, as if America caused each of these calamities by somehow NOT using our might to stop them.

So, which policy are you against, Mr. Mallaby? American intervention or LACK of American intervention?

But, after talking about some of the worst human abuses in the world (not mentioning China, of course), Mallaby then ridiculously goes on to scold Bush on our "decline of empire" because of our "economic frailties".

Someone should point out to Mr. Mallaby that under Bush we have one of the strongest economies we have had in a long, long time. Someone should also tell him that, since Ronald Reagan's Republican revolution, we have had one of the longest streaks of strong economies that the country has ever experienced.

Finally, after his many finger waggings, Mr. Mallaby insists that he isn't saying the USA is finished.

I'm not predicting the end of the American era, not by a long shot... But has there been a worse moment for American power since Ronald Reagan celebrated morning in America almost a quarter of a century ago? I can't think of one.

Mr. Mallaby has another little problem with his late claim that he isn't "predicting the end" of America, however. The piece is called "A Nadir of U.S. Power". Unfortunately for Mr. Mallaby, "Nadir" means just such an "end" as the word means "directly opposite of a zenith", or "the lowest point".

Sounds like the end to me!

Too bad Mr. Mallaby is neither honest with his assurances nor informed of just how far off his analysis really is. It's also too bad that the Washington Post is so pessimistic about our country and sad that they used one of our most optimistic presidents ever as a springboard to their disrespect.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ariz. Voters to Show Photo ID... THIS time

-By Warner Todd Huston

Seems like a victory... but not quite.

The US Supreme Court has said that the current law requiring Arizona voters to present photo ID cards must be observed this coming election cycle. Voters in Arizona will have to preset a photo ID with their names and addresses on it to be eligible to cast a ballot.

Supreme Court upholds Arizona's photo ID law for elections

That is good. But, the Court did NOT rule to the question of the Constitutionality of requiring a photo ID to vote. They merely said that the lower Court ruling preventing it in Arizona at this time was invalid.

...the court decided that the 9th Circuit made a procedural error by granting an injunction to put the new rules on hold without waiting for the district court to explain its reasons for not granting an injunction.

So, the SCOTUS booted the whole question back to the state courts to rule on the initial Constitutionality of requiring a photo ID to vote. Meaning that the question is not anywhere near settled. The SCOTUS will still have to rule on the issue eventually as it wasn't even directly addressed this time 'found... but at least it wasn't an idea shot down.

We still have a battle ahead of us to institute voter ID requirements nation wide.

The wheels of justice are slow, indeed.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Calif. Judge Pushes Gender Issues

-By Warner Todd Huston

Here is the perfect description of an "activist judge" if I ever saw one...

Judge: Exposure Law Is Gender Specific

A (Riverside, CA) judge dismissed an indecent exposure charge against a woman accused of disrobing in front of a 14-year-old boy, saying the law only applies to men. Superior Court Judge Robert W. Armstrong said earlier in the week that the law only mentions someone who "exposes his person... It's gender specific," Armstrong said.

Doesn't sound so odd, you say? Seems as though he is truly adhering to the letter of the law, you think?

Try this on..

Prosecutor Alison N. Norton said the decision to throw out the case will be appealed because another section of state law says that "words used in the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter."

And there is the activism. This "judge" is attempting to gerrymander language to gender specific in order to further push specific gender issues at a later date. After all, if the state Constitution uses the common language convention where the term "man" simply means humans as opposed to just males, then laws centering on homosexuals, women, "trans genders" and other unnecessary specifics will be harder to create.

If "men" or "man" just means human, then the other labels are unnecessary.

No, what we have here is just this judge's attempt to further splinter the law into gender classifications so that special cases can be crated from the differences and this cannot but come to the assistance of activists who base their activism on gender or sexual oddities. The more splintering of the law the easier for them to craft special legislation or bring lawsuits for their cause.

Worse, this judge knows better. The convention of using "man" as a euphemism for people (and not necessarily meaning just male) is a common one going back to the founding of the English language. We have a long standing grammatical usage of "men" meaning humanity in general and it is well understood by everyone who is not an activist seeking to further balkanize our language and laws.

This judge is merely trying to get another nose under the tent of our laws and societal norms to undermine them in order to further gender issue activism.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Voter's Guide

Publius' Recommended candidates for Cook and Dupage counties, Illinois

State Executive Offices
Judy Barr Topinka
Governor

Joe Birkett
Lt. Gov.

Dan Rutherford
Sec. of State

Stewart Umholtz
Attny Gen.

Carole Pankau
Comptroller

Christine Radogno
Treasurer

Federal Offices
Peter J. Roskam
USCongressional District 6

David McSweeny
USCongressional District 8

Dennis Hastert
USCongressional District 14

State Offices
Billie D. Roth
State Senate Dist. 22

Chris Lauzen
State Senate Dist. 25

Matt Murphy
State Senate Dist. 27

John Milner
State Senate Dist. 28

Ruth Munson
State Rep. Dist. 43

Terry R. Parke
State Rep. Dist. 44

Randy Ramey
State Rep. Dist. 55

Cook County
Tony Peraica
Cook County Board President

Tim Schneider
Cook County Board

Peter Garza
Cook County Sheriff

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Brits Realizing it IS a War on Islamic Extremism

-By Warner Todd Huston

Well, we have two good stories out of England that should be heralded, proving that the Brits are "getting it" that this is a war on extremist Muslims and that means that ALL Muslims must be looked at askance. Not because all Muslims are somehow guilty, but that one cannot tell the guilty ones from the innocent ones without investigation. The Brits are realizing that Muslims are going to have to have some restrictions, are going to have to prove their innocence, and just cannot be allowed to roam freely without suspicion upon them in this day when ANY of them could be hiding terrorist plans.

Our freedoms should not be used as a shield to hide terrorist activities in the west. As the famous quote about the Constitution goes - our laws are not a "suicide pact". Muslim's finances must be scrutinized more closely than are other citizen's. Certain Muslim practices must not be allowed, like the veil. And their Mosques and schools must not be allowed total autonomy and practice without a wary eye upon them.

The Brits are starting to see that this is true and beginning to understand what it takes to safeguard the public from the threat of Islamofascism.

Story #1-
Muslim architecture student quizzed by police over Canary Wharf photo project

In this one, police detained and questioned a man dressed in traditional Muslim garb for walking about a wharf shooting photos.

Turns out his efforts were for a school project and it was all innocent. Naturally, he complains about being "singled out" and abused by the police.

I say, good on the police for at least trying to stop what could have been a terrorist casing the Wharf for an attack.

This student's troubles can be turned against his own people. Islam takes the blame for this, not western "fascism" or authoritarianism. If his people were not acting the way they do all across the globe, such suspicion would not be warranted. But, since they DO act that way, they should expect to find themselves under suspicion anywhere they go.

Heal your own house, Islam. THEN expect to be treated with respect.

Story #2-
UK teacher loses veil discrimination case

Here we have a London teacher who has been told by the government that she cannot wear a veil that covers her entire face, except for her eyes, and remain a teacher of English for children.

Also naturally, she complains that she is being attacked for her religion, but British officials say her veil creates "visible statement of separation and difference." Meaning, she is creating a segregated society by wearing a veil.

The Brits are right. The veil is a way to discriminate against women. The fact that it is a tradition among Muslims is meaningless when it comes to equal treatment under the law. It should be remembered that genital mutilation of females is a "tradition" in Islam, too. We don't want to sanction THAT barbaric practice on the grounds of "religious expression" do we?

Islam is an enemy to civilization and cannot be expected to join the 21st century until it has its own reformation. But, until then, it must be viewed with suspicion. Every Mosque is a probable terrorist's haven. Every Muslim a potential murderer.

The sooner we realize that the safer we will be.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How the BBC Got Mad at Me -- Still Say it isn't a 'War on Terror'

-By Warner Todd Huston

On the 30th of September I wrote a post on Publius' Forum and also posted the same on Newsbusters about how the BBC is using their reporting on the Global War on Terror to advance their ideological bias against the war instead of merely reporting the facts of the news.

On the BBC website a segment called "The Editors" appeared on Oct. 2nd and raises this very posting of mine and makes an attempt to refute it.

Alistair Burnett (editor of "The World Tonight") made a weak attempt to nay say my point.

Is the BBC trying to make a political point when it uses the expression 'so-called War on Terror' or 'The Bush Administration's War on Terror' or 'the American-led War on Terror'?

Some bloggers certainly think so, but is it true? Well you wouldn't expect me to say it is, so I won't, because it isn't.

I should mention that the Beeb was calling ME the "some bloggers".

My point was that since the BBC used the words "so-called war on terror" they obviously had revealed their anti-war bias.

 Obviously the BBC is conveying that this war is a sham, or a fake war and using president Musharraf's comments as cover to get that message across.

Here was Mr. Burnett's weak explanation:

The BBC usually qualifies or attributes the expression 'war on terror' for several reasons. The main reason is that the concept in itself is disputed.

Wow. The "concept is disputed"? THAT is their reason? So, since some people still think the Earth is flat, should we not call the Earth a "globe" because there is some "dispute" about its relative roundness???

Now, I have a question. Is it the duty of a news source to "qualify" terminology or is it their duty to just report things. If Bush calls it the war on terror shouldn't they just report it? And if someone else says it isn't a war, shouldn't they just report that?

Their full explanation is hardly convincing me that the Beeb is but doing their duty to report...

We believe we need to use the expression because it has become such a familiar part of the political and dilplomatic debate which we report on regularly, however, because the expression in itself is so hotly contested, we believe it is better to qualify it, so as not to give the impression to our global audience that we are endorsing it or opposing it.

Such a "familiar part of the political and diplomatic debate"? Didn't they just say it's all in dispute but a few sentences before? And, if it is such a "familiar part" of the debate, why, then, do they have to constantly qualify it?

Me thinks they doth protest too much!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Wash. Post - Fearmongering Over 'Secret Line of Succession' for Presidency

-By Warner Todd Huston

The Washington Post, yesterday, posted a story raising questions about a House rules change that clearly delineates a line of succession should the Speaker of the House be unable to take his place as the third in line to succeed the president in a state of emergency or vacancy.

In keeping the the liberal mantra that the Republican leadership is the most "secretive" ever, the Post seemed worried that the House rules change is somehow a danger to American democracy because the persons chosen by Speaker Hastert to succeed him has not been made public knowledge.

The Post's story over this rules change is filled with foreboding, doubt and dread over a possibility that is remote at best as well as a list that is simply perfunctory.

In a little-noticed action taken nearly four years ago, the House amended its rules dealing with the "continuity of Congress" in emergencies and the succession of speakers. The rule, cited recently in Roll Call, directs the speaker to "deliver to the Clerk a list of Members in the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore... in the case of a vacancy in the office of Speaker."

But, this "little-noticed action" is merely a way to confirm who should follow Hastert (the Speaker of the House) in case he is incapacitated or otherwise unable to fill the position after the president and the vice-president should be found equally incapable to fill their own roles.

Still the Post worries:

But the rules revision made in January 2003, in response to worries about terrorist strikes that could wipe out large numbers of elected officials, appears to bestow upon a newly named replacement all the powers enjoyed by a full-time speaker elected by his peers.

One thing is certain: The identity of the speaker-in-waiting is a closely held secret.


What is the big deal?

Further, why is it that the Post finds it so odd that, in this day of world-wide terrorism, the Speaker is not too fired up about making his list -- a list that could make targets of those contained upon it -- public? Is that such a shock to democracy? Especially since such an occurrence would be quite remote anyway, the whole list idea being only a contingency, a just-in-case, plan?

Then we get to the typical legalese that lawyers love to wrangle with.

Perhaps the biggest question, some lawyers say, is whether a House speaker -- full time or pro tempore -- can assume and keep the presidency under any circumstance. A statute, not the Constitution, lists the speaker's place in the line succession.

A case can be made that no one in Congress qualifies as an "officer" eligible to assume the presidency under Article II of the Constitution, said Neil Kinkopf, a professor of law at Georgia State University. The question may never be settled, he said, because the Supreme Court would take it up only if a speaker became president and someone challenged the action in court.

It should be noted that lawyers didn't even apply the Constitution without a fight in the case of lines of succession in our past! They about took vice-president John Tyler to the Supreme Court when he grabbed the reigns of power from the deceased William Henry Harrison in 1841. Even though it seems that the Constitution placed the VP as second in line, many legal-eagles then in Congress wanted to cut Tyler out of his position as second in line for the presidency over a parsing of the Constitution claiming that it didn't explicitly state that the VP should automatically take over should a president fall.

So, along with its claims of "secret" government lists and unclear Constitutional direction, the Post gives us their "nightmare" scenario.

As for nightmarish constitutional what-ifs, Kinkopf said, "Imagine where the presidency falls not to the speaker, but to somebody on the speaker's secret list."

Tyler settled that question by just plain DOING it! Still, the lawyers griped, just as they would if the Washington Post's "nightmare" scenario took place. We live in a lawyer's grips, after all. Of course, I'd suggest that we'd have far more "nightmares" to worry over than a secret list of names should we find that the three top men are unable to fill the role of leader of the country!

In fact, should all three of those men be down for the count, we might be relieved to find a successor was protected by a little secrecy.

So, other than fearmongering and pointless worrying, what exactly was the purpose of the Post's story?

It seems clear to me that the underlying notion was to paint Bush's administration as overly secretive and anti-democracy. What else could it be?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | Comments