Why Liberals Don’t Support A Burqa Ban

Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

It would make sense that Feminists would oppose burqas because they are a tool of oppression for women: that is, burqas are specifically made to make a woman persona non grata. A burqa’s very purpose is to hide the woman and make her invisible as an individual. She is just not there.

But feminists, and liberals in general support the burqa. The woman has a “right to choose”. Just as liberals support abortion even though it’s used as a tool for gender genocide (gendercide?) against women in places like India and China where boys are valued over girls.

In both cases, gender suppression is valued over a misguided notion of “choice”. The baby obviously doesn’t have a choice. And the women in the Islamist cultures have little choice. People who know the religion know this:

“We don’t want to see burqas in Denmark. We simply can’t accept that some of our citizens walk around with their faces covered,” Naser Khader, a Danish member of parliament of Syrian-Palestinian extraction who was recently appointed spokesman for integration issues for the Conservative Party, told the newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
In comments published on Sunday, Khader said the burqa is un-Danish and oppressive towards women and should be completely banned. He and his party say that what people do in their own homes is their business, but as soon as they walk into the public domain, one should be able to see their faces.

And interestingly, supposedly chauvinistic right leaning politicians see the problem with burqas:

Denmark is not the only European country where politicians have proposed a ban on burqas. French President Nicolas Sarkozy recently said that the burqa was “not welcome” in France, while France’s urban regeneration minister, Fadela Amara, told the Saturday edition of the Financial Times that she was in favor of the burqa “not existing in my country.” The Netherlands has also considered a ban on burqas.

The logic that liberals employ to support abortion and burqas actually encourages oppression of the weak and helpless. And the weak and helpless are often women and children.

So, the “right” to abort, the right to wear whatever one wants, obliterates the rights of the unborn child and the Muslim woman. A non-existent right becomes a way to oppress the very ones liberals wish to liberate. Isn’t it always “for the children” and “women are 2nd class citizens”? With liberals, children are expendable and women against oppressive burqas should just shut up.



Europe: Out–European Bailouts By Americans, In–Talk

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

For eight years, Americans have been given a steady media diet about how America would receive help from Europe if only George W. Bush would have been less cowboy and more diplomat. So now, America has President Barack Obama who is all hat and no cattle, and European policy is still selfish, short-sighted and really, anti-American.

President Obama spent his European trip saying soothing words to an adoring electorate. That’s great. America now has our own version of Princess Diana in our President–beautiful, stylish, vapid, narcissistic and a tad unstable. The press adores him. The people swoon.

Meanwhile, Europe still refuses to help root out al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq and denies any responsibility for the world economic woe. Now, I don’t feel so bad that they told our President “no way on the spending”, because I’d like less of that here, myself. It just irritates me that they Europeans are so eager to use anti-American rhetoric when they expect America to take care of them.

Here is the reality: Right now, Iran is almost armed. Right now, Russia controls a good chunk of the energy that makes it to Europe. Oh, and by the way, Russia informs America that Iran poses no threat to us. How about Europe? How about Israel? The European countries risk being squeezed like a vice. Should bad things happen in this scenario (and how can bad things not happen?) who do they expect to bail them out of the crisis? America.

Old Europe has pathetic military forces. They refuse to spend on defense. They live cushy, mediocre, socialistic lives because their excess cash goes to financial support for the non-productive with their perennially high unemployment rate. And they are surrounded by enemies and depend on America to be the bad cop while they appease evil all around.

And yet, President Obama kisses the ring of these weak, mushy “allies”. He bows where he shouldn’t. Worst of all, he puts terror in the hearts of staunch American friends. Poland worries about being defenseless. India is pressured about Kashmir. Israel, by all actions of the President, will stand alone.

In the new world order, Iran and North Korea will be allowed to continue their ambitions. In the new world order, President Obama will appease the appeasers in Europe. In the new world order, loyal American allies will be disrespected.

Japan, Poland and “New Europe”, India, Israel, and even “Old Europe” better pay attention. President Obama has shown a penchant for saying things that sound good to everyone but holding very leftist policies.

The only satisfying part of this new approach is that Europe will be receiving a taste of their own medicine. There will be lots of talk. Europeans prize talking. President Obama prizes talking. It’s a relationship made in Freudian, psychoanalytic heaven.

Talk. Talk. Talk. And when Europe gets in a pinch, rather than a bailout, they should expect more talk. It won’t keep them safe. It won’t fix anything. It will make the world more dangerous. But let’s keep our priorities straight. President Obama is absolutely dashing. That’s what matters most.

Europe and President Obama are a match made in heaven.

Cross-posted at RightWingNews



Guardian

Monday, March 16th, 2009

Austrian Freak Who Enslaved Daughter Going To Trial
He could be out of prison in six and 1/2 years.



Gateway Pundit

Sunday, March 8th, 2009

Muslims Riot In Sweden, Threaten Israelis



Financial Times

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009

Brussels Warns US on “Buy American” Provision
Building bridges….by Barack Obama



Belgium

Wednesday, January 14th, 2009

Parents Jailed For Refusing To Vaccinate
Five months for refusing to give kids polio vaccine.



When A Government Answers To No One & Everyone

Wednesday, December 10th, 2008

When A Government Answers To No One & Everyone
Greece is what happens.



Guest Post: Socialism Is UnAmerican by Duane Lester

Tuesday, November 18th, 2008

The following is a guest post from Duane Lester of All American Blogger, where you can find other great articles.  Sign up for their free RSS feed so you don’t miss a single post.

What is the spirit of America, and what does it mean to be an "American."  Perhaps I am old fashioned, but I think the American spirit exists in the blood, sweat, and tears of hard work, effort and the desire to achieve on the strength of self, with as little government interference as possible. 

It is rugged individualism, yet it is also community.  I know that sounds like a contradiction, but I’ll explain it.

An American is an individual.  He is responsible for himself, and for his family.  He works hard,  uses his head and becomes a success, however he defines it.  If he finds himself in some rough times, he turns to the community.  Family, churches and charities are there to offer support, whether it be food, a place to rest his head, or simple reassurance that this too shall pass.  They don’t have to.  They want to.  And he accepts their charity thankfully and puts it to use.  He continues to move forward until he becomes a success.  Once a success, he begins to give back to the community.

There was a man whose father was a traveling salesman.  The father "expended considerable energy on tricks and schemes to avoid plain hard work."  The son, however, took a job at 16 as an assistant bookkeeper and vowed to give 10% of his wealth to charity upon retiring.  His name was John D. Rockefeller and he ended up giving away $550 million.

But no one forced him to help.  No one forced him to surrender property to another because a third party thought it was "fair."  That would be unAmerican.  Property rights are sacred.  Consider the words of one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson:

“To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association–’the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.’”

In Jefferson’s mind, it was unacceptable to force you to surrender your property so that another Marxist Congresscould have it out of "fairness."  He makes it very clear.  No one, no man nor agent of government, should take from one to give to another because it is felt that one has too much and another too little, even when faced with a tragedy. 

Col. Davey Crockett explains how he was educated on this principle, from a constituent of his who said he would never vote for Crockett again because he voted to give $20,000 to residents in Georgetown who had suffered from a fire.  He was told:

In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.

We have drifted away from the principles taught to Col Crockett, the principles this country was founded upon. 

On this founding principle sits my premise.  Socialism does not fit into America in any way, shape or form.  Socialism is the government sanctioned genocide of the one minority not protected by liberalism:  the individual.  There is no individual in the collective.  You do not have property, the collective does.  You don’t get rewarded for your hard work, you get what the collective thinks you need.  You don’t get to achieve, as there can be no one who stands out in the collective.

Winston Churchill said:

…a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say.

We have been slowly moving towards socialism.  We are not there yet, but we are moving towards it every day.  The government taxes people, meaning they seize their property, so that others may get food stamps, rather than going to a church run food bank.  They seize property of those without children to ensure that other people’s children are taught according to guidelines established by the government.  This is done for the "common good."  Socialists talk about spreading the wealth around because it would be "fair."  America is not about the redistribution of wealth.  It is about creating the opportunity for others to create their own wealth. 

Everything socialism stands for is the antithesis of what America stands for.  And yet we continue to march down the road to serfdom.  This should terrify those living in countries where America is the shining city on the hill.  Places like Cuba, where people still risk their lives fleeing from socialist rule, in search of an American shore.  I remember a story Ronald Reagan told in 1964. 

He said:

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don’t know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

The last stand on Earth is being overrun by the slow marching socialist hoards, moving under the banner of fairness.  When it eventually falls, where will the downtrodden and persecuted of the world turn to for inspiration and freedom?

The only thing left will be the collective.



Russian Spy A “Disaster” For NATO

Sunday, November 16th, 2008

Russian Spy A “Disaster” For NATO
But, but, I thought we were friends with Russia…



American-European Relations Won’t Change No Matter Who Becomes President

Thursday, October 30th, 2008

Dr. James Joyner has an excellent piece at The New Atlanticist. He rightly notes that circumstance dictates relations more than personality. Personal interest and state interest will trump even the most obnoxious personality.

I would note this, however. Dr. Joyner quotes Sir Christopher Meyer who makes the comment that Obama would be considered more conservative in Britain than the most conservative over there because even Obama isn’t calling for nationalized medicine while nationalized medicine is a given in Britain. The problem with using this example is that health care is already nationalized in Britain. Socialism is stubborn. Once a “benefit” is given, it isn’t taken away. It’s “reformed”. So, Obama, were he in Britain would be for expanding services and protecting bureaucracy. So I beg to differ: Obama would most certainly not be a Tory if he were in Britain.

The main substance of the argument, though, is a good one.