Friday, November 30, 2007

Gays need a lesson in Empiricism

The Dutch are commissioning a study to determine why Moroccan men are beating the piss out of gay men all over Amsterdam. I am familiar with this problem from reading Bruce Bawer's work. In his must read treatise on the Islamisation of Europe, the homo-sexual Bawer relays story after story of Muslim homophobia and anti-gay rage in Europe. Particularly telling is a description of how gay men and women in Amsterdam, formerly the world's most gay tolerant city, must now refrain from holding hands for fear of being attacked by Muslims.

Twenty five years ago when homosexuality was still quite taboo in much of the western world Amsterdam was a haven for gay men. It was one of the few cities in the world where they could hold hands. Thanks to Islam, the freedom and safety that homosexuals in Amsterdam felt is rapidly disappearing.

Gays in America are quick to bash the slightest amount of homophobia coming from Christians. When will they wake up to the greater religious threat to their way of life?

Robert Spencer comments more on this issue at Dhimmi Watch.

Walid Shoebat Silenced by UW Milwaukee

Once again the left shows its disdain for freedom of speech and true academic freedom.

Shoebat is controversial. That is true but he is also an internationally recognized speaker and author on the most important topic of our lifetimes. To deny him the right to speak because of threats from radical left-wing student groups is to side with the very groups that caused the problem in the first place.
If the University were really concerned about the cost of security they could jsut arrest unlawful protesters and fine them.

For information about Shoebat you can visit his website here.

Update: The Beloit Daily News sides with freedom: Checkbook censorship is no less ugly than any other kind.

Update 2: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that UW-M has reversed its decision. More information can be found at WTMJ.

How does Bush expect peace if they won't even shake hands?

I chuckled at stories earlier this week about the Arabs at Annapolis refusing to shake hands with the dirty Jews. This story, however, is more disturbing than funny.

Not only are the Muslims at the conference refusing to shake the hands of Jews, they are demanding a separate entrance to the conference. What's next seperate drinking fountains, swimming pools, the front of the bus? I know that this is shocking to Saudis but in America Jews are considered equal and I'm not talking about equal to apes and pigs. The Bush administration has created a little slice of apartheid right here on American soil. Republicans should be ashamed of their leaders. I know I am.

Savage Sues CAIR

I'm glad to see somebody give CAIR a taste of their own medicine.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Liberals Need a Lesson in Empiricism

I fondly recall once getting into a shouting match with a political theory professor at the UW after he commented that the extermination of my Kulak ancestors had nothing to do with Marxism. As our debate expanded, I learned some interesting facts from my fine Marxist professor, namely that the 50 some odd million Chinese and Chinese minority peoples killed by Mao had nothing to do with Marxism, that the Soviet Gulag had nothing to do with Marxism, and that nearly every other negative event associated with Marxism, 1975 Cambodia, Castro's political prisons, and the Berlin Wall for example, all had absolutely nothing to do with Marxism.

Marxism, being the penultimate achievement in human political and social thought was flawless, he contended. Therefore, none of these negative events could have anything to do with it.

Most of my classmates stared at their lecturer inattentively thinking instead about the best way to ask out the girl next to them or about the hang over they were still trying to get over three days after losing 14 rounds of beer pong. Several classmates nodded. A few of us grunted in disgust and did our best to argue with our blind teacher. I wondered then how such an educated man could be so blind to the empirical evidence before him. I wonder today how so many well-intentioned and educated liberals are so blind to the realities of radical Islam and particularly Sharia law.

Some time ago I watched this British documentary on You Tube.

The documentary does its best to portray Sharia in a positive light. In fact an independent observer with no prior knowledge of Sharia law would walk away from the documentary thinking that Sharia was mostly a way for African women to get compensation from deadbeat dads.

Documentaries like this are one liberal response to conservative criticisms of Sharia law. The other common response usually comes without a British accent and therefore doesn’t sound quite as enlightened. It is still surprisingly affective and it usually goes something like this:

Conservative: Can you believe that a woman was sentenced to death by a Sharia court in Saudi Arabia for being gang raped by four of her cousins?

Liberal: Zionism!

Conservative: What do you mean?

Liberal: Christianity and Judaism are just as violent as Islam.

Conservative: What does that have to do with the case of this poor woman?

Liberal: Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Mumia Abu Peltier…

Anyways, back to my original quandary? How is it that liberals are able to ignore what they see right in front of their own eyes? How can they deflect the reality of Sharia law as it is practiced in the real world by real people. How can they ignore oppressed women in 2007 by changing the subject to the brutality of Medieval Christians?

Two recent cases illustrate this point:

The Case of Mohammed the Teddy Bear.

Michelle Malkin has done an outstanding job covering this issue. Rusty from Jawa Report was good enough to create the following graphic.

The gist of the story is this. Ms. Gillian Gibbons, a 54 year old British educator working in a Khartoum elementary school had her class vote to name a classmate's Teddy bear. A popular 7 year old student named Mohammed recommended naming the bear after himself. The class took a vote.

Twenty out of 23 students voted to name the bear Mohammed after their 7 year old classmate. The response of Khartoum was to arrest Ms. Gibbons and charge her with insulting the prophet of Islam, a serious crime under Sharia law (as it is applied to nearly everyone in nearly all Muslim nations and a few neighborhoods in France). Ms. Gibbons now faces 6 months in jail, 40 lashes, and a fine.

The case of the Girl of Qatif.

The Girl of Qatif is a Muslim 19-year-old Saudi girl who committed a very serious crime under Sharia law – she allowed herself to be kidnapped and gang raped by seven men. In some Muslim countries that lack the purity and enlightenment of Saudi Arabia, this poor girl might have been subject to a tribal Jirga rather than a Sharia court and her sentence could have been much more severe such as death by stoning, an honor killing at the hands of a relative, or a combination of the two.

In the birthplace of Sharia, however, this criminal is subject to far less punishment – just 90 lashes…and an additional 110 lashes for having had the audacity to appeal her sentence. That is Sharia Law in action. That is how Sharia law is enforced throughout the Muslim world.

Liberals need a lesson in empiricism.

BTW…This is what a few dozen lashes under Sharia law looks like 20 days later. HT-Atlas

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

The Hippie-Muslim Cabal that wants to take away your Ice Cream

The cornerstone of the University of Wisconsin that is Babcock Ice Cream is under threat from a conspiracy more insidious than the Illuminati/Mafia/Québécois anschluss that sparked Celine Deon's career.

Members of the Muslim Student Association are joining forces with smelly neo-vegans to bring a little slice of hippie Sharia to the UW. Their success could spell the end of Babcock Ice Cream as we know it.


Because Babcock Ice Cream is made with Pork Gelatin...

Shocked are you? I know I was.

I always thought that gelatin was made from horse hoofs. Low and behold the fine folks at the UW discovered that the Hoof and Hide Jello of the equestrian beast just couldn't cut it when it came to producing the world's finest ice cream. To make ice cream that good took a real animal...Babe (or Wilbur if you're more into classic children's literature than you are into bad film of the 90's).

Just ask Scott Rankin, a UW-Madison associate professor in food science. Scott said it best about using pork gelatin in Babcock's goodness in a Sarah Nance's Pulitzer deserving Daily Cardinal piece Babcock ice cream's pint-sized problem:

Flavor-wise, gelatin is so flavor-neutral that it lets the flavor the milk and whatever flavor you add to the system really come through. It doesn’t bind many flavors [and] also attributes to the textural aspect of it.

See! Gelatin doesn't bind, and...whatever. Take that you vegan wannabes.

Rankin went on to explain the vital role that gelatin plays, "in stabilizing the ice cream and keeping it solid".

Rankin is right. We can't let Babcock Ice Cream become destabilized. Write or call your legislator. Tell them to stand up for Babcock.

Monday, November 19, 2007


Suspicious behavior on a Milwaukee flight from DC warrants TSA Suspicious Incident #177. Many bloggers are wondering about the first 176. Was this a dry run?

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Fatima Butto on Benazir

Benazir's niece sure has an interesting take on her aunt. This article has been appearing all over the internet over the past few days.

Aunt Benazir's false promises

Bhutto's return bodes poorly for Pakistan -- and for democracy there.

By Fatima Bhutto
November 14, 2007

KARACHI -- We Pakistanis live in uncertain times. Emergency rule has been imposed for the 13th time in our short 60-year history. Thousands of lawyers have been arrested, some charged with sedition and treason; the chief justice has been deposed; and a draconian media law -- shutting down all private news channels -- has been drafted.

Perhaps the most bizarre part of this circus has been the hijacking of the democratic cause by my aunt, the twice-disgraced former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto. While she was hashing out a deal to share power with Gen. Pervez Musharraf last month, she repeatedly insisted that without her, democracy in Pakistan would be a lost cause. Now that the situation has changed, she's saying that she wants Musharraf to step down and that she'd like to make a deal with his opponents -- but still, she says, she's the savior of democracy.

The reality, however, is that there is no one better placed to benefit from emergency rule than she is. Along with the leaders of prominent Islamic parties, she has been spared the violent retributions of emergency law. Yes, she now appears to be facing seven days of house arrest, but what does that really mean? While she was supposedly under house arrest at her Islamabad residence last week, 50 or so of her party members were comfortably allowed to join her. She addressed the media twice from her garden, protected by police given to her by the state, and was not reprimanded for holding a news conference. (By contrast, the very suggestion that they might hold a news conference has placed hundreds of other political activists under real arrest, in real jails.)

Ms. Bhutto's political posturing is sheer pantomime. Her negotiations with the military and her unseemly willingness until just a few days ago to take part in Musharraf's regime have signaled once and for all to the growing legions of fundamentalists across South Asia that democracy is just a guise for dictatorship.

It is widely believed that Ms. Bhutto lost both her governments on grounds of massive corruption. She and her husband, a man who came to be known in Pakistan as "Mr. 10%," have been accused of stealing more than $1 billion from Pakistan's treasury. She is appealing a money-laundering conviction by the Swiss courts involving about $11 million. Corruption cases in Britain and Spain are ongoing.

It was particularly unappealing of Ms. Bhutto to ask Musharraf to bypass the courts and drop the many corruption cases that still face her in Pakistan. He agreed, creating the odiously titled National Reconciliation Ordinance in order to do so. Her collaboration with him was so unsubtle that people on the streets are now calling her party, the Pakistan People's Party, the Pervez People's Party. Now she might like to distance herself, but it's too late.

Why did Ms. Bhutto and her party cronies demand that her corruption cases be dropped, but not demand that the cases of activists jailed during the brutal regime of dictator Zia ul-Haq (from 1977 to 1988) not be quashed? What about the sanctity of the law? When her brother Mir Murtaza Bhutto -- my father -- returned to Pakistan in 1993, he faced 99 cases against him that had been brought by Zia's military government. The cases all carried the death penalty. Yet even though his sister was serving as prime minister, he did not ask her to drop the cases. He returned, was arrested at the airport and spent the remaining years of his life clearing his name, legally and with confidence, in the courts of Pakistan.

Ms. Bhutto's repeated promises to end fundamentalism and terrorism in Pakistan strain credulity because, after all, the Taliban government that ran Afghanistan was recognized by Pakistan under her last government -- making Pakistan one of only three governments in the world to do so.

And I am suspicious of her talk of ensuring peace. My father was a member of Parliament and a vocal critic of his sister's politics. He was killed outside our home in 1996 in a carefully planned police assassination while she was prime minister. There were 70 to 100 policemen at the scene, all the streetlights had been shut off and the roads were cordoned off. Six men were killed with my father. They were shot at point-blank range, suffered multiple bullet wounds and were left to bleed on the streets.

My father was Benazir's younger brother. To this day, her role in his assassination has never been adequately answered, although the tribunal convened after his death under the leadership of three respected judges concluded that it could not have taken place without approval from a "much higher" political authority.

I have personal reasons to fear the danger that Ms. Bhutto's presence in Pakistan brings, but I am not alone. The Islamists are waiting at the gate. They have been waiting for confirmation that the reforms for which the Pakistani people have been struggling have been a farce, propped up by the White House. Since Musharraf seized power in 1999, there has been an earnest grass-roots movement for democratic reform. The last thing we need is to be tied to a neocon agenda through a puppet "democrat" like Ms. Bhutto.

By supporting Ms. Bhutto, who talks of democracy while asking to be brought to power by a military dictator, the only thing that will be accomplished is the death of the nascent secular democratic movement in my country. Democratization will forever be de-legitimized, and our progress in enacting true reforms will be quashed. We Pakistanis are certain of this.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Late Edition: Bolton Attacks ElBaradei

Bolton also commented on Pakistan:

Promoting his book on CNN Friday morning, Bolton told John Roberts that the issue in Pakistan "is not a choice between democracy ... and martial law. ... This is a choice right now between secure command and control over Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenel on the one hand and chaos on the other. If we have chaos, we could have a radical Islamicist regime in charge of those weapons."

This guy tells it like it is. We need a little more of that on issues like these.

Hat Tip: Atlas

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Bhutto was really hot back in the day but she still needs to respect history

In 1979 liberal reformers and Marxists joined together with Islamic radicals to overthrow a dictator in Iran. Instead of a Democratic worker's paradise they got another dictator and greater oppression than they could have imagined under the Shah. Within a few years most of these reformers were either dead or exiled.

Today Benazir Bhutto threatened to undermine the dictatorial regime of Pakistan's ruler, Pervez Musharraf. Bhutto should be cautious as should her American supporters in Congress and the Administration. While I see no possibility of cooperation between Bhutto and Pakistan's would be theocrats (they've already tried to kill her once this month), I can envision a future where the Musharraf regime falls to pressure from the left only to be replaced by a Taliban like regime from the right.
  • While Europe Slept