17 November 2007
The Balkanization of America
I just visited Houston, Texas recently and was surprised (or rather shocked) to see that even the menus in restaurants such as IHOP are both in English and Spanish. I was even told that there are several restaurants in Houston where if you don't speak Spanish then you simply won't get any service. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not the least bit xenophobic, it's just that the dramatic changes in my hometown caught me a bit off guard. You see it's been a few years since I was last in the United States and each time I return I find myself amazed at the sociopolitical changes.
On more than one occasion while I was there I didn't recognize what was being said around me and was actually a bit surprised at how many people were speaking Spanish in their dealings instead of English. I went to one store near the downtown area and found myself ignored by the Spanish speaking sales staff as they continued to help the Spanish speaking people around them. I stood there waiting and then eventually just gave up. But what was even more disturbing about the whole thing wasn't the Spanish speaking, it was that there seemed to be a sense of arrogance and what can perhaps best be described as an "ethnic chauvinism" among the Spanish speaking people that was never there before. It was as if they didn't care anymore or were not concerned to assimilate, to learn English or even to speak English, but even then, it was deeper than that, many seemed to harbor a sense of grievance that despite being nurtured by well-meaning federal policies of positive discrimination gave rise to an indescribable feeling of tension that seemed to be omnipresent everywhere I went.
For the first time in my life I felt like I was in a foreign country by returning home, but even that is not really accurate... You see if I would have went to Mexico instead of Texas, the Spanish speaking people there would have at least try to communicate with me and serve me. They would have smiled and made an honest effort to speak English and the banks and shops in Mexico would have gladly accepted my US passport as an ID. But in Texas this time things were disturbing different.
But overall, what I've found most disturbing is the Balkanization of the United States or as it is known by is politically correct euphemism "multiculturalism". You'll have to forgive me, but having lived overseas for as many years as I have, I never received the diversity is strength memo, and if I did, I would have promptly thrown it in the trash where it rightly belongs. There is no strength in diversity and I'm confounded at how Americans could have ever willingly bought into that nonsense. What did it take? Was it the the fear of being labeled an intolerant bigot or of being politically incorrect that somehow collectively coerced all of you into this accepting this mind-numbing mantra as gospel?
Take a cue from a country like Singapore who had to learn the hard way about the wondrous glories of diversity and multiculturalism. A country who was forced to adopt Draconian laws limiting freedom of speech just to ensure ethnic and religious harmony and who has spent countless millions over the years on government propaganda directed at their own citizens extolling nationalism and unity over diversity. Funny how there is no mention of how "diversity is strength" in this little ditty penned by Singapore's Ministry of Information, Communication & the Arts entitled "We are Singapore". Is this what we want for the United States?
How long will it be before these ethnic and racial enclaves that are being nurtured like unhatched chickens begin to poke their beaks through the shell? I fear it won't be long now. From having lived in a multicultural society, I can say from personal experience that rising ethnic chauvinism among immigrants both illegal or legal is not only a warning sign, but is is the ultimate destroyer of peace and harmony and when the winds shift it will get bloody. When that happens there will be two paths for Americans to take and both of them will be unpleasant. Either Americans will stand up and fight for liberty and freedom or they will have to accept certain restrictions to liberty and freedom in order to keep the peace.
Immigration
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
It's the little things our press always miss
British National Security Council (RWC)
On the plus side with the British, the Prime Minister Gordon Brown has plans to form a National Security Council modeled on ours in America.
This is part of Brown’s overhaul of the counter-terrorism work at Whitehall, giving the Prime Minister more control over Britain’s fight against terrorism –a country that has seen deep, pervasive infiltration by radical Islam.
MI5 is currently shadowing and bugging about 2,000 current Islamist extremist suspects. I heard that when I was in London recently and Jonathan Evans, the new director of MI 5 (who took the place of the wonderfully smart and able Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, who retired) confirmed it in a speech the other day. At any given time, MI 5 has more than 30 "active" terrorist cells under observation.
On the plus side with the British, the Prime Minister Gordon Brown has plans to form a National Security Council modeled on ours in America.
This is part of Brown’s overhaul of the counter-terrorism work at Whitehall, giving the Prime Minister more control over Britain’s fight against terrorism –a country that has seen deep, pervasive infiltration by radical Islam.
MI5 is currently shadowing and bugging about 2,000 current Islamist extremist suspects. I heard that when I was in London recently and Jonathan Evans, the new director of MI 5 (who took the place of the wonderfully smart and able Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, who retired) confirmed it in a speech the other day. At any given time, MI 5 has more than 30 "active" terrorist cells under observation.
I just get a kick out of Krauthammer
Everytime I look at him I can't help it. 
The picture that comes to mind is the german in the wheel chair in Dr Strangelove. Now does that make me a sick bastard, or just someone with a slanted view of things? What really drives it home is I love the logic of both them.
Reviled and Isolated Abroad?
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- When the Democratic presidential candidates pause from beating Hillary with a stick, they join in unison to pronounce the Democratic pieties, chief among which is that George Bush has left our alliances in ruins. As Clinton puts it, we have "alienated our friends," must "rebuild our alliances" and "restore our standing in the world." That's mild. The others describe Bush as having a scorched-earth foreign policy that has left us reviled and isolated in the world.
Like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who insist that nothing of significance has changed in Iraq, the Democrats are living in what Bob Woodward would call a state of denial. Do they not notice anything?
France has a new president who is breaking not just with the anti-Americanism of the Chirac era but with 50 years of Fifth Republic orthodoxy that defined French greatness as operating in counterpoise to America. Nicolas Sarkozy's trip last week to the United States was marked by a highly successful White House visit and a rousing speech to Congress in which he not only called America "the greatest nation in the world" (how many leaders of any country say that about another?) but pledged solidarity with the U.S. on Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Middle East and nuclear nonproliferation. This just a few months after he sent his foreign minister to Iraq to signal an openness to cooperation and an end to Chirac's reflexive obstructionism.
That's France. In Germany, Gerhard Schroeder is long gone, voted out of office and into a cozy retirement as Putin's concubine at Gazprom. His successor is the decidedly pro-American Angela Merkel, who concluded an unusually warm visit with Bush this week.
All this, beyond the ken of Democrats, is duly noted by new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who in an interview with Sky News on Sunday noted "the great change that is taking place," namely "that France and Germany and the European Union are also moving more closely with America."
As for our other traditional alliances, relations with Australia are very close, and Canada has shown remarkable steadfastness in taking disproportionate casualties in supporting the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Eastern European nations, traditionally friendly, are taking considerable risks on behalf of their U.S. alliance -- for example, cooperating with us on missile defense in the face of enormous Russian pressure. And ties with Japan have never been stronger, with Tokyo increasingly undertaking military and quasi-military obligations that it had forsworn for the last half-century.
So much for the disarray of our alliances.
The critics will say that all this is simply attributable to the rise of Russia and China causing old allies to turn back to us out of need.
So? I would even add that the looming prospect of a nuclear Iran has caused Arab states -- Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, even Libya -- to rally to us. All true. And it makes the point that the Bush critics have missed for years -- that the strength of alliances is heavily dependent on the objective balance of international forces, and has very little to do with the syntax of the U.S. president or the disdain in which he might be held by a country's cultural elites.
It's classic balance-of-power theory: Weaker nations turn to the great outside power to help them balance a rising regional threat. Allies are not sentimental about their associations. It is not a matter of affection, but of need -- and of the great power's ability to deliver.
What's changed in the last year? Bush's dress and diction remain the same. But he did change generals -- and counterinsurgency strategy -- in Iraq. As a result, Iraq has gone from an apparently lost cause to a winnable one.
The rise of external threats to our allies has concentrated their minds on the need for the American connection. The revival of American fortunes in Iraq -- and the diminished prospect of an American rout -- have significantly increased the value of such a connection. This is particularly true among our moderate Arab allies who see us as their ultimate protection against an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis that openly threatens them all.
It's always uncomfortable for a small power to rely on a hegemon. But a hegemon on the run is even worse. Alliances are always shifting. But one thing we can say with certainty: The event that will have more effect than any other on the strength of our alliances worldwide is not another Karen Hughes outreach to the Muslim world, not an ostentatious embrace of Kyoto, or even the most abject embrace of internationalism from the podium of the UN. It is success or failure in Iraq.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Politics
The picture that comes to mind is the german in the wheel chair in Dr Strangelove. Now does that make me a sick bastard, or just someone with a slanted view of things? What really drives it home is I love the logic of both them.Reviled and Isolated Abroad?
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- When the Democratic presidential candidates pause from beating Hillary with a stick, they join in unison to pronounce the Democratic pieties, chief among which is that George Bush has left our alliances in ruins. As Clinton puts it, we have "alienated our friends," must "rebuild our alliances" and "restore our standing in the world." That's mild. The others describe Bush as having a scorched-earth foreign policy that has left us reviled and isolated in the world.
Like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who insist that nothing of significance has changed in Iraq, the Democrats are living in what Bob Woodward would call a state of denial. Do they not notice anything?
France has a new president who is breaking not just with the anti-Americanism of the Chirac era but with 50 years of Fifth Republic orthodoxy that defined French greatness as operating in counterpoise to America. Nicolas Sarkozy's trip last week to the United States was marked by a highly successful White House visit and a rousing speech to Congress in which he not only called America "the greatest nation in the world" (how many leaders of any country say that about another?) but pledged solidarity with the U.S. on Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Middle East and nuclear nonproliferation. This just a few months after he sent his foreign minister to Iraq to signal an openness to cooperation and an end to Chirac's reflexive obstructionism.
That's France. In Germany, Gerhard Schroeder is long gone, voted out of office and into a cozy retirement as Putin's concubine at Gazprom. His successor is the decidedly pro-American Angela Merkel, who concluded an unusually warm visit with Bush this week.
All this, beyond the ken of Democrats, is duly noted by new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who in an interview with Sky News on Sunday noted "the great change that is taking place," namely "that France and Germany and the European Union are also moving more closely with America."
As for our other traditional alliances, relations with Australia are very close, and Canada has shown remarkable steadfastness in taking disproportionate casualties in supporting the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Eastern European nations, traditionally friendly, are taking considerable risks on behalf of their U.S. alliance -- for example, cooperating with us on missile defense in the face of enormous Russian pressure. And ties with Japan have never been stronger, with Tokyo increasingly undertaking military and quasi-military obligations that it had forsworn for the last half-century.
So much for the disarray of our alliances.
The critics will say that all this is simply attributable to the rise of Russia and China causing old allies to turn back to us out of need.
So? I would even add that the looming prospect of a nuclear Iran has caused Arab states -- Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, even Libya -- to rally to us. All true. And it makes the point that the Bush critics have missed for years -- that the strength of alliances is heavily dependent on the objective balance of international forces, and has very little to do with the syntax of the U.S. president or the disdain in which he might be held by a country's cultural elites.
It's classic balance-of-power theory: Weaker nations turn to the great outside power to help them balance a rising regional threat. Allies are not sentimental about their associations. It is not a matter of affection, but of need -- and of the great power's ability to deliver.
What's changed in the last year? Bush's dress and diction remain the same. But he did change generals -- and counterinsurgency strategy -- in Iraq. As a result, Iraq has gone from an apparently lost cause to a winnable one.
The rise of external threats to our allies has concentrated their minds on the need for the American connection. The revival of American fortunes in Iraq -- and the diminished prospect of an American rout -- have significantly increased the value of such a connection. This is particularly true among our moderate Arab allies who see us as their ultimate protection against an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis that openly threatens them all.
It's always uncomfortable for a small power to rely on a hegemon. But a hegemon on the run is even worse. Alliances are always shifting. But one thing we can say with certainty: The event that will have more effect than any other on the strength of our alliances worldwide is not another Karen Hughes outreach to the Muslim world, not an ostentatious embrace of Kyoto, or even the most abject embrace of internationalism from the podium of the UN. It is success or failure in Iraq.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Politics
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The Greatist Video I've ever seen!
Thank You Lizzie Palmer for making it, and thank you Jammiewearingfool for sharing
Don't Forget to stop my theme or wait till it ends...
Dick Armey Speaks Out on Republicans...
I am not a fan of Dick Armey, but he has called this one correctly.
Why I Think Hillary Will Win 
The former House Majority Leader looks at the issues debate in the presidential campaign.
If the 2008 presidential election were held today, Hillary Rodham Clinton would win.
Hillary’s minor stumbles in last week’s debate notwithstanding, she is simply running the most disciplined and effective campaign. She’s one of the most able politicians in America, and no one should underestimate her desire to be President and her calculating focus.
What you need to understand is that Hillary Clinton is, quite simply, craftier and more aggressive than the rest of the field. I know this firsthand, having battled with the Clinton Administration throughout the 1990’s while serving as a leader in Congress.
She’s only gotten tougher since then.
Early on, there were many fights, but one of the most important was over Hillary Clinton’s 1993 plan to expand government control of the health-care system. We were lucky to stop it, and we did so by standing our ground on the principle of putting patients ahead of bureaucracies. But now she’s back, and the health-care issue is a perfect example of the way she’s learned on the job and evolved her tactics.
Her latest health-care plan is more of the same stuff—greater federal control of our lives—but this time she’s presenting it in a way that is far more politically savvy. She leaves open questions of funding and enforcement, and is actively working to buy off the groups who opposed her plan in 1993.
Hillary Clinton and her agenda are not going to fade away. She is relentless and determined. Once she resolves a course of action in her mind, she is not going to be wishy-washy. The other candidates, and the rest of the world, will quickly learn that Hillary Clinton means business.
No doubt, Hillary Clinton has the Democrat primary all wrapped up. A couple of one-term senators are simply no match for the political machine she and her husband have built. I won’t go so far as to say that it’s not possible for a Republican to defeat her in the general election. But as things stand today, the GOP has a very real set of problems that are larger than any of the party’s candidates.
First and foremost, the Republican brand as effective stewards of the taxpayer dollar is in tatters, and the shredding doesn’t look to stop any time soon. Just yesterday, 138 House Republicans joined the Democrats in voting to override the president’s veto of a wasteful and pork-ridden Water Resources bill. That vote was a shameful display of personal politics over the national interest, and it contains the seeds of destruction of whatever conservative principles remain in the Republican party.
The callow accommodation to big-spending Democrats in Congress is one of the ways the Republican party will return itself to the days of serving as a compliant, permanent minority. Happy for table scraps, elected Republicans will simply abandon the ideas of their party in order to “get along”.
No wonder Americans prefer Democrats on the economy, taxes, and spending issues, according to recent polling data. When the choice is between Democrats, and the Democrat-lite ideas the GOP has become so comfortable offering, the Democrats will win every time.
The only way the Republican party will beat Hillary Clinton is to return to its limited-government roots. That’s the only way to rebuild a majority coalition.
For example, today religious conservatives are confused, disillusioned, and somewhat fractured. Too many of the current crop of self-appointed social conservative leaders have embraced an agenda that splits the GOP coalition. Big government ideas— runaway spending on “conservative” social programs, social engineering in the tax code, and greater government intervention into Americans’ personal lives—are the wrong path. This pandering has hurt the GOP in swing states, especially in the Mountain West and Great Lakes states.
To counter Hillary Clinton’s perfectly oiled political machine, Republicans need to return to their Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan roots. They need to present an alternative vision for America—a positive vision that limits government and trusts individuals and leaves families, churches, and businesses free to make their own decisions, and not have bureaucrats and politicians calling the shots.
Right now, the country is headed toward a date with Hillary Clinton, and big government is on the agenda. The only way to change that rendezvous is for candidates to offer a clear, principled, limited government alternative.
The former House Majority Leader looks at the issues debate in the presidential campaign.
If the 2008 presidential election were held today, Hillary Rodham Clinton would win.
Hillary’s minor stumbles in last week’s debate notwithstanding, she is simply running the most disciplined and effective campaign. She’s one of the most able politicians in America, and no one should underestimate her desire to be President and her calculating focus.
What you need to understand is that Hillary Clinton is, quite simply, craftier and more aggressive than the rest of the field. I know this firsthand, having battled with the Clinton Administration throughout the 1990’s while serving as a leader in Congress.
She’s only gotten tougher since then.
Early on, there were many fights, but one of the most important was over Hillary Clinton’s 1993 plan to expand government control of the health-care system. We were lucky to stop it, and we did so by standing our ground on the principle of putting patients ahead of bureaucracies. But now she’s back, and the health-care issue is a perfect example of the way she’s learned on the job and evolved her tactics.
Her latest health-care plan is more of the same stuff—greater federal control of our lives—but this time she’s presenting it in a way that is far more politically savvy. She leaves open questions of funding and enforcement, and is actively working to buy off the groups who opposed her plan in 1993.
Hillary Clinton and her agenda are not going to fade away. She is relentless and determined. Once she resolves a course of action in her mind, she is not going to be wishy-washy. The other candidates, and the rest of the world, will quickly learn that Hillary Clinton means business.
No doubt, Hillary Clinton has the Democrat primary all wrapped up. A couple of one-term senators are simply no match for the political machine she and her husband have built. I won’t go so far as to say that it’s not possible for a Republican to defeat her in the general election. But as things stand today, the GOP has a very real set of problems that are larger than any of the party’s candidates.
First and foremost, the Republican brand as effective stewards of the taxpayer dollar is in tatters, and the shredding doesn’t look to stop any time soon. Just yesterday, 138 House Republicans joined the Democrats in voting to override the president’s veto of a wasteful and pork-ridden Water Resources bill. That vote was a shameful display of personal politics over the national interest, and it contains the seeds of destruction of whatever conservative principles remain in the Republican party.
The callow accommodation to big-spending Democrats in Congress is one of the ways the Republican party will return itself to the days of serving as a compliant, permanent minority. Happy for table scraps, elected Republicans will simply abandon the ideas of their party in order to “get along”.
No wonder Americans prefer Democrats on the economy, taxes, and spending issues, according to recent polling data. When the choice is between Democrats, and the Democrat-lite ideas the GOP has become so comfortable offering, the Democrats will win every time.
The only way the Republican party will beat Hillary Clinton is to return to its limited-government roots. That’s the only way to rebuild a majority coalition.
For example, today religious conservatives are confused, disillusioned, and somewhat fractured. Too many of the current crop of self-appointed social conservative leaders have embraced an agenda that splits the GOP coalition. Big government ideas— runaway spending on “conservative” social programs, social engineering in the tax code, and greater government intervention into Americans’ personal lives—are the wrong path. This pandering has hurt the GOP in swing states, especially in the Mountain West and Great Lakes states.
To counter Hillary Clinton’s perfectly oiled political machine, Republicans need to return to their Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan roots. They need to present an alternative vision for America—a positive vision that limits government and trusts individuals and leaves families, churches, and businesses free to make their own decisions, and not have bureaucrats and politicians calling the shots.
Right now, the country is headed toward a date with Hillary Clinton, and big government is on the agenda. The only way to change that rendezvous is for candidates to offer a clear, principled, limited government alternative.
Republicans
Monday, November 12, 2007
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Just the Facts
This year Islam and Judaism's holiest holidays overlapped for 10 days.Muslims racked up 397 dead bodies in 94 terror attacks across 10 countries during this time... while Jews worked on their 159th Nobel Prize.
A Feminazi that Gets It!
MY TURN: Islamo-facism and the death of feminism
Published: Tuesday, November 6, 2007
By Julie Bushey Trevor
In my lifetime I have witnessed the bravery of countless women who have risen to the challenge of ending the oppression of women worldwide. It is puzzling to me why at this time in our history, when women in this country in particular have made tremendous gains in their own status, they have willingly stalled their work toward freedom for certain women; especially the violent oppression of the Women in Islam.
To be sure, the overwhelming majority of Muslims practice their faith while living in democracies, following man-made laws and treating everyone with the dignity and respect due any human being. There are however, those that do not.
Islamo-facism is a term originally used by moderate Muslims both in Iran and Algeria in the 1970s (and still used today) to describe the efforts by radical Muslim (clerics) to thwart efforts toward equality, moderation, democracy and freedom of religion.
Islamo-facists insist in a fundamental Islamic ideology where men and women are not equal; women are considered physically, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually and morally inferior to men. Public facilities therefore are separate (and often inferior) for women; a "gender apartheid" as many call it.
All democracies and laws of the land governing people are opposed by Islamo-facists because they are laws of man, not God. Islamo-facists believe only God's law (Sharia) is to be obeyed. They believe they are advancing women's rights by "protecting" them from the kind of harassment and violence imposed by Americans and other western cultures.
Some Hollywood types have compared Islamo-facists with the Christian Right. Such a comparison is dreadfully uninformed. Nowhere does Christ call us to beat, rape, mutilate the genitals, honor-kill and especially remove the free will of women, homosexuals, Jews or any non-Christian. Christ called his disciples to do his work through prayer, alms-giving, good works and teaching (peaceful proselytizing).
To be sure, there are people in our history and today who use the good name of Christ to advance a violent cause or to insist on adherence to a biblical teaching. We prosecute those people and fortunately they are rare. Islamo-facists ideology and their terror methods are not rare and they are pervasive.
It is very easy to look at the plight of Muslim women worldwide through our privileged eyes and not respond out of "sensitivity" to the Muslim culture. If we do not work to ensure the universal application of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, we become trapped by the concept that all cultures are equal and cannot be criticized. Who loses? Women first, then the rest of the civilized world.
It is not imperialistic or disrespectful to condemn the violent oppression of the women of Islam. It is a moral imperativeespecially for anyone, feminists in particular who say they care about women. I believe that if we work together, the words of Maryam Rajavi, an Iranian "freedom fighter" will come true:
"I do believe that a woman's emancipation begins the moment she breaks this spell and believes that rebellion and resistance against tyranny are her inalienable rights. It is from this moment that no power in the world can prevent the liberation of a woman who has decided to be free."
In America, we know this liberation; let's not withhold it from our Muslim sisters.
Julie Bushey Trevor lives in Stowe.
Published: Tuesday, November 6, 2007
By Julie Bushey Trevor
In my lifetime I have witnessed the bravery of countless women who have risen to the challenge of ending the oppression of women worldwide. It is puzzling to me why at this time in our history, when women in this country in particular have made tremendous gains in their own status, they have willingly stalled their work toward freedom for certain women; especially the violent oppression of the Women in Islam.
To be sure, the overwhelming majority of Muslims practice their faith while living in democracies, following man-made laws and treating everyone with the dignity and respect due any human being. There are however, those that do not.
Islamo-facism is a term originally used by moderate Muslims both in Iran and Algeria in the 1970s (and still used today) to describe the efforts by radical Muslim (clerics) to thwart efforts toward equality, moderation, democracy and freedom of religion.
Islamo-facists insist in a fundamental Islamic ideology where men and women are not equal; women are considered physically, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually and morally inferior to men. Public facilities therefore are separate (and often inferior) for women; a "gender apartheid" as many call it.
All democracies and laws of the land governing people are opposed by Islamo-facists because they are laws of man, not God. Islamo-facists believe only God's law (Sharia) is to be obeyed. They believe they are advancing women's rights by "protecting" them from the kind of harassment and violence imposed by Americans and other western cultures.
Some Hollywood types have compared Islamo-facists with the Christian Right. Such a comparison is dreadfully uninformed. Nowhere does Christ call us to beat, rape, mutilate the genitals, honor-kill and especially remove the free will of women, homosexuals, Jews or any non-Christian. Christ called his disciples to do his work through prayer, alms-giving, good works and teaching (peaceful proselytizing).
To be sure, there are people in our history and today who use the good name of Christ to advance a violent cause or to insist on adherence to a biblical teaching. We prosecute those people and fortunately they are rare. Islamo-facists ideology and their terror methods are not rare and they are pervasive.
It is very easy to look at the plight of Muslim women worldwide through our privileged eyes and not respond out of "sensitivity" to the Muslim culture. If we do not work to ensure the universal application of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, we become trapped by the concept that all cultures are equal and cannot be criticized. Who loses? Women first, then the rest of the civilized world.
It is not imperialistic or disrespectful to condemn the violent oppression of the women of Islam. It is a moral imperativeespecially for anyone, feminists in particular who say they care about women. I believe that if we work together, the words of Maryam Rajavi, an Iranian "freedom fighter" will come true:
"I do believe that a woman's emancipation begins the moment she breaks this spell and believes that rebellion and resistance against tyranny are her inalienable rights. It is from this moment that no power in the world can prevent the liberation of a woman who has decided to be free."
In America, we know this liberation; let's not withhold it from our Muslim sisters.
Julie Bushey Trevor lives in Stowe.
Islam
Feminism
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Here's an Anniversary Celebration our Press seems to have Missed!
Iranians mark anniversary of takeover 
Sun. 04 Nov 2007
The Associated Press
By NASSER KARIMI
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Thousands of Iranians nationwide demonstrated Sunday to celebrate the 28th anniversary of the takeover of the U.S. Embassy by militant students, state television reported.
Demonstrators in the capital, Tehran, including elementary school students, gathered outside the former U.S. Embassy, chanting anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli slogans. They burned the two countries' flags and warned Washington to learn from the hostile incident.
The takeover, which occurred during Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, severely damaged relations between the two countries. The 52 Americans who were held hostage during the crisis were returned after 444 days, but the U.S. cut off diplomatic ties with Iran to protest the incident.
State television showed video footage of the takeover Sunday and images of the Americans who had been held hostage.
Current relations between the two countries continue to be incredibly tense, with the U.S. accusing Iran of covertly developing nuclear weapons and supporting Shiite militias in Iraq — charges Tehran denies.
"The U.S. has designed a triangle of military, cultural and economic threats against the Iranian nation," Mostafa Pourmohammadi, Iran's interior minister, said during Sunday's demonstration, which happens every year on Nov. 4.
The Iranian official dismissed a new set of unilateral sanctions against Iran that Washington announced recently.
"The Americans threaten once and give in ten times because they know that the Iranian nation is greater and more stable than the threats," said Pourmohammadi.
The U.S. is pushing for a new round of U.N. Security Council sanctions to force Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, which can produce fuel for a nuclear reactor or fissile material for a bomb. Two previous sets of U.N. sanctions have failed to persuade Iran to alter its behavior.
Iran
Hostages
Sun. 04 Nov 2007
The Associated Press
By NASSER KARIMI
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Thousands of Iranians nationwide demonstrated Sunday to celebrate the 28th anniversary of the takeover of the U.S. Embassy by militant students, state television reported.
Demonstrators in the capital, Tehran, including elementary school students, gathered outside the former U.S. Embassy, chanting anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli slogans. They burned the two countries' flags and warned Washington to learn from the hostile incident.
The takeover, which occurred during Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, severely damaged relations between the two countries. The 52 Americans who were held hostage during the crisis were returned after 444 days, but the U.S. cut off diplomatic ties with Iran to protest the incident.
State television showed video footage of the takeover Sunday and images of the Americans who had been held hostage.
Current relations between the two countries continue to be incredibly tense, with the U.S. accusing Iran of covertly developing nuclear weapons and supporting Shiite militias in Iraq — charges Tehran denies.
"The U.S. has designed a triangle of military, cultural and economic threats against the Iranian nation," Mostafa Pourmohammadi, Iran's interior minister, said during Sunday's demonstration, which happens every year on Nov. 4.
The Iranian official dismissed a new set of unilateral sanctions against Iran that Washington announced recently.
"The Americans threaten once and give in ten times because they know that the Iranian nation is greater and more stable than the threats," said Pourmohammadi.
The U.S. is pushing for a new round of U.N. Security Council sanctions to force Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, which can produce fuel for a nuclear reactor or fissile material for a bomb. Two previous sets of U.N. sanctions have failed to persuade Iran to alter its behavior.
Iran
Hostages
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)