Joe the Everyday American

Joe the plumber has become celebrity #1 in America. The guy who is working hard and trying to get ahead. The guy who wants his own part of the American dream. This is your Everyday American.

Joe, the new celebrity plumber, got a chance to ask Barack Obama the question that all of us would like to ask Obama: How are your tax plans going to hurt me?

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Joe the Everyday American got the answer we are looking for from Obama. It's good for everyone when "you spread the wealth around". Let's translate that. Obama's policies are going to take money out of my pocket and give it to someone else. No matter how much money you make - whether a lot or a little - it is not the government's responsibility to take it away and give it to someone else who did not earn it.

This off the cuff comment is right up there with Joe Biden's comment that paying taxes are patriotic. I'm not sure what dictionary Biden found his definition of "patriotism" in but it's not the same one that I keep on my bookshelf.

Working hard, being successful and hiring others to help grow your business are American values. Successful businesspeople hire others to work for them. Poor people do not start businesses and pay taxes. "Spreading the wealth" for the good of many is not an American value. In fact it ties nicely into another philosophy.

In a higher phase of communist society ... only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and society inscribe on its banners: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Thank you Karl Marx.

We finally have an insight into Obama and the Democratic Party's thought processes. It seems that it's more in line with Karl Marx than with mainstream American philosophy.

Obama and Voter Fraud

I came across a fascinating article this evening while looking around. Very worthwhile reading. Hillary Clinton supporters are reporting voter fraud and intimidation during the primaries. Investor's Business Daily is reporting that there are RICO charges possibly being filed against ACORN and asking the question of the hour: How much does Obama know about all this fraud and money?

I need to do some research, but it looks like something big is coming down the pipe. If I may - I hope it comes down really, really soon!

Peace, Love and Liberalism - UPDATED with video!

Today I entertained myself by taking up an invitation to help hand out John McCain fliers on the West Side of Manhattan. It was either doing that or doing laundry and handing out fliers sounded much more fun. And it was.

I got to the meeting spot and found that rather than handing out fliers, there's a bunch of McCain/Palin supporters who were marching along Columbus Avenue from 86th to 79th and back again. They are there with two or three large American flags and McCain signs. It was quite a turnout - 60 or 70 supporters.

Now the march itself was interesting. I had forgotten that on Columbus Avenue on certain weekends is a street fair made up of the different shops and merchants who come special for the occasion.

We're walking along and people are booing. Yes, actually booing. People gave thumbs down and more than a few actually gave us the middle finger. I was impressed and loved every minute of it. I hooted back and gave thumbs back up to them. The best stuff was when people came over to yell at us with the same emotion that most people should save in case we had tortured and killed their cat.

I will say that there were a few along the way that cheered us on. One of them came over to tell us that we were "brave". There were others who clapped and gave us the thumbs up.

Since McCain is only down by 5 percentage points in New York, it seems to me that there are a lot of supporters out there who are afraid to own up to being a conservative/Republican in this city. I can't say that I blame them -- in a "tolerant" city such as this I could see their perspective. However, the more people who own up to their ideology and show themselves to be unafraid of being heckled - even by wearing a McCain sticker on the way to the subway I was booed - it makes it easier for those more afraid to stand up and be counted.

What was funny to me is the use of attacks that are completely baseless. "Idiots" was one. "You should be ashamed of yourself" was another. "Idiots" was funny because I was walking alongside a medical doctor, a head in her field. I, myself, have a few degrees. We're no idiots. You may disagree with our ideas, but we're not idiots.

The lady who came up to me in an emotionally charged way who told me "I should be ashamed of myself" I asked her to stick to ideas and not tell me what I should feel. I asked another wonderful, tolerant person who misused his middle finger where his tolerance was. He had no sense of humor, neither did the other lady who I asked the same question.

I had a wonderful afternoon. I thoroughly enjoyed myself. For the liberals out there I must ask the same question, "where is the tolerance?" I was not feeling the love. Liberals on the whole (unless someone can prove me wrong, which I don't see it possible) are the most intolerant people out there. Rather than stick to ideas and good solid logic they would rather throw words out like "scary" and "evil" instead of proposing where the other party is wrong and discussing it. But then again, maybe they are incapable of that.

Today was certainly an educational day. I was on the train on my way home when a young fellow sitting there pointed to my McCain sticker and crossed his fingers. I smiled at him and nodded. Liberals have made this city a very unfriendly place for those who have a different point of view. And they call conservatives "scary"?

For video of my adventure click HERE. Let the "love and tolerance" of the open-minded New Yorkers wash over you.

You Sir, Are No John Kennedy

Throughout this election, there have been numerous comparisons between Senator Barack Obama and President John F. Kennedy. Everything from their young ages to how their wives dress themselves has been compared.

However, what is most important is experience when discussing the office of the president. We will very quickly see that there is nothing more than superficialities tying Obama and Kennedy together.

Both Barack Obama and John Kennedy were young when they began their respective careers. Both are “firsts”. John Kennedy was the first Catholic president. Barack Obama is the first black to be nominated by his party for the presidency. Both wives have good taste in clothing (which we all know is very important for the president to do his job properly).

Let’s get onto more important things… like experience. As executive experience goes - Barack Obama has a very thin resume. We know that he was a "community organizer" (whatever that means), and to top that off - not even a particularly good one either.

I'm getting ahead of myself. Reader's Digest (Sept. 2008) has interviews with both Obama and McCain. They introduce Obama with a comparison to John F. Kennedy.

Obama was never a governor, nor an executive. He did not serve in the armed forces or the House of Representatives. He worked in the private sector only briefly as a lawyer and was never a judge or a prosecutor. He wrote one highly acclaimed memoir, Dreams from My Father, and a bestseller, The Audacity of Hope, which is essentially a campaign book. He served for three years as a community organizer in Chicago, taught law school, served eight years in the Illinois state legislature, and ran for the Senate in 2004, winning against a fringe candidate from out of state.

That experience pales in comparison with John Kennedy's life before the presidency. JFK had written two books, as well, but was also a decorated naval officer in World War II, had served three terms in the House, and was in his second Senate term when he earned the 1960 nomination.

Obama has got nothing on JFK.

Instead of trying to strengthen his own presidential credentials legitimately, Obama made a trip around the world in an attempt to at least look presidential. He failed in this too.

Obama went to Berlin, Germany. His speech in Germany clarified his views on America. First of all, he should have given his speech in German since he is so embarrassed that Americans don't speak a second language. He was hoping to follow in the footsteps of President John Kennedy and President Ronald Reagan.

Since Obama knew that their shoes were too big to fill, he instead decided to introduce himself to the crowd there “not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.” He then finished his incoherent speech (following the sentence about the September 11th terrorists with another about the melting ice caps) with the wonderful American pride he is known to show.

I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.

He then goes on to try to explain that the United States tries hard and is an idealistic nation. [Nice try.]

This was a pitiful attempt by Candidate Obama to fill Presidential shoes. I heard a joke made at the time – “ordinary citizen” Barack Obama was walking by and happened to see a microphone so he decided to make a speech. Sure. That happens to me all the time, and I’m always followed around the world with anchors of the major television stations hanging on my every word.

What we also hear quite a bit about is Senator (143 days worth) Obama willingness to talk to our enemies, but he’s recently tried to wiggle his way out of his own words.

When asked by a reporter, Obama clarified his remarks made during a debate last summer that he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea "without precondition."

The Obama campaign has since added nuance to that position, particularly regarding meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Obama said Wednesday that he would be willing to meet with any leader if he thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States, but he said there is a difference between "meeting without preconditions and meeting without preparations."

I like that the Obama campaign has added “nuance”. What he wasn’t clear enough the first time? What’s so hard to understand?

When asked (back in September 2007) about whether Columbia University should have allowed Ahmadinejad to speak he said that,

…he would have denied Ahmadinejad the opportunity to speak at Columbia because the Iranian president has "other forums" available to him in New York, including his speech at the United Nations. Still, Obama continued to insist that as president, he would be willing to meet one-on-one with Ahmadinejad.

"Nothing's changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries," he said. “Listening to the views, even of those who we violently disagree with, that sends a signal to the world that we are going to turn the page on the failed diplomacy that the Bush administration has practiced for so long."

[This “failed diplomacy” has kept airplanes from slamming into buildings full of people who go to work every day, but never mind.]

Obama is obviously clueless about how foreign policy works. He has also been quoted saying the now famous line, "Diplomacy is not just talking with your friends, but talking to our enemies,"

Sounds like a good sound bite, but that’s all it is. Looking weak leads to disaster, and we have history to back that up. John Kennedy himself made an error with such thinking.

Kennedy first addressed the subject of a possible summit with the Soviet Union in the second Kennedy-Nixon debate. Unlike Obama, Kennedy expressly rejected a summit without preconditions.…Once in office, Kennedy more or less discarded his previously expressed conditions for a summit. In a letter written in February and secretly delivered to Khrushchev in March 1961, Kennedy expressed his willingness to meet Khrushchev "before too long" for an informal exchange of views. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Kennedy sensed that discussions without an agenda or prior agreement might be disadvantageous to the United States. He let the matter drop, but Khrushchev accepted the invitation on May 4. The meeting was to occur in Vienna late that spring.

Through a secret Washington encounter between Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Soviet intelligence agent Georgi Bolshakov the following week, the president sought to explore an acceptable compromise on nuclear testing in connection with ongoing negotiations in Geneva that might be finalized in Vienna. The compromise, however, would have to be depicted as originating from the Soviet side. In Jack Kennedy: Education of a Statesman movie-star biographer Barbara Leaming shows a finer sense of power politics than Barack Obama does. In his back-channel offer, she writes, Kennedy inadvertently conveyed to Khrushchev "that in the aftermath of Cuba he was nervous that Vienna be perceived as a success" and that "he was willing to deceive the American people, who, at his instigation, were to be told that the [compromise offer] had come from the Soviet negotiators rather than from him. In sum, he bared his vulnerabilities to an opponent well able to take advantage of them."

The parties reached no agreement on any set agenda or proposals prior to their meeting in Vienna on June 3 and 4. The meetings were therefore confined to the informal exchange of views referred to in Kennedy's February letter. By all accounts, including Kennedy's own, the meetings were a disaster. Khrushchev berated, belittled, and bullied Kennedy on subjects ranging from Communist ideology to the balance of power between the Soviet and Western blocs, to Laos, to "wars of national liberation," to nuclear testing. He threw down the gauntlet on Berlin in particular, all but threatening war.

"I never met a man like this," Kennedy subsequently commented to Time's Hugh Sidey. "[I] talked about how a nuclear exchange would kill 70 million people in ten minutes, and he just looked at me as if to say 'So what?'" In The Fifty-Year Wound, Cold War historian Derek Leebaert drily observes of Khrushchev in Vienna, "Having worked for Stalin had its uses."

Kennedy sought a brief final session with Khrushchev to clear the air regarding Berlin. In that final meeting at the Soviet embassy, however, Khrushchev bluntly told Kennedy, "It is up to the U.S. to decide whether there will be war or peace." Kennedy responded, "Then, Mr. Chairman, there will be war. It will be a cold winter." On this unhappy note the two leaders' only face-to-face meeting came to an end.

Immediately following the final session on June 4 Kennedy sat for a previously scheduled interview with New York Times columnist James Reston at the American embassy. Kennedy was reeling from his meetings with Khrushchev, famously describing the meetings as the "roughest thing in my life." Reston reported that Kennedy said just enough for Reston to conclude that Khrushchev "had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs" and that he had "decided that he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed." Kennedy said to Reston that Khrushchev had "just beat [the] hell out of me" and that he had presented Kennedy with a terrible problem: "If he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts, until we remove those ideas we won't get anywhere with him….”

The next two years were a disaster for President Kennedy. Khrushchev saw Kennedy as weak and took advantage of this perceived weakness. The next year saw the Cuban missile crisis. The following year saw the infamous Berlin Wall built.

There is a lot to be learned here. Even being perceived as “weak”, whether true or not, can be dangerous. Things are never as simple as “diplomacy is not just talking with your friends.” Kennedy was shocked by the idea that Khrushchev didn’t care about 70 million people being wiped out in a matter of minutes.

Obama has yet to notice that Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has numerous times called for the destruction of the State of Israel as well as the United States of America. This past June Ahmadinejad reiterated his call.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was speaking at a gathering of foreign guests marking this week's 19th anniversary of the death of Iran's late revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the official IRNA news agency said.

"You should know that the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime which has 60 years of plundering, aggression and crimes in its file has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene," he said.

Turning to the United States, Ahmadinejad said the era of decline and destruction of its "satanic power" had begun….He added: "The Zionist regime is in a total dead end and, God willing, this desire will soon be realized and the epitome of perversion will disappear off the face of the world."

The crowd chanted "Death to Israel" and "Death to America."

These are not easy times we live in. I know that President John Kennedy was an honorable man who served his country fighting those who wished to destroy the United States and democracy along with it. The Nazis who systematically murdered millions of Jews with no mercy along with many more millions.

I know that he attempted to keep millions of more lives safe by going to speak with Khrushchev. Kennedy did not understand that there are foreign leaders who do not care or even consider important the lives of their citizens. Khrushchev was one of those.

Achmadinejad and Hezballah (the Iranian proxy) and the suicide bombers who he supports are all perfectly willing to give up their lives in order to murder others are more examples of those who don’t care about their own lives, never mind anyone else’s.

Americans (presidents included) believe that everyone is like us. Everyone wants to do good for others. Everyone believes that life is sacred. It is absolutely not true. Respect for life is not a universal belief. It is a Judeo-Christian concept. It does us no good to believe otherwise.

President Kennedy was a good man. He served this country honorably and had a service record to show for it. Kennedy also served in the Congress – both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate before running for President. And even with all this experience, until he met Khrushchev, he made the fundamental mistake of believing that others believe in the same sacred beliefs that Americans do.

Senator Obama is no doubt also a good man. I do not doubt that he cares about this country’s future. I do doubt that he has any experience to back up his ideas. I do doubt that he understands the seriousness of the situation that we as a country find ourselves in today. The words “Islamic terror” were not buzzwords at the Democratic convention. As a result of not understanding any of this and wanting to look “reasonable” by wanting to talk to our enemies, Obama comes off very weak and puts the United States in danger as well as our allies.

Obama does not have the experience that Kennedy had. Obama does not have the service record that Kennedy had. Obama does not have the political service record that Kennedy had. He has no real legislation from his time in the Illinois state legislature. Instead he points to his time as a community organizer. Obama has nothing on Kennedy.

In other words… You Sir, Are No John Kennedy.

Sarah Palin! A Great Choice for McCain!

I've been worried about who Senator McCain was going to pick for his Vice Presidential choice but now I'm breathing easier. Governor Sarah Palin is a wonderful pick. She is middle America. Child of a school teacher and school secretary. Mother of five kids. Just celebrated her 20th wedding anniversary to a fisherman/worker on the oil fields. A normal American we can relate to. Not someone who went to a fancy school or has a lot of money. And to top it all off Palin's oldest son is headed off to Iraq.

I'm impressed.

The Republicans Found Their Backbone!

It's time to celebrate! For all of us Republicans we have been waiting and waiting for our Representatives in Congress to work for us. Today we have finally seen what can be done when the right thing happens.

To begin with - the House of Representatives was adjourned by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) for the summer and refused to let Congress vote on legislation "to increase American-made energy and lower gas prices". House Republicans continued to give their speeches to try and find a way to make things easier for Americans to afford their gasoline going into their tanks. Speaker Pelosi went so far as to turn off the lights, cameras and microphones in the House.

Members participating in the spontaneous uprising included Reps. Roy Blunt, John Boehner, Michael Burgess, John Campbell, Eric Cantor, Shelly Moore Capito, John Carter, Mike Conaway, John Culberson, Charlie Dent, Jeff Fortenberry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Pete Hoekstra, Duncan Hunter, Thaddeus McCotter, Mike Pence, Tom Price, Ted Poe, Adam Putnam, Bill Sali, John Shadegg, John Shimkus, Tim Walberg, and Lynn Westmoreland.



The Republicans decided to stay put to deal with the energy crisis after they'd given Pelosi a letter asking Pelosi to keep the House in session to deal with the problem. The letter noted:



“With American families and small businesses facing record high gasoline prices, Congress has adjourned to leave Washington for a five-week break. The message this sends to the American people is bad enough; its ramifications, however, are far worse. You have the power to call Congress back into session at any moment to deal with issues of urgent national importance…”



“Congress should not take the next five weeks off while the American people suffer at the pump. We respectfully request that you schedule a vote on the comprehensive American Energy Act during an emergency legislative session this month."



Next is the newest advertisement put out by the McCain campaign. It's brilliant. It finally attacks Barack Obama in his own words as the new "messiah"- the one who has been sent to "save" the country. Let's see how long it takes the Democrats to flip out.

I'm finally excited about the Republican Party again. I've been waiting so long to see the Party finally find their backbone. It may or may not be a one-time event, but I'm excited. Here we go!

Happy 4th of July!

G-d Bless America! 232 years of freedom and democracy!

G-d Bless America! The only country established based on principles and ideals. The grand idea that the individual is endowed with unalienable rights given by a Creator, not by government. The government's only job is to provide the citizen with safety and to allow the citizen to pursue their dreams without the interference of government.

G-d Bless America! Home of the free because of the brave. Today we salute our men and women of the Armed Forces who allow us to continue living our day to day lives without concern or worry of dangers which are lurking.

232 years of not only securing the United States, but freeing millions of others who have been oppressed and murdered by their own governments. The world wars fought in Europe did not necessarily require involvement by America, but as a symbol of freedom and democracy, we involved ourselves and spilled our blood for the sake of others. The destructive forces of Communism robbed those in its grasp of their self-worth, their creative forces, their freedom to worship and the ability to build themselves to be more than what the government allowed them. Freedom and democracy is not only an ideal for ourselves but an ideal for all.

G-d Bless America! The experiment has been successful so far. However, we must keep watch that government is kept limited and out of our pocketbooks, while keeping our borders safe and secure. We must realize that what power government has, and keeps taking - will not be given up easily. Government is not to be a parent, telling citizens how to live and what is best for them.

As American citizens we must be watchful and concerned by world events. We must stay strong against our enemies. We must also take the opportunities that arise and bring these unalienable rights granted us by our Creator to others around the world who have been unable to access them.

As American citizens we should be proud to say:

I pledge allegiance to the flag

of the United States of America

and to the republic for which it stands;

one nation under G-d, indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all.

Time to Buy Danish!

It's getting awfully hard to buy merchandise these days if you buy politically. The Middle East is out of the picture (with their hatred of all that is right and good). China is also out of the picture because of unfair trade practice toward the United States. Unfortunatly, buying American is almost impossible.

Today we, political buyers, have something to celebrate. The Danish. Besides for being good to the Jews during World War II, they have decided to put it all on the line for free speech. 17 Danish newspapers are reprinting the "controvertial" Mohammed cartoon that "sparked" the Muslim riots around the world in 2006.

This is what is being reported:

At least 17 Danish newspapers printed a controversial cartoon of Prophet Mohammed Wednesday, vowing to defend freedom of expression a day after police foiled a murder plot against the cartoonist.

Three of the country's biggest dailies were among those that published the cartoon, which featured the prophet's head with a turban that looked like a bomb with a lit fuse.

The caricature was one of 12 cartoons published in September 2005 by the Jyllands-Posten daily which sparked violent protests in a number of Muslim countries in January and February 2006.

What is fascinating is that if you read carefully - it took from September 2005 when the cartoons were originally published to January and February 2006 when the riots actually began. It took 5 months for the Muslim world to finally get insulted. And when Muslims get insulted we get predictable results.

When the Danish newspapers reprinted the original cartoon (one newspaper printed all twelve), the Muslim community in Denmark had this to say:

Imam Walid Abdul Pedersen, a Protestant who converted to Islam, said: "It's not a good idea to reproduce it and the newspapers could have defended the cartoonist differently, without resorting to provocation."

"It's good to have a dialogue on freedom of expression, but you shouldn't seek out a confrontation from the start," he said.

He said it was possible the reprinting could prompt "negative reactions abroad."

Why do Muslim always have to hint to the threat of violence?

The words: "provocation", "confrontation" and "negative reactions" are all directed toward the newspapers.

Muslims around the world have to clean their own home before getting "insulted" by the world around them. Stop the terrorists in their midst. Stop producing childrens shows that show Jews and the United States as murderers. Stop threatening those who "insult" you. And stop threatening the rest of the world with destruction. That's what needs to happen.

In the meantime, while we wait for the Muslim community to get it's act together, we can support the Danish for standing up and doing the right thing for Western Civilization. Look for the "Made in Denmark" label and buy their products.

John McCain's Attack on the 1st Amendment

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

John McCain will be unable to honestly take this oath of office. As we've seen through his passage of McCain-Feingold and his attacks on 1st Amendment rights he is incapable to say the words "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" without chocking.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Let's begin with his attack on the 1st Amendment with McCain-Feingold.

Dissenting Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia called it “a sad day for freedom of speech.” And so it was, because the Court’s decision upholding the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform presages more assaults on our First Amendment rights.

Let’s be clear about what a slim majority of the nation’s highest tribunal approved: The Constitution says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” but Justices Stevens, O’Connor, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer say Congress can legally silence political speech expressed in TV “issue ads” beginning 60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary.

This is a huge blow to the 1st Amendment. 30-60 days before an election is just when the electorate is starting to pay attention to any issue. Beside for the fact that it has been established that monetary donations are considered "political speech". To limit political speech in any form is detrimental to our democratic system.

Whether we like these "issue ads" are not, they are necessary. Every voter out there has the right to hear about the candidate's position on a topic. These topics range from guns to health care to children's education from both sides of the aisle. In fact, this is not a Democrat or Republican issue... it is an American issue.

There are people who believe that "special interest" groups are bad news. This is a complete misunderstanding of the situation. For example: If I am an older American, while I may be retired, I do not have the time or energy to go to Washington DC to speak to my representative about issues that concern me. Instead I may decide to join the AARP, one of the largest "special interest" groups out there. I pay my annual fee - and they do the work for me. This holds true for all interest groups, no matter the issue.

Democracy is about individuals being involved in governmental affairs. We are no longer in ancient Athens, where Athenians themselves sat on a hill and voted on each issue themselves where it was a direct democracy. The United States is a republic, which means that we are a representative democracy. We send people to Washington to represent us whether as a Representative, Senator or President. In this same way, we send our other representatives - the "special interest" group of our choice to Washington as well.

McCain wants the American people to believe that "special interests" are bad for elections and politics in general. He doesn't doesn't blink an eye when confronted with the little "problem" of the Bill of Rights.

He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform....I know that money corrupts....I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government.

By limiting monies going into the electoral process by way of political advertisements he believes that the American citizen is stupid and incapable of making up their own mind about what is good for them. Certainly at the worst, he doesn't believe in upholding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

An important point of clarification here. The Bill of Rights does not bestow its rights on the American people. These rights are "inalienable" and given to us by G-d. The Bill of Rights codifies and protects these rights from government infringement. The concept of the Bill of Rights was seriously discussed during the Constitutional Convention Debates.

The first consideration that this review suggest, is the omission of a BILL OF RIGHTS, ascertaining and fundamentally establishing those "unalienable and personal rights of men, without the full, free, and secure enjoyment of which there can be no liberty, and over which it is not necessary for a good government to have the control.

Pennsylvania Minority Dec. 18, 1787 (Ketcham 247)

The freedom of press was of concern to a Pennsylvania anti-federalist "Centinel" when analyzing the Constitution before a Bill of Rights was included. We must take his words to heart.

The framers of it [the Constitution], actuated by the true spirit of such a government, which ever abominates and suppresses all free enquiry and discussion, have made no provision for the liberty of the press, that grand palladium of freedom, and scourge of tyrants; but observed a total silence on that head.

"Centinel" Number I Oct. 5, 1787 (Ketcham 236)

The 1st Amendment is not to be trifled with. It is one of the ten building blocks on which this country was founded. The Constitution would not have been accepted without the Bill of Rights.

No Democrat or Republican, or even John McCain has the right to trample of the first of these G-d given rights. These rights do not belong to the government to parcel out to whom they choose. And without a doubt it is certainly not theirs to decide who gets to watch what advertisements on television 30-60 days before an election.

Quotes for the Pennsylvania Minority and "Centinel" are taken from The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Conventional Debates, edited by Ralph Ketcham.

Barack Hussein Obama and the Jews

Barack Obama is a very well spoken Democratic candidate and certainly more interesting to listen to than Hillary Clinton. However, we have yet to really take a solid look at his record. We'll begin by looking at his position on Israel.

I didn't have to go digging to get any of my information. Google is the easiest way to go - put in "Barack Obama" and "Jews".

Looking back at Obama when he was back in Chicago we can start to get a feel for his politics. It's being reported by Ali Abumimah that Barack's position toward Israel has "evolved". While nowadays he's making AIPAC happy with his speeches, this was not always the case.

Abumimah has a first hand account.

Over the years since I first saw Obama speak I met him about half a dozen times, often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events in Chicago including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the keynote speaker. In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.

As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"

Abumimah goes on to lament that Obama has turned his back on the "Palestinian" issue in order to further his political ambitions.

This would be a good thing if this is where the story ended but it doesn't end here. Enter Nation of Islam.

Responding to criticism by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, Barack Obama declared his strong opposition to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan:

I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan.

Obama also went on to condemn his Church's award to Farrakhan and his minister's tight relationship with him.

But a former Obama insider says that Obama's sudden aversion to NOI and Farrakhan is belied by the fact that Obama employed and continues to employ several Farrakhan acolytes in high positions on his Illinois and U.S. Senate campaign and office staffs. I have verified that this person--who agreed to talk on the condition of anonymity--held a key position in the Obama campaign. The insider was so close to Senator Obama that they frequently personally discussed and exchanged direct e-mail messages on campaign and policy matters. This person is not connected with the Clintons and is not a disgruntled employee.

The insider says he frequently objected to Mr. Obama's placement of Cynthia K. Miller, a member of the Nation of Islam, as the Treasurer of his U.S. Senate campaign. When I contacted Miller, now a Chicago real estate agent, to verify whether she was a member of the Nation of Islam and whether she shared Louis Farrakhan's bigoted views about Jews, she responded, "None of your business! Where are you going with this?" She said her resignation as Obama's treasurer had nothing to do with her Nation of Islam ties. Then, she hung up.

The Obama insider says he also objected to Obama's involvement with Jennifer Mason, whom he says is also a member of the Nation of Islam. Mason is Obama's Director of Constituent Services in his U.S. Senate office and is also in charge of selecting Obama's Senate interns. She did not respond to repeated calls for comment.

But it's not just that he employed these individuals in positions of power in his office, it's that when the former associate raised objections, he says Mr. Obama's position was that he saw nothing wrong with the Nation of Islam and didn't think it was a problem. If true--and the fact that Ms. Mason still holds her prominent Obama Senate staff position bears that out--Obama's condemnation of Farrakhan, this month, is phony.

But the insider says there is more to it than that. Obama's Illinois State Senate district consisted of prime Nation of Islam territory, including Hyde Park, home to Farrakhan's mansion. It is not possible, Illinois politicos say, to win that district without the blessing of the NOI leader. NOI members, including consultant Shakir Muhammad, held important roles in the Obama state senate campaign.

How many Nation of Islam members will work in an Obama White House?

Then, there is the issue of Israel. When Obama first ran for the U.S. Senate, he gave militant responses to the Chicago Jewish News about Israel. Obama denounced Israel's fence--which he called a "wall" and "barrier to peace"--to keep out terrorists and favored working with Yasser Arafat. When members of the Chicago Jewish community circulated his responses, Obama said that the answers were not his positions, but the work of a low-level intern. He submitted new answers. But that was a lie, the insider says. In fact, they were the work of Obama's Policy Director, Audra Wilson. Moreover, Obama told the insider that he blamed the Mideast conflict on the Jews:

Barack told me that he felt that Jewish community was too inflexible, and that was why the situation in the Mideast could not be resolved.

More recently Obama told a French newspaper that if he were elected he would hold a summit of the Muslim world.

Muslim and Western leaders would be invited to the summit for "a discussion about how we can prevent the widening misunderstandings and gaps between the Muslim world and the West," Obama said in the interview to Paris Match.

"I will ask them to join us in battling terrorism but we should also be willing to listen in terms of some of their concerns," he said in the interview to be released Thursday.

Let's listen to their concerns. What might possibly be Muslim concerns? Jewish "intransigence"? "Palestinian" rights - right of return? What will happen with the Middle East peace process - will he press Israel to give up even more land? Even if he seems to be strong on Israel now - is this position the real Obama position? Or if he becomes president will he take the opportunity to press Israel into crazy concessions?

Another separate issue that I'd like to clarify is the issue of Obama's Muslim heritage. It seems to me that he is not a Muslim. He was raised as a Muslim when he was a child and did attend a madrassa. However, he does belong to an Afro-Centric church in Chicago called the Trinity United Church of Christ. Here is their mission statement.

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

I believe that Barack Obama is not a Muslim, but a Christian. This puts him in a sticky situation vis-a-vis his Muslim father and early childhood. A Muslim who leaves their faith is an apostate - someone who deserves death. A question might be asked about how it would be possible to negotiate with the Muslim world (no matter how sympathetic he may be) when those he's negotiating with believe him to be deserving of death.

First term Senator Obama has a lot to explain and clarify his position on Israel and the Middle East (especially when he wants to talk to Iran).

Argh! Not McCain!

I'm watching the Florida primary results come in. They've declared John McCain the winner. This is the first state with closed primaries, and the first time that McCain finally won a Republican-only primary (only by 5% over Mitt Romney). Up until now he's only really won based on the independent and Democratic vote.

The upcoming Super-Tuesday February 5th will be telling. Who will be voting for McCain? Republicans? Probably not... it'll be those Democrats and independents that propel him.

Fox News is talking about the possibility that Rudy Giuliani will pull out and throw his support behind McCain. This isn't a big surprise. While I like Rudy's foreign policies - he's a social liberal. McCain isn't strong on illegal immigration or lowering taxes. We also shouldn't forget McCain-Feingold... the limitations placed on the 1st Amendment.

At this point I must stand behind Mitt Romney, the last conservative still standing.

Predictions for Iowa

As of 6pm tonight...

Democrats:

I think that Obama is going to run away with the results. Nobody like Hillary on the Democratic side and don't agree with her policies. We'll see which candidates don't get the 15% required... and where they'll throw their support. I think those that don't make it (Richardson, Kucenich, Biden, Dodd) will be behind Obama.

Hillary will come in second place with Edwards in third place.

Republicans:

It's really close, but I'm calling Romney to come in first in front of Huckabee.

Huckabee will come in second place.

Thompson will come in third pretty far back.

Ahmidinejad at Columbia

I have two gripes that need to be discussed. The first is Columbia University, the supposed place of higher learning...whatever that means anymore. The second is the American People.

Yesterday Ahmidinejad spoke at Columbia University. Columbia University had extended a speaking invitation to him as part of a special speakers tour. What's the problem? Doesn't he have the right to free speech?

Sure, no problem. Free speech is one of the United States' precious rights. Let's extend it to murderers, Holocaust deniers and dictators. Let's get Charles Manson up on stage and have him explain how he thinks the world should work.

Let's take a moment to discuss Columbia and their determination to give "free speech" a chance. Repeat after me... The Minutemen? How about Walid Shoebat? And what are those initials again? Oh yes, ROTC.

What's that? You don't know what I'm talking about? The Minutemen are a group of unarmed volunteers who take time out of their lives to patrol the Mexican-American border to lend extra eyes to the U.S. Border Police. They were invited by the campus Republicans (that explains it) to speak. What happened? Students attending rushed the stage, started a riot and the speech never took place. Security is seen on video doing absolutely nothing to stop the insanity. President Lee Bolinger issued an apology after the fact. Did somebody say something about the importance of "free speech".

Next we look at Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist (now a born-again Christian), an invited speaker along with two other men. The others being a former terrorist and the third a former Nazi. This took place a week after the Minutemen riots. Only three and a quarter hours before he was supposed to speak, Columbia limited the amount of people allowed to attend the event. According to the campus Republicans (them again) approximately 125 people were not allowed into the lecture. Another 77 who had reserved tickets were disinvited. I'm loving that "free speech" thing!

ROTC. What's that? These initials stand for Reserve Officer Training Corps. This is one of the ways that the United States Military recruits on college campuses. ROTC is not allowed on Columbia University's campus. If a student is interested in ROTC they have to travel to another campus instead. Columbia was recently forced by the military to allow recruiting (the university takes Federal dollars), but the President of Columbia came out publically telling students not to interview. Why? Because of the military's policies on homosexuality. Why is 'don't ask, don't tell' a problem again? If someone is so desparate to share their sexuality...the military is not for them. There may be another line of work that suits them better. Rather, the privilege of serving your country in an honorable way is spit upon by the President.

But wait. President Bollinger was willing to have the President of Iran, his eminence, Mahmoud Ahmidinejad at his university in the name of "free speech". In that spirit, at the event, Bollinger went on to call Ahmidinejad a "petty and cruel dictator". I'm sure that our "petty and cruel" dictator was shaking in his boots. We showed him didn't we.

I'm confused. Did the students storm the stage not allowing our little dictator to speak? Did security stand around with their hands tied? How about limiting attendance a few hours before he was due to speak? What about not allowing our Hitler wannabe on campus - like ROTC. I love consistency.

This brings me to my second point. Why didn't the student storm the stage? Why didn't some of those who attended stand up in the middle of his rant and sing the Star Spangled Banner, or G-d Bless America?

Why are the crazy leftists the ones who are willing to make their point forcefully? There were hundreds of protesters at Columbia that day, I don't believe there was one arrest made. Why wasn't there a sit-in requiring police and security to make hundreds of arrests? Why weren't there police vans waiting to take people away?

There were no vans because they knew that conservatives and those who love the United States of America play by the rules. We don't make trouble. We respect authority.

Oh, I'm not supposed to block the sidewalk, no problem officer, I'll move.

Oh, I'm supposed to stand behind these barriers and blockades, no problem officer.

Oh, I have to be quiet and respectful to those people I disagree with, no problem officer.

Oh, we're supposed to give a known murderer and world renouned terrorist the right to step foot in our country... the right to visit Ground Zero... the right to speak at a "prestigious" university and the right to spit in our faces like the polite fools we are... no problem officer.

PM of Australia John Howard makes the Shira's 100

I'm adding Prime Minister John Howard to the Shira's 100 List of Influencial People. Not for his stance on gun control, but for his stance on the Islamic influence in his country and for his support of the Iraq War.

This is taken from an interview with Prime Minister Howard regarding a statement made by his Treasurer Peter Costello about Australian values, multiculturalism and Islam. This is only part of the interview. It's worth a read.

MITCHELL:

In our Sydney studio is the Prime Minister. Mr Howard good morning.

PRIME MINISTER:

Good morning.

MITCHELL:

Well the Islamic Friendship Association and others are very critical of the Treasurer, calling for you to censure him. Will you?

PRIME MINISTER:

No.

MITCHELL:

Why not?

PRIME MINISTER:

Because what he said was fundamentally accurate.

MITCHELL:

Could he have worded it better?

PRIME MINISTER:

Oh no. I mean everybody has their own way of expressing things and I'm not critical of the language he used in any way and the thrust of what he said, I think you'll appreciate, is very similar to remarks that I have made over a long period of time. Everyone knows that I don't use the word multiculturalism very much and the reason I don't use it very much is that is has been used in a very zealous, to use Peter's expression, mushy fashion by some over the years. To many people multiculturalism simply means that we are tolerant to people of different cultural backgrounds, now if that's all it means, then it's a fine concept. We are tolerant to people of different backgrounds but over the years at its zenith, the more zealous multiculturalism basically said that this country should be a federation of cultures. You can't have a nation with a federation of cultures. You can have a nation where a whole variety of cultures constantly influence and mould and change and blend in with the mainstream culture, but a nation that doesn't have a core culture and the core culture of this nation is very clear; we are an outshoot of western civilisation. Because we speak the English language our cultural identity is very heavily Anglo-Saxon. It doesn't mean that it isn't distinctively Australian, but you have to recognise that there is a core set of values in this country.

MITCHELL:

What are they? What are the core values? I mean I don't want Peter Costello deciding what my values should be.

PRIME MINISTER:

No, but as the Prime Minister or as the Treasurer we are expected to have views. You asked me what are they. I'm not trying to impose values on anybody.

MITCHELL:

No but isn't Mr Costello saying if you don't stick by our values get out? Now who decides what the values are?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well I think what Peter was basically saying is that if people don't like what this country is then they shouldn't come here. I think that's what he's really saying and I think that is an unexceptionable position to take. Now he's been attacked I think quite wrongly. He's not trying to stir up hostility to Islamic people any more than I was when I made some comments, incidentally three days before the Cronulla riots, I made some comments to the effect that there was a section of the Islamic community, because of its extreme views and it's rejection of the fundamentals of our society it posed a problem. And I also expressed concern about the attitude of some, I stress some, in the Islamic community towards women. Now I thought both of those statements were perfectly unexceptionable; they don't connote a disdain for all Muslims in Australia. We have what 300, 400,000 Islamic people in Australia, the overwhelming majority of them are as committed to this country as you are and I am and Peter Costello is. But that doesn't mean you can't identify areas of concern and I think the reaction of some in the Islamic community every time anything is said to the effect that ‘oh we're stirring up hostility' is quite unreasonable.

Shira's 100 List of People who Shape our World

I was just taking a gander at Time Magazine's The People Who Shape Our World. The subtitle that supposedly explains what they were thinking goes: Here's our list of the 100 men and women whose power, talent or moral example is transforming the world. Then it breaks down these people into five catagories.

Artists and Entertainers

Scientists and Thinkers

Leaders and Revolutionaries

Builders and Titans

Heroes and Pioneers

I was really amazed by who was included and who was left out. So I'm working on my own list. If there are any suggestions - please feel free to post.

Muslims Discriminate? No, of course not.

Check this out: Muslim cabbies in Minnesota (no surprises) do not want to be forced to pick up blind people with seeing eye dogs (dogs are bad), gays, or people carrying alchohol (don't want to help them sin - how nice of them).

Quite ridiculus. Get another job. Otherwise, doing illegal things like not picking up blind people is out of the question.

Gotta love this quote. "Abdifatah Abdi, who said he was speaking for an association of cabdrivers, said the commissioners "will be judged on your decision."You are deciding the livelihood of 600 drivers and their families," Abdi said. "Say no to discrimination. Say yes to justice for the weak."

About 100 people are denied cab service each month at the airport, many by drivers who refuse to transport alcohol in their cabs. Roughly three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers at the airport are Somali, many of them Muslims."

Say no to discrimination? Huh. We can discriminate against the blind and their dogs, gays and anyone carrying alchohol...but not against the Muslims who are discriminating themselves. Oh, and check out that threat -- the commissioners will be judged on their decision, how do you like them apples?

Keep on Talking!

At this rate, there won’t be any Democratic challengers left by the 2008 election. Give them enough rope to hang themselves and they will.

Back in November 2006, John Kerry was the first to destroy his Presidential plans, by botching a supposed joke about those serving in Iraq. “You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."

Of course the ensuing tumult resulted in one of the funniest responses and a classic photo that will be forever remembered.

These politicians get into the most trouble when they shoot off their mouth without checking public opinion polls or handlers first, then find themselves in hot water. If Kerry had remotely been interested in facts (which he never has been), the Heritage Foundation found that, “The high school graduation rate among recruits is higher than it is among the national youth population. While the active-duty enlisted ranks have fewer college graduates than the comparable civilian population, DOD annual updates on population representation indicate that many who join the military are taking advantage of educational opportunities while serving and that many others continue their education after completing their enlistment period.” The best part of all of this is that John Kerry is no longer running for president of the United States. Knock one off the list.

Next on the Democratic long list of presidential wannabes is Senator Joe Biden from Delaware. Biden also seems to forget to think before opening his mouth. While commenting about Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and his bid for the presidency, Biden said, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

While it is obvious what he meant, by using the word “clean” Biden effectively destroyed any chance he had to be nominated by his party. The best part of all of this is that Obama is not letting him off the hook either but focused on the “articulate” part of the comment. The statement put out by his office responded saying, "I didn't take Senator Biden's comments personally, but obviously they were historically inaccurate. African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns, and no one would call them inarticulate."

It also seems that Joe Biden is good at shoving his foot down his throat. In June 2006, C-SPAN caught him speaking to an Indian-American man, saying: "In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking." That went over really well too. I think we can knock him off the Dems list as well.

Moving right along we find Barack Obama. Besides the fact that he will not clarify the questions regarding his Muslim education in Indonesia, is the Kerry-like statement he made this week. “We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged and to which we have now spent $400 billion and has seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.”

It should be noted that without supporting the troop’s mission it is not possible to truly support the troops. When the mission is in doubt, then those soldiers really did die in vain – and that is what Obama was saying. Even this being the case, by coming out clearly and articulately stating that those soldier’s lives were wasted shows the American people that he is not presidential material. Say good-bye to Barack Hussein Obama.

It is still early in the Presidential race, but I think it is fair to say that we can knock three contenders off the list of those running. However, the bigger question is…who will be next?

Interview with Al-Jazeera

I found this interview with the Al-Jazeera Editor-in-Cheif Ahmed Sheikh on Little Green Footballs. The best part is where he blames Israel for hurting 350 million Arab egos...which results in tyranny and dictatorship in their own countries.

Clueless: The Day After

Clueless, almost like the movie...but not as funny. The day after midterm elections. The House of Representatives has been lost to the Democrats and by the time the recount is finished the Senate will be lost as well. Maybe we can take a morning after pill and make it all go away (those will be legal under the Dems I'm sure).

There are many reasons why the Republicans lost both houses. The main reason is that the Republican Party lost its base and the Democrats actually came out and voted. The conservative base had certain expectations that were not met by the party.

The main concern for both parties would seem to be the Iraq War. The Democrats are playing this as a repudiation of the entire invasion of Iraq and the entire War on Terror, divorcing that conflict from the War on Terror. What is truly dissappointing is not that the Democrats have lost their bearings (they lost that map a long time ago), but that the conservative base lost track of the big picture.

There is a War on Terror, this needs to be made clear. Opening shots of that War started many years ago - way before 9/11. The United States and the world at large has ignored it in the hopes that it would go away. It hasn't. Democracts would like to play the appeasement card - give them what they want, maybe they won't bother us anymore.

Let us take a moment to define terms. Who are "they"? "They" are those who want to destroy Western Civilization. "They" are those who believe they are the ones who should make the rules for the rest of us. "They" are the ones who believe that women have no right to an education or the right to vote. "They" are the Muslims. Yes, I am painting with a broad brush. I have yet to see any Muslim anywhere in the world come out as strongly (riot) as they did when the Pope supposedly insulted them. Or when the Twin Towers fell. Or when pizza parlors were blown up (oh yeah, those were Jews, they don't count). Or when the London Underground was attacked, murdering 50 people. Or when a disaster did not happen - those dozen planes that were to be destroyed over the Atlantic Ocean. We can go on and on. I have yet to see one riot (that's all they do) in the cause of peace, reconciliation and understanding. I am painting with a broad brush because there is absolutely no reason not to.

Now that we have defined terms let us return to the midterm elections. Republicans wanted to see stronger border control, abortion laws made tougher, gay rights turned down and a return to a more traditional perspective on life in general. Conservatives didn't get some of these things from the Republican leadership in Washington DC. Many conservatives became disillusioned and upset, which is understandable. What is not understandable was by focusing on what was not done, conservatives did themselves and the country at large a huge disservice by not voting and not getting involved.

As a result we can now see what is to happen. The "alleged" War on Terror (as the Dems call it) is going to be seriously hindered if not stopped all together. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is in charge - how long is it going to take to roll back what HAS been accomplished: lower taxes, federal judgeships, the fence put up along the southern border, wiretaps etc.?

I was speaking to a lifelong Democrat this morning. He acknowledged that he was a Democrat but then followed that statement with, "but this is no time to elect Democrats." He is absolutely correct. He sees what is going on around the world. Muslims in Australia are told that if women are not dressed "correctly" it can be assumed that they are a piece of meat to be had. Muslims in Tailand are told that they are bringing in Sharia law for family and domestic law. According to the Guardian, "Muslim attitudes in Britain more resembled public opinion in Islamic countries in the Middle East and Asia..." These are only a few examples.

None of this is new, but what is to be done about it? There is a ray of hope here. Now that the Democrats are more than just a group out of power, they are now responsible for their actions. They can no longer be clueless about the world around them. All Americans have to make it clear to those in power that this is not the time to become isolationists. This is the time to fight. If we need more troops in Iraq than send them. This is the time to tell Muslims around the world to put up or shut up. If you are with us, than show us. If not...expect to see the United States Military in all its glory on your doorstep.

The Neighborhood is Changing

Yes, the European neighborhood is changing. Who are the people in your neighborhood? Mister Roger's Neighborhood is a friendly place where everyone gets along and sings songs together. In the European Neighborhood this may not be the case... or is it?

The news out of the Netherlands (Holland for the rest of us) is quite fascinating. It teaches us a very important lesson about democracy. Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner believes that the Muslims living in his country need more freedom to live according to their traditions. Now, I am not really sure who is stopping these poor Muslims from practicing their peaceful religion, but I digress.

Donner came out against Integration Minister Verdonk who had been upset with an imam who would not shake her hand. Donner believed that this sent the wrong message to the Muslims in the country, the message with "a tone of: 'Thou shalt assimilate. Thou shalt adopt our values in public. Be reasonable, do it our way'. This is not my approach."

As a religious Jewish woman it is a struggle whether or not to shake a man's hand. However, I must say that Donner has lost track of the larger picture. In order for the world at large to be safe, Muslims must assimilate into the culture around them. The Western culture that believes that all people are equal, not that some are more equal than others.

Donner goes on to give us an excellent lesson in democracy, one I would not have thought possible - although in todays European society, who knows anymore. "For me it is clear: if two-thirds of the Dutch population should want to introduce the Sharia tomorrow, then the possibility should exist." Really?! "It would be a disgrace to say: 'That is not allowed!'." How good of Donner to be so open minded. I sincerely hope that whatever group put him in power remove him immediately.

Adolf Hitler was elected democratically, then turned around and made himself a dictator. Does Donner actually believe that after Sharia law is democratically imposed on the population that the country will stay a democracy of any stripe? Has he taken a look at any of the tens of Muslim countries that are run by Sharia law lately? Do any of them look like bastions of democracy? Do women have basic rights... like voting? Or even more basic... the ability to walk the street without a male escort?

We know that the European Neighborhood has been changing for a while now. We have seen it recently with the Muslims in the United Kingdom who have those great British accents while planning to blow up 5-10 airliners over the Atlantic Ocean. We have seen it in the riots and destruction caused due to the horrible, terrible, disgusting drawings of the wonderful, didn't do anything wrong pedophile Muhammed that were published in the newspaper.

Yes, the Neighborhood is changing. The question is what to do with this change. We can move out (where aren't there Muslims?), sing along with our new neighbors (like Donner) or fight. Unless your head is in the sand (pun intended), you are interested in your women wearing a potato sack, or have an interest in freedom of religion, speech, assembly... or any of those silly things we call Rights in the United States, there is no choice. The first shots of the War have rung out. This War will be fought on the ground as well as in the ballot box. We must not let the Donners of the world destroy western civilization. It is time to fight.