Don Singleton

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Church play poster banned from library to avoid offence

Telegraph reported A Christian group has been forbidden from advertising its Easter passion play in a public library to avoid offending other religious groups.

Sounds typical, doesn't it. But the interesting thing is that a group of Iranians wanted to put on the play.

Iranian members of the Methodist Church are furious over the council ban, which prevents them displaying posters... English-born Elizabeth Collins, 44, a Bible teacher with the group, said: "This is supposed to be a Christian country, we can't believe it.

Believe it. Britain and the US are both Christian countries, but people feel it is fine to discriminate against Christians, and to make fun of their faith. But the would not dream of doing it to Muslims. That is because Christ preached Peace and Love, and they are afraid the Muslims will riot, kill, and burn down buildings.

"We go to other countries to promote democracy and free-thinking yet on our own doorstep we cannot even put up a poster about our Easter passion play. "This is ludicrous and so petty. We have already taken religion out of our schools and now it is being taken out of public places as well."... "One of our members wanted to put up a poster about the play in the library but officials kept it for a few days then came back and said it could not be displayed because it might cause offence to other people. "We can only imagine they mean other religions. The poster just has a cross on it with the date, time and place of the performance and says Iranian Christian Drama. What offence can that cause to anyone?"

Good question

"What has it come to when you cannot display a Christian poster for fear of upsetting somebody else in a Christian country? "If I had gone to Iran with a poster under my arm and tried to place it in a library there I would probably have come out without a head on my shoulders."

OSU librarian slapped with “sexual harassment” charge for recommending conservative books for freshmen

Alliance Defense Fund reported Officials at the Ohio State University are investigating an OSU Mansfield librarian for “sexual harassment” after he recommended four conservative books for a freshman reading program. ADF has demanded that OSU cease its frivolous investigation, yet the university is pressing forward, claiming that it takes the charges “seriously.”

Their purpose is to expose students to a variety of idea, but conservatism is not one of them.

“Universities are one of the most hostile places for Christians and conservatives in America,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David French, who heads ADF’s Center for Academic Freedom. “It is shameful that OSU would investigate a Christian librarian for simply recommending books that are at odds with the prevailing politics of the university.”

Shameful, but not surprising.

Scott Savage, who serves as a reference librarian for the university, suggested four best-selling conservative books for freshman reading in his role as a member of OSU Mansfield’s First Year Reading Experience Committee. The four books he suggested were The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian, The Professors by David Horowitz, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye’or, and It Takes a Family by Senator Rick Santorum. Savage made the recommendations after other committee members had suggested a series of books with a left-wing perspective, by authors such as Jimmy Carter and Maria Shriver.

Maybe we should file a complaint against the committee members for recommending those books.

Savage was put under “investigation” by OSU’s Office of Human Resources after three professors filed a complaint of discrimination and harassment against him, saying that the book suggestions made them feel “unsafe.”

What is there about those book suggestions that would make you feel unsafe. Are you afraid they might show you that Conservatives have some good ideas, and the liberalism the professors have been trying to indoctrinate you with might not be the right answer after all.

The complaint came after the OSU Mansfield faculty voted without dissent to file charges against Savage. The faculty later voted to allow the individual professors to file charges.

Israel a threat to Islamic nations

CNN reported Iran's president said on Friday that the existence of the "Zionist regime", Iran's term for Israel, was a threat to the Islamic world, days after declaring Iran had become a nuclear power by enriching uranium.

How can tiny little Israel be a threat to the entire Islamic World? They certainly did defeat several Islamic countries in six days, but they were stupid enough to attack Israel. Humm, much like Iran is threatening? Could it be because Israel is believed to have Nuclear Weapons, although they have never said so, and have never used them, not even in the Six Day war. But then Iran seeks Nuclear Weapons. Does this mean it wants to threaten the entire Islamic World, and perhaps establish dominance over it?

But the tone of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech to a conference on the Palestinian issue was slightly more moderate than fiery rhetoric last year, when Iran's official IRNA news agency quoted him as telling a conference: "Israel must be wiped off the map."

How is it more moderate to say he is developing the weapons to do exactly that?

"The existence of the Zionist regime is tantamount to an imposition of an unending and unrestrained threat so that none of the nations and Islamic countries of the region and beyond can feel secure from its threat," Ahmadinejad said on Friday.

Israel has never attacked its neighbors without first being attacked itself. Maybe you should consider that fact, and Give Peace A Chance.

How you treat a waiter can predict a lot about character

Yahoo! News has a very interesting article where a number of Fortune 500 CEOs say "You can tell a lot about a person by the way he or she treats the waiter."

Hat tip to Lee Pang

Friday, April 14, 2006

Zarqawi, al Qaeda are heading out

Washington Times reports Al Qaeda in Iraq and its presumed leader, Abu Musab Zarqawi, have conceded strategic defeat and are on their way out of the country, a top U.S. military official contended yesterday.

This would be nice, IF it is true.

The group's failure to disrupt national elections and a constitutional referendum last year "was a tactical admission by Zarqawi that their strategy had failed," said Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who commands the XVIII Airborne Corps.

True, but evil usually does not quit just because it realizes it made a mistake

"They no longer view Iraq as fertile ground to establish a caliphate and as a place to conduct international terrorism," he said in an address at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Where are they going now?

.... Gen. Vines said the foreign terrorists had made a strategic mistake when they tried to intimidate and deny Iraqis a way to vote. "I believe Zarqawi discredited himself with the Iraqi people because of his willingness to slaughter Iraqi people," he said.

It is not strange that they did not like that.

Huthayafa Azzam, whose father was seen as a political mentor of bin Laden, told reporters in Jordan in early April that Zarqawi had been replaced as head of the terrorist fight in Iraq in an effort to put an Iraqi at the head of the organization.

Thaat was not long ago, long after the elections. And now they are quitting?

Azzam said Zarqawi had "made many political mistakes," including excessive violence and the bombing last November of a Jordanian hotel, and as a result was being "confined to military action."

Whites Take Flight on Election Day

Richard Morin wrote in Wapo Bad news for Michael S. Steele, the leading Maryland Republican candidate for Senate in November: The scuttling noise he hears on Election Day could be the sound of tens of thousands of white Republicans crossing over to vote for the Democrat.

While hundreds of thousands of black voters are going the other way, to vote for a black Republican.

In fact, white Republicans nationally are 25 percentage points more likely on average to vote for the Democratic senatorial candidate when the GOP hopeful is black, says economist Ebonya Washington of Yale University

Who interestingly is black.

in a forthcoming article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. White independents are similarly inclined to vote for the white Democrat when there's a black Republican running, according to her study of congressional and gubernatorial voting patterns between 1982 and 2000, including five Senate races in which the Republican nominee was black.

Playing the race card, Ebonya???

More Retired Generals Call for Rumsfeld's Resignation

NYT reported The widening circle of retired generals

Army Generals apparently who did not like Rumsfeld's reorganization of the military. But it is surprising that they would speak out against him in a time of war. Perhaps they should be recalled to active duty, and sent to Iraq, so they can show us how it should be done.

who have stepped forward to call for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation is shaping up as an unusual outcry that could pose a significant challenge to Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership, current and former generals said on Thursday.

Progressives, Diversity, and the Gospel of Judas

csmonitor Across the country, observers say, the Gospel of Judas is striking a chord with progressive Christians.

Progressive is the new word that liberals are using, since none of them want to be called Liberals. They are also primarilly Secular Humanists, so it is interesting that rather than just trying to suppress Christianity, they are now favoring this heresy.

Not so much for its heretical theology, but as an ancient symbol of their modern mission to update what defines faithfulness.

Betrayal for money. Yes it sounds like something that Liberals/Progressives would identify with as a definition of faithfulness.

.... Modern theologians attracted to the Judas gospel are reminding today's dissenters that they follow a long, legitimate tradition. At last week's press conference, four academics used either "diverse" or "diversity" to describe what the text reveals about the beliefs and attitudes of the early church.

Ah yes. Diversity. Another buzz word used to support tearing down our country.

If the church was so varied in its early days, they suggest, then contemporary Christians can perhaps accept the growing diversity of beliefs and lifestyles in their religious communities as well.

Hamas will recognize Israel

Jerusalem Post reported According to a Thursday report on Al-Jazeera, the Hamas government will recognize Israel if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders.

That is not going to happen. They might as well say they will recognize Israel when Hell Freezes Over or when Pigs Fly. And just recognizing Israel means nothing if they still want to destroy Israel. In fact it would be difficult for them to attack if they could not both see and recognize what they saw.

Hamas officials close to Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh expect Haniyeh to announce the change in the organization's platform in the next few days, Army Radio reported.

Thursday, April 13, 2006

How not to market your cause

Danny Carlton blogged From CBS News..

Although Americans believe they are better informed about Islam than they were five years ago, a new CBS News poll finds fewer than one in five say their impression of the religion is favorable.
That is reasonable. Certainly the vast number of real Muslims do practice a faith that is vastly different from that which the Islamoterrorists would have you believe, but since few of them stand up and attempt to correct the situation when these Islamoterrorists hijack their religion, we never hear from them.
Forty-five percent of respondents queried April 6 - 9 said they have an unfavorable view of Islam, a rise from 36 percent in February. And the public’s impression of Islam has diminished even more compared with four years ago. In February 2002 – less than six months after the terrorist attacks of September 11 – the country was evenly divided in its impression of Islam.

Boy, aren't you glad they did that poll! Because I would never have guessed that blowing up innocent women and children and sawing off the heads of innocent civilians on the internet could make you unpopular.

ROF, LMAO

That's such a handy thing to remember, isn't it. I'll have to make sure I make a note of that somewhere so I don't forget.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main goals of Islam to convince the rest of the world to join them?

And once you do you are hooked, because there are some who will kill you for rejecting Islam, even though there is nothing in the Quran about that.

Since the Koran says, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256), that more or less leaves them with persuading us by their ideas and behavior. So am I missing something here?

Zogby Poll on Undocumented Workers

Zogby International reported A majority of Americans said they oppose amnesty for undocumented workers from other nations who are already residing in this nation, the survey shows. While 52% said there should be no amnesty, 32% said they would favor amnesty for such people....

I agree with the majority, at least until we have completely controlled the border. Then we can talk about it.

As Congress now works on immigration reform legislation in Washington, the survey shows there is a significant partisan divide on this question. Among Democrats nationwide, 51% favor amnesty, while 29% oppose it and another 20% said they are unsure. Among Republicans, just 13% said they favor amnesty, while 76% said they oppose such an offer.

Amnesty is stupid without proven ability to control the border.

Asked whether the protests have made likely voters more or less sympathetic towards undocumented workers, 32% said they are now more sympathetic to their plight, while 61% said they are less likely to be sympathetic as a result of the protests. Younger respondents to the poll were more likely to be sympathetic than were older participants in the survey. And while 56% of Democrats said the protests made them feel more sympathy for undocumented workers, just 6% of Republicans felt that way.

If they don't like things the way they are, they can go home.

A wide majority of those participating in the survey (65%) said they would be willing to pay significantly higher prices for some goods and services should that be the result of tighter control of the southern U.S. border and a resulting lower number of undocumented workers.

'Islamic terrorism' is too emotive a phrase, says EU

Telegraph reported European governments should shun the phrase "Islamic terrorism" in favour of "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam", say guidelines from EU officials.

I've got a better idea; why don't they shun the nutcases that threaten to kill people in the name of Allah.

Backed by diplomats and civil servants from the 25 EU members, the officials are drafting a "non-emotive lexicon for discussing radicalisation" to be submitted to Tony Blair and other leaders in June.

They want to be PC, and not call things what they are.

The Brussels officials hope the new lexicon, which would not be legally binding, would be adopted by governments and other EU institutions, such as the European Commission and European Parliament. An EU official said: "The basic idea behind it is to avoid the use of improper words that would cause frustration among Muslims and increase the risk of radicalisation."

I.E. maybe they will only kill half of us if we say nice words about them.

Along with civil servants from the Home Office, the officials have reviewed the impact of such terms as Islamist, fundamentalist and jihad when describing acts of terrorism and murder.

"Jihad means something for you and me; it means something else for a Muslim," EU officials at a Berlin conference on radicalisation said. "Jihad is a perfectly positive concept of trying to fight evil within yourself."

That is certainly what it means to a real Muslim, but we were not the ones to attach it to what the Islamic Terrorists are doing; they are the ones that attached the term to their evil.

Though British officials have been involved in drawing up the lexicon, Whitehall sources indicated the Government was unlikely to adopt it wholesale or heed any call to ban "Islamic terrorist".

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

What's wrong with RomneyCare

Brendan Miniter wrote in OpinionJournal "We insist that everybody who drives a car has insurance. And cars are a lot less expensive than people."--Gov. Mitt Romney

True, but the only insurance you must carry on your car is liability insurance, You dont have to carry insurance to fix your car. Can people in MA just carry insurance to cover the liability of hurting someone else with your health problems?

.... If there is one redeeming value to his approach, it is that it starts with the presumption that even the poor should pay something for their health care.

That is a valid point. If they have to pay something, they may think twice about asking for treatment they dont really need.

That's not a trivial point. Today many uninsured patients skip out on their bills and leave their health-care tabs for everyone else to pay in the form of bigger hospital bills and higher taxes.... Otherwise, as he told me, it's like shopping in a grocery store that doesn't have any price tags and where you don't have to pay the bill at the checkout counter. Requiring consumers to pay at least part of the bill is essential to striking a reasonable balance between consumption and total cost. That means copayments for drugs and doctor visits, deductibles, or other fees.

Absolutely

Health insurers are prohibited from offering coverage that pays for only catastrophic events, such as a serious injury or heart attack. Rules vary by state, but in most places insurers are forced to cover everything from routine checkups to chiropractic care. Remove these mandates, allow deductibles and "copays" to be raised high enough, and in an instant the price for some health plans would fall to about that of dinner out and a movie for two.

And that is precisely what should be done.

Judges Set Hurdles for Lethal Injection

NYT reported Judges in several states have started to put up potentially insurmountable roadblocks to the use of lethal injections to execute condemned inmates. Their decisions are based on new evidence suggesting that prisoners have endured agonizing executions.

Maybe we should consider beheadings. But should we use an Axe, like Britain used, or a Guillotine, like the French.

In response, judges are insisting that doctors take an active role in supervising executions, even though the American Medical Association's code of ethics prohibits that.

The Arguments Against Striking Iran

Hugh Hewitt: blogged After conversations yesterday with Jonathan Alter on my program, and Lawrence Korb, Peter Brooks and me on Kudlow & Company, I noticed the similarities between Alter's and Korb's objections to any military action against Iran. Although there is no transcript availbale yet of the Kudlow & Company exchange, I'll see if Radioblogger can add that to his transcript of Alter's appearance.

Here are the key objections:

1. The United States military cannot accomplish the mission.

You underestimate the United States military. Maybe with a weasel like Clinton as Commander in Chief, but not with GWB as CinC

2.Striking Iran will cause Iran to strike against our troops in Iraq.

That would give us an excellent opportunity to wipe out their military, and even more importantly, the mullahs that command them.

3. An attack on Iran will unleash Iranian-sponosred terrorism around the world.

Same as #2.

4. America's position in the world will crumble if we attack Iran.

It can't crumble much more, and in fact it could well increase our position in the world.

5. There are other ways of deterring Iran's nuclear program.

Name one.

Islamists Post Hit List of 'Apostates'

The Jawa Report blogged An Egyptian group calling itself the "al-Jama’ah Consultative Council" has sent an e-mail hit list to people deemed 'apostates' yesterday. The group warned that those people on the list who had left the faith would have three days (as of yesterday) to repent or they would be killed. The group also warned that the wives and children of the Muslim apostates were being followed & would be killed.

That is interesting. They are saying they will kill the innocent. Is that supported in the Quran?

Under Islamic Law, the maximum penalty for apostasy is death.

Even though it does not say so in the Quran

The list includes prominent Muslims living in the West who have spoken out against violent Islamic extremism and intolerance,

So they are still Muslims; they have just spoken out against violent Islamic extremism and intolerance, and Surat an-Nisa,093 (Quran 4.93) says "If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him."

some still living in Muslim countries, as well as Coptic Christians who have advocated equal treatment in Egypt.
Read More

Copts United blogged the Prophet said, "Kill whoever changes his religion."

Where did the Prophet say that? It is not in the Quran. It is only in Hadith, which was written more than 150 years after his death.

We are fully aware of their hiding places, their houses, their children’s schools,

They are threatening Children's Schools now? And they are from the Religion of Peace???

and the times when their wives are alone at home. We gave our rules to the soldiers of God to execute the rule of God so that their blood can become close to God [to kill them] and burn their houses. And we thank God that many of those infidels and atheists do not exist in the land of Islam,

Many of them live in Egypt, and some in Jordan

so that they do not defile the Islamic land with their rotten blood.

The Islamic land is being defiled, but it is by nutcases like these.

They are in the land of infidelity, the land of idols, pagans, and Cross worshippers: in America, Canada, Switzerland, and Italy.

Have you seen any idols around here? I have not, and very few pagans. There are a lot of Christians (Cross worshipers) but Surat al-Ma'ida, 82 (Qur'an 5:82) says "You will find the people most affectionate to those who believe are those who say, 'We are Christians.' That is because some of them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant."

If they existed on a spot in the Islamic land, let us wash the places of their slaughter and beheading seven times

Once is enough. Are they going to glue the heads back on to do it six more times?

to purify the Islamic land of the impurity of their blood.

How do you purify land using impure blood?

And let us captivate their women and enslave their children loot them. Let us apply the Islamic rule to them; and whoever kills one of them, will get his loot.

Aha. This is the real answer. They just want to kill people and steal their belongings.

Clarity and Resolve blogged More on the story about peaceful religionists threatening Arab intellectuals who criticize Islam: I just received an email from an Egyptian Copt friend of mine, who shall remain anonymous.... But hey—maybe I'm being islamophobic.

You are not being paranoid if they really are out to get you.

I mean, this stuff happens all the time to those who criticize Christianity, just like Jesus told his followers to do. Right?

Not as far as I know.

Wake up, infidels. This is the reality of sharia, and it is utter folly to think for one moment that its authority is at all dissipated once it comes across the borders of the dar al-Kufr.

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Why do Moslems fear freedom of religion?

Danny Carlton blogged From WorldNetDaily

I usually don't quote WorldNet posts, because sometimes they are a bit extreme, and I prefer to blog about posts from sources that people are not going to attack just because of the source, but I must address this one.

...Why do Moslems fear freedom of religion?

Because if one compares other faiths to what some of the extremists have modified Islam to appear to support, one would never select Islam.

...a mob numbering around 200 came to the Church of Pentecost in Gunung Putri, Indonesia, during the Sunday morning service to protest the property being "misused" as a church building. The five-hour demonstration became so hostile, some of the women among the 190 congregants began crying hysterically.
They should respect our places of worship, as commanded in Surat al-Hajj, 40 (Qur'an 22:40): "if God had not driven some people back by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, where God's name is mentioned much, would have been pulled down and destroyed. God will certainly help those who help Him - God is All-Strong, Almighty."
Pastor Daniel Fekky was told by representatives of the Muslim mob, in a meeting arranged by police, the church would have to be closed based on a pending revision of the 1969 Joint Ministerial Decree (SKB) which dealt with church buildings and government approval. The pastor was able to get the mob to leave only by agreeing to shut the doors to his church....
This is interesting, because according to their faith God has pointed out in the Qur'an (Surat al-Ma'ida, 82 (Qur'an 5:82) ) "You will find the people most affectionate to those who believe are those who say, 'We are Christians.' That is because some of them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant."
Indonesian Christians say the new law will make it more difficult to open new churches, especially in rural, predominantly Muslim areas. They also point to already-established churches which have tried for years to get government approval, without success.
Government bureaucracy, the world over.
Article 29(b) of the Indonesian constitution guarantees Indonesian citizens the freedom to choose their own religion and to worship according to the dictates of that religion.

Pastor Daniel has led his church's services for nine years, but the residents of Gunung Putri and the local government did not protest his ministry until a year ago.

Someone draws a cartoon, they riot and kill. But they threaten a church until it's forced to close? Indonesia has roughly the same population as the US. It's frightening to think that a nation that size could be dominated by such intolerance.

Listening to a Reformist Muslim

The Anchoress blogged I’ve been lucky enough to be able to correspond with a “reformist” Muslim named Ali, who is very careful with his words - which is wise, in my opinion - but also very eager to dialogue. Bear in mind that there is a distinction, naturally, between a “moderate” and a “reformist.”....

Whether he is a moderate or a reformist, at least he is not looking to find a way to kill as many people as he can.

Read More

You must know that Islam has grown up in close proximity with Christianity. In fact, one of the Prophet’s brother in laws was a Christian (and his first wife a Jew)....

Both were People of the Book

There was no such thing as a fatwa while Muhammad was alive. Fatwa came about with the jurists in later centuries and means “non-binding legal opinion.” Each and every Muslim can accept or reject a fatwa based on his or her personal determination.

A lot seem to be accepting every fatwa that is released.

The fact that lay Muslims simply think that a fatwa is God’s word is not because a fatwa is authoritative, but because individual Muslims have conceded their individual autonomy to the scholars.

If you can't think for yourself, you need to be very sure who you decide to let think for you.

This is a very curious phenomenon because the Quran categorically states that “none shall bear the burden of another” (on the day of judgment), to suggest that each one of us is accountable for our own decisions, and that reliance upon any other person’s opinion will not free you from accountability before God. I detail this phenomenon in a post on my
blog: Geneology of Prostration - Muslim silence since 9/11. In other words, the problem isn’t that a person releases a fatwa, it’s that a believer doesn’t know, or doesn’t want to know, that he still has room to make up his own mind. A large part of this has to do with historical conditioning. Jurists have for the longest time controlled the “Islamic” discourse within Islam. In other words, if you want to talk about Islam, you first have to qualify for being a jurist. That’s absurd because the Prophet and the First Caliphs used to have debates in public squares with men *and* women who thought their decisions were absurd and yet were illiterate or country bumpkins. There is no clergy in Islam, yet we’ve created it....

And it may result in the death of a lot of Muslims that did not need to die.

one day as he was sitting with some friends, a Jewish funeral procession passed by. Muhammad stood up in respect.

As he should. Surat al-Baqara, 136 (Qur'an 2:136) says Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them.

When his followers said, “but Muhammad that man is not a Muslim,” Muhammad corrected them and told them to stand. Similarly, on another occassion, there was a Jewish neighbor of his who often reviled him. He used to stand in his window as Muhammad passed by and yell insults. One day Muhammad noted that the insults had stopped. After some days passed Muhammad realized that something was wrong and he went to find out if something was amiss. He discovered that the man was on his death-bed. Muhammad stayed with him until he passed away....

The problem, in my opinion, isn’t that Muhammad was a warrior. In a sense our American Founders were warriors. Napolean with his code, was a warrior. He *was* a warrior and given the time in which he lived, there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is that today’s Muslims cannot distinguish between Muhammad’s personal behavior and his behavior as a leader of a community. For example, when Muhammad engaged in war, he didn’t do it just because he was Muhammad, or because he could. He engaged in it because he was the leader of a community and that’s what the circumstances dictated (we can disagree in hindsight with his determinations). Yet today’s Muslims believe that Muhammad pretty much ran a free for all. So when they get upset at something they believe that it’s time to engage in Jihad.

Perhaps it is. Is it not true that Jihad means Struggle, and that it can also apply to the struggle that a man does to conform to God's will? I think they need to worry about the internal Jihad, and not leap so quickly to killing others.

That is patently incorrect, otherwise Muhammad would have engaged in war *prior* to becoming the leader of the community — *which he never did.* In short, Muslims have forgotten that war (jihad) is the exclusive possession of the state. This is why OBL, despite his pietist stance, is actually (under classical islamic law), a heretic.

Monday, April 10, 2006

France to replace youth job law

BBC reported French President Jacques Chirac has announced that the new youth employment law that sparked weeks of sometimes violent protests will be scrapped. He said it would be replaced by other measures to tackle youth unemployment.

Just when it looked like the French had grown a backbone, they capitulate to the mass demonstrations and rather than a very reasonable law that said that young people who are not able to to the job can be fired; something that was keeping employers from hiring them, because once hired even if they could not do the job, they could not be fired. Now they are going to try to force employers into hiring people with no experience, and who know that once hired the can't be fired.

I hope that our politicians are able to maintain a backbone longer when they see the illegals in our country demanding citizenship. We need to first close our border, and then we can talk about what those already here need to do to become citizens.

New regulations for immigrants?

Danny Carlton blogged The following has been proposed as a reasonable method of managing not only illegal immigration but legal immigrants. See how many you agree with, and how many you'd be comfortable with being imposed...

Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country. This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics.
Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones, even those with green cards.
Only citizens may serve in the military as officers, on airline crews , and chiefs of seaports and airports.
Members of both houses of Congress as well as the Supreme Court must be a citizen by birth.
Immigrants — even legal ones — may not become members of the clergy.
Foreigners, legal or illegal, may not own land.
Any citizen may arrest illegal immigrants and their accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.
Foreigners, legal or otherwise, may be expelled for any reason and without due process.

Sounds pretty radical doesn't it. Surely the people waving the Mexican flag at that last protest would have a cow if such were the law, wouldn't they.

Except it is the law...in Mexico!

It would be interesting to see what people would say if we proposed laws like that here.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)