Monday, January 23, 2006


Check out the new site here:

Bigger, Better and Uglier than ever!!!!!!!!!!


Tuesday, January 17, 2006

No Posts For The Next Few Days

I have some folks helping me work on some new stuff for the blog behind the scenes. It should be done in the next few days. So I will be unable to post for a little while.

I will let you know as soon as the work is done. Hopefully you will like it.....

Saturday, January 14, 2006

Terrorists Buying Untraceable Cell Phones In USA.


the FBI office in Midland Texas has now said:

"There is no known link or demonstrated link or any other kind of link at this point between the people here and any terror cell,"

This completely contradicts the previous reports from ABC.

Oh and to the Moonbats commenting on this thread. I am a Liberal Democrat.


This one hits close to home. Michelle Malkin has this story about terrorists buying large quantities of throw away cell phones. One of the towns mentioned Hemet California is about 15 minutes from my house. Here is an excerpt:

Federal agents have launched an investigation into a surge in the purchase of large quantities of disposable cell phones by individuals from the Middle East and Pakistan, ABC News has learned.

The phones -- which do not require purchasers to sign a contract or have a credit card -- have many legitimate uses, and are popular with people who have bad credit or for use as emergency phones tucked away in glove compartments or tackle boxes. But since they can be difficult or impossible to track, law enforcement officials say the phones are widely used by criminal gangs and terrorists.

...Law enforcement officials say the phones were used to detonate the bombs terrorists used in the Madrid train attacks in March 2004.

...The FBI is closely monitoring the potentially dangerous development, which came to light following recent large-quantity purchases in California and Texas, officials confirmed.

In one New Year's Eve transaction at a Target store in Hemet, Calif., 150 disposable tracfones were purchased. Suspicious store employees notified police, who called in the FBI, law enforcement sources said.

In an earlier incident, at a Wal-mart store in Midland, Texas, on December 18, six individuals attempted to buy about 60 of the phones until store clerks became suspicious and notified the police. A Wal-mart spokesperson confirmed the incident.

So you don't think the war on terror is real?

Believe it people. These guys are here maybe not in your neighborhood but somewhere close and they want you dead. Btw Hemet is a "small town". It is about 90 miles south east of Los Angeles, and 85 miles north east of San Diego. It is in the high desert at the base of the San Jacinto Mountain range. Until recently Hemet is pretty remote not near any major freeway and was just a place you would pass through if you were going camping in the mountains maybe stopping to gas up or get some fast food. It was a farming and ranching community. There have been a lot of new homes being built over the last few years as folks can no longer to buy houses in LA or San Diego.

The point is the terrorists are not only in the big cities. They are in the small towns either hoping to buy necessary supplies like these cell phones hoping the hay seeds won't notice what they are up to or they may even be planning to attack small town America.

The Sensible Mom is following up on the source of this story.

AJ Strata connects this story to the NSA leak story.

There you go Risen. If you ever needed evidence you are a Benedict Arnold this is it. And if we do get attacked because of these adjustments by terrorists - you and the NY Times will have the blood of innocents on your hands.

RELIAPUNDIT says he was the first one to connect the dots between this story and the NSA leak story and he is not very happy:

LL of these large sales came RIGHT AFTER the NYTIMES NSA leak (12/15/05). Though this is circumstantial, it is HIGHLY SUGGESTIVE that the leak alerted the sleeper cells HERE (and perhaps elsewhere), and that they are adapting their SOP's as a result; thus, they are making it tougher for us to prevent an attack.

The most amazing part of this story is the reaction from Glenn Greenwald.

If you’re interested in viewing the results of mixing sickly paranoia with abject stupidity -- or if you want to catch a glimpse of what our country will look like once the most rabid Bush followers have full reign over it -- I highly recommend this genuinely disturbing post from Michelle Malkin.

but his commentors go much much farther than that:

Malkin should be on her knees "thanking" Jim Risen (as only a horrid little slut can do) for his expose of this practice.
Malkin and her ilk deserve to be deported!
suspicious right-i suspect michelle is a double agent working for the chinese commies-

Michelle your cover is blown-i hope we're listening to all of her calls-it's for her own good
It's obvious somebody needs to ...

Or how about this reaction from Tbogg.

Since the Great Oklahoma Backpack Bomber Scare of 2005 went the way of Jack Abramoff's career, Michelle Malkin needed another threat to the homeland to get all nipply about and she found it in swarthy types buying cell phones. Quickly, Commisioner! Turn on the Crazy Ass Racist Bitch Signal!

Tbogg claims to be : "Faithful husband, soccer dad, basset owner, and former cowboy"

I wonder if he talks to his kids like that at soccer practice?

Thankfully none of these folks were working at Wall mart.

At least NewsHog has some common sense
even if he can't resist a few jabs at the Right and Michelle in particular.

I will give Malkin her due when she says that we all should be willing to report behaviour we thought was suspicious. I did, on one occasion right after 9/11. I have no idea if anything came of it but I am still glad I did. It may well be the case that, at least in the Texas incident ABC reports, there is some link between these bulk purchases and terrorism:

There will be more to this story I am sure.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Kyoto Be Damned!

Plants Produce "greenhouse gasses!" That’s right NPR’s morning edition reported this morning that scientists in Europe have made an astonishing discovering. All leafy plants (that includes trees) produce methane. In fact they produce as much as ONE THIRD of all methane gas in the world.

Other scientists who were at first skeptical are now accepting the research as valid. They are now questioning the effectiveness of Kyoto. You see one of the Kyoto provisions says that if countries exceed their allowed amount C02 production (C02 is a “greenhouse gas”) they could make up for it by planting trees which convert C02 into oxygen.

OOPS it appears by planting trees you are just substituting one greenhouse gas for another.

Oh and on another note India declared it will not comply with Kyoto C02 production goals.

If you believe Global Warming is happening or not (I am pretty convinced it is)

And/or if you believe it is man made or can be countered by man (I am far more skeptical of this) then maybe its time for plan B ehh?


This post is linked to these bloggers who are hosting Open Trackbacks: Wizbang,

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Alito Too Smart For Democrats and other news

At least that seems to be the general consensus.

Personally I think an attempt to block a nominee to the SCOTUS for ideological reasons is wrong. However this dance that is being performed is great for Democracy imo. Judge Alito is proving to the country just how much he knows about the law and demonstrating why he is qualified to serve on the court.

I think Captains Quarters has the best excert of the day:

Like the bad lawyer he has proven himself to be, Schumer asked one question too many:

SCHUMER: Does the Constitution protect the right to free speech?

ALITO: Certainly it does. That's in the First Amendment.

SCHUMER: So why can't you answer the question of: Does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion the same way without talking about stare decisis, without talking about cases, et cetera?

ALITO: Because answering the question of whether the Constitution provides a right to free speech is simply responding to whether there is language in the First Amendment that says that the freedom of speech and freedom of the press can't be abridged. Asking about the issue of abortion has to do with the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution.

The NYT says Judge Alito did very well on the first day of questioning:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 - If Senate Democrats had set out to portray Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. as extreme on issues ranging from abortion to government surveillance of citizens, they ran up against an elusive target on Tuesday: Samuel A. Alito Jr. For nearly eight hours, Judge Alito was placid, monochromatic and, it seemed, mostly untouchable.

The Washington Post takes the same angle:

It was beginning to look as if the Democrats had shown up to a knife fight without a knife yesterday.

It was beginning to look as if they'd just been woofing when it came to the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. That they'd written a check full of bluster that a lackluster series of questions couldn't cash.

Everyone of course is talking about this story. Here are some of the better blog takes from the left:: Bark Bark Woof Woof, firedoglake, Althouse, The Heretik,

From the Right: Decision08, Ankle Biting Pundits, As Usual Alexandra from All Things Beautiful is particularly insightful and thorough.

Ian from The Political Teen was allowed in the room for about 2o minutes. Congrats Ian on being able to witness history firsthand.

The Political Pitbul is Live Blogging
the hearings.

If the Republicans want to maintain their majorities in The House and Senate they should take Hugh Hewitt's advice when selecting new leadership. If whoever they choose for Majority Leader is eventually tied to the Abramoff scandal it will be very hard for them to recover in 2006.

The Volokh Conspiracy offers some poll results mentioned in this CNN story that claims the American Public is growing more skeptical of the secret NSA program recently exposed in a series of NYT stories and James Risen's new book. I checked the article myself. You can click on a link for some of the poll questions. Here are the results they allow you to see.

Question: Do you think the Bush administration has gone too far, has been about right, or has not gone far enough in restricting people's civil liberties in order to fight terrorism?

Answers: About Right 40%, 19% Not Far Enough (editors note: Thats 59% who feel the Bush admin has done enough or not gone far enough)

38% Gone Too Far, and 3% No Opinion.

Question: As you may know, the Bush administration has been wiretapping telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists living in other countries without getting a court order allowing it to do so. How closely have you been following the news about this?

46% Somewhat Closely, 29% Very Closely, 16% Not Too Closely, and 9% Not At All,

and the final question:

Question: Do you think the Bush administration was right or wrong in wiretapping these conversations without obtaining a court order?

50% Right, 46% Wrong, and 4% No Opinion.

What the article does not tell us is who was sampled, what were their political affiliations, were there any more questions and what was the wording of those questions?

This is once again an example of the press not being transparent. Why won't they give us access to everything in the poll?

I for one would like to know how the 25% of the people who answered they were either not following this story very closely or not at all to question two answered questions 1 and 3. Does anyone else think this is important?

Don't you want to know how people who have basically admitted to being ignorant of the details of this story answered?

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Internet Cowards....

I don't know about the wisdom of this new proposed amendment to the 1934 communications act, but I agree with La Shawn Barber completely on this one. This is one of my pet peeves about the intraweb. Before starting this blog, I posted frequently on a few internet message boards, and I have played online video games for several years. It always amazed and infuriated me when people would not just cross but leap over the bounds of socially acceptable behavior simply because they were anonymous. Saying things they would never say in person for fear of a well deserved beating, or in the case of video games, intentionally harming other players for pure amusement. Taking pleasure from the other player’s pain / inconvenience / loss etc.

I put up a recent example in my post "The Last Goodbye" where some anonymous coward insulted a Vietnam vet on a message board after he had posted this story and a heart wrenching personal account.

This worm had the gaul to call to make this comment:

They were stupid, Patriotism gets you nothing but a body bag.

Now if this guy had said this in a bar room, instead of the virtual room he was in (a message board) he would have been pummeled. Most likely he would have never said it fearing the beating he would get. So why does he say it on the web?

Because he is a coward. I have asked myself many times what could be done to make these people behave, or bring some type of justice to them. The only answer I can come up with is the sad pathetic lives they must lead is punishment enough.

I would love to see these cowards get what they deserve but I doubt a federal law is the right way to do it.

Sister Toldjah doesn't think this is such a good idea either.

Oprah and Her Fans Victims Of Fraud!

Whats worse than a career criminal drug addicted, drunken scumbag on crack?

How bout a pathetic little weasel of a frat boy who pretends to be one and defrauds over a million people with the help of an unwitting national television host?

The Smoking Gun has blown the lid off of this story.

After reading the TSG story I do have to wonder who was falling for this crap.

This post is linked to the following blogs who have Open Trackbacks today: Don Surber, Adam's Blog, Right Wing Nation,

Monday, January 09, 2006

Pork Busters Update

Being a Democrat I am supposed to hate Republicans. Well I don't in fact I find myself agreeing with the GOP far more than the Democratic leadership these days. However The GOP is in charge of both houses of congress right now and as John Fund tells us today they are spending far more of our money on pork barrel spending projects than ever before. The latest culprit being "earmarked" projects.

Earmarks are the latest way for congressmen put their votes up for sale. I.e. Ted Stevens notorious "bridge to nowhere". If the GOP doesn't clean up its act they are gonna find themselves out on their ears.

For the latest check the porkbusters website. Call your senator call your congressman tell them you want them to cut the pork barrel spending in your district and state.

Moonbats Support The Troops? : Smash Vs. Filner

So you know the tired mantra by now. "I support the troops I just don't support this war". Well Listen to the audio and read the transcript here from Smash who attended a town hall meeting this weekend with Congressman Filner in San Diego (my home town) and you tell me if Congressman Filner or his friendly audience was supporting Smash.

First a little background. Smash is a veteran of the Iraq war. Congressman Filner is a card carrying political opportunist and Bush hater. You will quickly notice how the crowd turns on Smash as soon as he asks a tough question. As Smash describes it, people were glaring at him, and asking him to give up the mike.

Now if these people truly supported they troops wouldn't they allow the man to speak and engage the Congressman in a substantive discussion?

Of course not because they are freakin liars. They don't support they troops. In fact they don't give a damn about the troops that is if they are troops who actually believe in what they are fighting for. Actions speak far louder than words and Congressman Filner's actions and his constituent’s actions speak volumes.

Michelle Malkin has more. The Moderate Voice has a pretty even handed article but the comments section reveals a not so moderate voice by the host or his guests.

I was especially impressed by this comment from Laura who questioned Smash's courage:

I wonder if the Indepundit would have the courage to confront the man who really
should be questioned about the Iraq war, that would be president Bush of course.

I bet Laura normally supports the troops but made an exception for Smash because of the evil things he dared say to Congressman Filner.

The Debate Link says this exchange demonstrates why he will never join the anti-war movement.

The Smoking Room addresses Filners rhetoric and exposes it for the utter nonsense that it is.

Troops Take On Murtha And Moran

Michelle Malkin has the video that you absolutely have to watch One is of recently discharged Sgt. Mark Seavey who just came back from his deployment to Afghanistan. The other is a retired General reading a letter from the mother of a soldier who was killed in Iraq.

As you will see both of these men say the troops moral is high as is that of their families. They also state very clearly no matter who many times Murtha and Moran tell us they "support the troops", they troops don't see it that way.

Joe Klein Advises The Democrats On How to Stay Out of Power

In this article posted yesterday for Time's online edition. Mr. Klein explains why Dems still don't get it when it comes to National Security.

Klein tells us the NSA surveillance program was working and the NYT story has definitely tipped off the enemy:

But these concerns pale before the importance of the program. It would have been
a scandal if the NSA had not been using these tools to track down the bad guys.
There is evidence that the information harvested helped foil several plots and
disrupt al-Qaeda operations.

There is also evidence, according to U.S. intelligence officials, that since the New York Times broke the story, the terrorists have modified their behavior, hampering our efforts to keep track of them—but also, on the plus side, hampering their ability to communicate with one another.

Anyone else see the Risen interview with Tim Russert where the smug self important little twerp tells us his article was an important public service?

It seems he was right and the terrorists are very grateful.

Klein Concludes with:

The latest version of the absolutely necessary Patriot Act, which updates
the laws regulating the war on terrorism and contains civil-liberties
improvements over the first edition, was nearly killed by a stampede of Senate
Democrats. Most polls indicate that a strong majority of Americans favor the
act, and I suspect that a strong majority would favor the NSA program as well,
if its details were declassified and made known.

In fact, liberal Democrats are about as far from the American
mainstream on these issues as Republicans were when they invaded the privacy of
Terri Schiavo's family in the right-to-die case last year.

But there is a difference. National security is a far more important
issue, and until the Democrats make clear that they will err on the side of
aggressiveness in the war against al-Qaeda, they will probably not regain the
majority in Congress or the country.

Spot on. The Dems are completely out of touch with reality and the American People again. Nearly everyone understands the government spying on terrorists especially terrorists inside the country is a good thing and is no way similar to the Nixon era watergate scandal no matter how often the Dems try to tell us it is.

Mr. Klein also exposes a recent attempt by Nancy to score political points, and mislead the American People. Betsy’s page discusses that here. The Strata-Sphere has more:

Can it be any clearer? If any other President asked us to put national security
first, even the worse civil rights abusers in our history, the lunatic left
would align themselves with America first. But this is Bush - the object of
their undying hate.

Read the whole thing.

Sunday, January 08, 2006

My Comments To Professor Rosa Brooks

Professor Brooks appeared on Hugh Hewitt's radio program last week to discuss a recent editorial she had written for the LA Times. In the Editorial Professor Brooks raises the possibility of GWB being impeached if the Dems somehow gain control of the congress in 2006. She also suggests there is some merit to the Dems claims. She specifically and repeatedly mentions the recent NSA story.

The funny thing is as soon as the questions turn from small talk to Brook's editorial she admits almost immediately that the NSA story is a minor issue and in her words:

the NSA wiretapping scandal, is in some ways, the least of it.It seems to me that that looks more like a technicality than for instance, possibly deliberately misleading people about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

Then why did she make that the focus of virtually her entire article?

She also admits pretty quickly that she is not an expert on the subject and can't really say with any authority if what the Bush admin did was any violation of the law at all. Read this telling exchange:

HH: So they specifically reserved the question to one side, and the foreign intelligence surveillance court appeals board, in In Re Sealed Case number 2, also said no, the president has the authority to do this. So given that the federal authority...

RB: Well, you know, Hugh, I mean, you've got the case law at your fingertips, and I'm not going to challenge you on it, because I don't. And this is actually why, as I said a few minutes ago, this seems like the least of it to me. I mean, this seems to me to be an open question. You know, I'm not an expert on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or the case law behind it. I don't know.

Ok so she admits she really doesn't know what she is talking about fine. Now this brings me to the part of the interview that I took exceptional issue with. I have a serious problem with people who make outlandish claims that have already been demonstrably and repeatedly proven false. Call me crazy but it just makes me see red when people do this and even more so when they get away with it. I am just funny that way. Here is where Professor Brooks repeats the tired meme of "there are no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda".

possibly deliberately misleading people about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, potential violation of federal law on interrogations and detentions policy, and speaking specifically of the torture statute in the war crimes statute.

now anyone who wants to know and anyone who has read the 9/11 report, anyone who has read The Connection by Stephen F. Hayes or any of his 2 dozen or so articles on this topic know that there is no dispute. Saddam Hussein gave money, and training, held meetings, publicly praised (including the 9/11 attacks) and gave safe harbor to numerous terrorists. There are mountains of documentary evidence, including photos, documents, and witnesses supporting this.

Again call me crazy but I just expect a College professor to know what she is talking about before making an outlandish claim like this in one of the largest newspapers in the country or on a national radio show.

So I felt compelled to call Hugh that day and point it out. I also felt compelled to comment on Professor Brooks' blog and gave her some reference material so she can no longer claim ignorance of the facts. Here are my Comments on Professor Brooks blog:

I actually called in that day to gloat about the Texas win over USC but also to comment on your apparent complete ignorance of the numerous documented ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. as well as various other well known terrorist organizations.

Or are you one of the people who believe Abu Sayyaf leaders called Iraqi intelligence agents to discuss their night out bowling?

In case you have missed the over 2 dozen articles Stephen F. Hayes has written on the topic here are a few samples. Pay particular attention to the last one where he documents that Saddam trained THOUSANDS of terrorists in Iraq during the 4 years prior to the invasion. This particular claim has been confirmed by 11 government officials.

Mr. Hayes writes:

“The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million "exploitable items" captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives.”

Now you may have been ignorant before but that excuse is gone for you professor Brooks. I truly hope you are honest enough to leave this particular falsehood out of your repertoire in future articles or interviews on national radio programs.

Am I out of line?

Should't we expect serious people writing for major newspapers and appearing on national radio shows to know what they are talking about?

Hugh suggested he would have her back on the program. I hope he asks her specifically about the ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. She seems like a nice lady, and she did not come across as a partisan hack or ideologue. I hope she has the intellectual honesty to admit she was wrong.

Hugh talks a little bit about that interview in the context of the impending doom of the MSM here. I don't know if Michael Hiltzik will ever appear on Hugh's show again. I am leaning towards no.

Saturday, January 07, 2006

Ted Kennedy's Editorial On Alito: Your Kidding Me Right? / Open Track Back Weekend!

First of all for Ted Kennedy to question anyone’s credibility is a joke. Take a look at his editorial in today's Washington Post.

As you may notice Kennedy fails to address Alito's qualifications for the court at all. There is good reason for that. The man is one of the most qualified judges to be nominated to the court in the last 50 years. Alito just received the ABA's highest rating of "Well Qualified" for the job.

First Kennedy takes Issue with Alito's 1990 job application for a position in the AG's office under Ed Meese. In that application Alito stated his "deep disagreement with Warren Court decisions."

So What? Do you think Justice Ginsberg (who was an ACLU attorney before her appointment to the SCOTUS) had strong views on the Warren Court decisions or any other court for that matter?

Newsflash Judges are people too. People have political and philosophical views especially people who work in politics and government.

#2 Kennedy suggests Alito's membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton some how disqualifies him for the job. Is he serious?

#3 Kennedy cites Alito's failure to recuse himself in a 2002 case in which three Vanguard companies were named parties. Kennedy of course fails to mention any specifics about the case. Maybe this is damning maybe it isn't but I would bet dimes to donuts if it was Kennedy would have been far more specific.

#4 Kennedy says Alito pledged to be absolutely impartial in cases against the government despite his many years of service in the government. Sounds pretty reasonable and pretty typical. Lots of Judges served as prosecutors or government attorneys before their appointment to the bench. Kennedy again uses broad accusations and no specifics when he says
"But in case after case involving the actions of U.S. marshals, IRS agents and other government officials, he has sided with the government and against the citizens, even when his fellow judges have told him he was off-base."

He doesn't mention any particular case, or any specific incident that would indicate a pro government bias on Alito's part. If Kennedy knows something we don't he should put down his glass of scotch for a moment and share.

And finally #5 Kennedy says: His promise to leave his personal beliefs behind when he became a judge : That's what he told me in 1990 he would do.

and claims Alito's appearing and speaking at Federalist Society meetings somehow betrayed that promise.


Because if it is Alito is going to sail through confirmation just like Roberts did. Justifiably so.

This is an Open Trackback Post. If you have something you would like to share this weekend just leave a link to this post in the main body of your post and then leave a trackback here. I will put them up on the main page as I see them come in

Other folks with Open Trackbacks this Weekend: Stop The ACLU, Stuck On Stupid, Linkfest Haven, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Uncooperative Blogger, NIF, Point Five, Don Surber,

Read them, if you have a blog link to them.... I did.

Freedom Folks linked with: It's Your Ass Folks
The Young Conservatives linked with: Abramoff, DeLay, And Alito
The Florida Masochist linked with: All in the word of Allah
The Florida Masochist linked with: The Knucklehead of the Day award

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Mexico The West's Best Chance Of Survival? My Take On Mark Steyn's Article

If you haven't read Mark Steyn's piece yet do it right now.

For those who don't have 15 minutes. Here are the main points:

Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries.

Yet while Islamism is the enemy, it's not what this thing's about. Radical Islam is an opportunistic infection, like AIDS: It's not the HIV that kills you, it's the pneumonia you get when your body's too weak to fight it off.

They know they can never win on the battlefield, but they figure there's an excellent chance they can drag things out until Western civilization collapses in on itself and Islam inherits by default.

That's what the war's about: our lack of civilizational confidence. As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder"--as can be seen throughout much of "the Western world" right now. The progressive agenda--lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism--is collectively the real suicide bomb.

Steyn hits it dead on. We are not losing, and can not lose the war against Islamofascism except by refusing to fight it, and refusing to reproduce and reinvest in and re-assert our own western culture. Not only are most Europeans and a good percentage of of Americans not willing to fight, they are unwilling to accept the fact that we are in a war for the very survival of our civilization.

He also offers these eye opening statistics:

"Replacement" fertility rate--i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller--is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?

Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That's to say, Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%.

By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans--and mostly red-state Americans.

Just to recap those bald statistics: In 1970, the developed world had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30% to 15%. By 2000, they were the same: each had about 20%.

and follows with these poll results:

According to a poll taken in 2004, over 60% of British Muslims want to live under Shariah--in the United Kingdom.

and finally this conclusion:

If a population "at odds with the modern world" is the fastest-breeding group on the planet--if there are more Muslim nations, more fundamentalist Muslims within those nations, more and more Muslims within non-Muslim nations, and more and more Muslims represented in more and more transnational institutions--how safe a bet is the survival of the "modern world"?

Not good.

So as Steyn says this is a battle of attrition fought more in the bedroom than on the battlefield. I agree completely.

Which brings me to something I have been thinking about and contemplating posting on for quite some time. One of the strengths of the United States over the last 2 centuries has been its ability to take immigrants and incorporate them into society hence the nick name "the melting pot". Unlike European countries or any other country in the world for that matter, immigrants to the
United States have proudly considered themselves "Americans" no matter their country of origin. That certainly isn't the case in France, or Germany, or Italy. Ask any immigrant in those countries what nationality they consider themselves to be and they will tell you Turkish, or Armenian, or Kurdish, or Somali, etc. I have asked them myself. Never is the answer "I am German" or "French".

Now here is the unfortunate twist. Due to our fairly recent immigration policy we have created an entire generation of immigrants mostly from Mexico but to a lesser extent from all over Central and South America who still consider themselves "Mexican" or "Brazilian" or El Salvadoran". Only because we have forced them to.

I am completely against illegal immigration but our country thrives on immigrants. Like it or not these people are here to stay. They are not going home next week, or next year or six years from now as President Bush would like us to believe. So why don't we embrace them?

Why don't we encourage them to become Americans?

No matter how poorly considered the law to have been they have broken it and need to be penalized but that penalty needs to also be handed out with a path toward citizenship that can be earned.

Why am I bringing this up now and how in the heck does it relate to Mark's article?

Well The fact is
Mexico is our next door neighbor and Mexicans, have a whole lot more in common with Americans than Egyptians, or Nigerians. We share they same religion (Mexico and Brazil have the 2nd and 3rd highest Christian populations in the world next to the United States). Most of Central and South America is Catholic. They have a hard work ethic which is one of the major factors that led them to leave their families and lives behind in their home countries in the first place. They have high birth rates which if you didn't get the message above in Mark's piece WE DESPARATELY NEED.

We share a common history being discovered, and colonized by the Europeans. Hell the entire
Southwestern USA used to be part of Mexico as the names San Diego (my home town) Los Angeles, San Francisco, El Paso, and Las Cruces would suggest.

So my answer to Mark Steyn's dilemma begins with the "Americanization" of our existing 12 million or so Mexicans, Guatemalans, El Salvadorans, et al. Secondly I suggest we encourage more "LEGAL" immigration from these countries and give them p
referential status over European, Middle Eastern, and African immigrants. The next step is making a serious effort to end the kleptocracy governments of Mexico and the southern Americas. Again starting with Mexico, by simply putting an end to the corruption and replacing the oligarchies these countries could be very much Like the USA. Most of them are rich in resources. Mexico certainly is.

We should encourage the Mexican government to send us their citizens for the foreseeable future. We will welcome them with open arms but they will be our citizens, and as a condition of this new Mexican friendly immigration policy we should require and even subsidize Mexican schools to teach every Mexican child English. As that becomes established we should extend this policy farther south.

Sounds like a long term strategy doesn’t it?

As Mark pointed out the Islamists are thinking long term.

The fact is the people of
Mexico and eventually South America could be the West’s best hope of winning this war of attrition or reproduction however the case may be.

And again to draw from Mr. Steyn's article:

In July 2003, speaking to the U.S. Congress, Tony Blair remarked: "As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible but, in fact, it is transient. The question is: What do you leave behind?"

If we can not encourage the people of
Mexico and the Southern America's to become us at least they will be much more like us by the time we have committed civilizational suicide. That is something we could be proud of leaving behind, and just may give modernity a fighting chance.

Other People talking about Mark Steyn's Article: Peak Talk,Bird of Paradise, Deep Keel, The Only Republican In San Francisco, UNCoRRELATED, Sun Comprehending Glass, All Things Beautiful, scottish-right, Pekin Prattles, OKIE on the LAM,

Hugh Hewitt has an even larger list of bloggers discussing this article.

In a related article check out this post titled The Other War at Freedom Folks. If you haven't figured it out already, my suggestion would partially address this problem as well. We will still need much better border enforcement but it should effectively stop the flood of hard working, legitimate immigrants and leave only the criminal elements to police.

instead of looking South Heliopause is looking north WAY NORTH. Something I am also very in favor of btw.

Open Trackbacks can be found today at these fine blogs: Third World County, Adams Blog, Bloggin' Outloud, Don Surber, TMH's Bacon Bits,

I have read and linked to them you should to!

The Must Read Piece Of 2006!

This article by Mark Steyn is the early must read of the year. Not only do you need to read it you need to show it to every left wing moonbat you know. It might, just might slap a few of them in the face hard enough to wake them up to the real imminent threat the western world is facing.

Here is an excerpt to give you an idea of the gravity:

Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out
as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries. There'll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands--probably--just as in Istanbul there's still a building called St. Sophia's Cathedral. But it's not a cathedral; it's merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate. The challenge for those who reckon Western civilization is on balance better than the alternatives is to figure out a way to save at least some parts of the West.

That's what the war's about: our lack of civilizational confidence.
As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder"--as can be seen throughout much of "the Western world" right now. The progressive agenda--lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism--is collectively the real suicide bomb. Take multiculturalism. The great thing about multiculturalism is that it doesn't involve knowing anything about other cultures--the capital of Bhutan, the principal exports of Malawi, who cares? All it requires is feeling good about other cultures. It's fundamentally a fraud, and I would argue was subliminally accepted on that basis. Most adherents to the idea that all cultures are equal don't want to live in anything but an advanced Western society. Multiculturalism means your kid has to learn some wretched native dirge for the school holiday concert instead of getting to sing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" or that your holistic masseuse uses techniques developed from Native American spirituality, but not that you or anyone you care about should have to live in an African or Native American society. It's a quintessential piece of progressive humbug.