A excellent article about a remarkable & brave women willing to challenge Muslim doctrine. The story runs long; but is definitely worth the read.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is arguably the bravest and most remarkable woman of our times.
To understand why this 37-year-old woman is extraordinary, she must be assessed in the context of the forces pitted against her in her twin struggles to force the Western world to take note of Islam's divinely ordained enslavement of women, and to force the Islamic world to account for it.
AoS notes: 1) your comments are in hilite, not blockquote. Also, don't put links to the story in the text ('specially as tinyurl's) but in the source box in the Poster.
#1
It would be nice to see Ayaan Hirsi Ali awarded a Nobel Peace prize. She is far more deserving than some of the fools that have previously won them (eg Mohamed ElBaradei, Jimmy Carter, Kissinger, Arafat etc).
Besides, it may lead to some much needed introspection by Allah, who needs to send a new prophet to correct the mistakes of His last one.
#2
Nobel Peace Prize? We are talking about the on that is an award for most liberal politics? Hirsi Ali - are you kidding? They'd sooner award it to Ahmadinejad.
Great read, and spot-on IMHO.
De Gaulle, Le Pen, and the Communist party have been expunged from French politics.
By Laurent Murawiec
Good news for the French, good news for us: Nicolas Sarkozys impressive victory in this weekends French presidential election sounds the death knell of key components of French political exceptionalism.
GAULLISM AT HOME
First, the Gaullist exception in both the domestic field and in international affairs has finally been done away with. Domestically, Gaullism has been terrible for the Right. In France, after 1945, the figure of General de Gaulle singlehandedly prevented the consolidation of a powerful and durable Christian-Democratic party as arose in Germany or Italy and as existed in Britain. Even after de Gaulles retirement, his legacy prevented the often-attempted establishment of a conservative, right-of-center party. This fragmented the center and the Right, and forced a general shift to the center. The Right was softened, which in turn enabled the rise of an uncouth ultra-right in the form of Jean-Marie Le Pen, whose National Front took a large part of the conservative electorate.
Furthermore, de Gaulle essentially established a pact with the Communist party, which paralyzed the political landscape: Against an erratic coalition of Gaullists and Communists, it was virtually impossible to effect significant change. For the better part of fifty years, the Communist-dominated unions were like a lead balloon burdening the body politic, a powerful lobby on behalf of corporatist status quo.
No figure comparable to that of Mrs. Thatcher ever rose to break the back of the unions, no figure remotely comparable to that of Ronald Reagan ever appeared to free the political system from the poisonous legacy of Gen. de Gaulle. Sarkozys ascent represents the consolidation of a genuine right-of-center force in French politics and the final vanquishing of the Gaullist exception.
AND ABROAD
In international affairs, de Gaulle repeatedly broke ranks with Atlantic solidarity; he tried to sunder NATO and flirted with Moscow. De Gaulle foolishly floated France, with him at it head, as the leader of an international third way in which the non-aligned and the Soviet bloc would join him. The Islamic world, Latin America, and Asia would heed his anti-American call. De Gaulles successors kept up that tradition, though with partial exceptions: President Pompidou improved relations with Richard Nixon somewhat; Socialist president Mitterrand supported Reagans deployment of the euro-missiles (but furiously opposed missile defense). Jacques Chirac turned out to be the most virulent hater of America, ready to go to almost any length to harm the U.S.
Sarkozys very first statement upon being elected pointedly emphasized a strong alliance with and friendliness toward the United States. This is an enormous change: For the first time since the strongly Atlantic-oriented Fourth Republic, Paris will not be anti-American. This does not mean that Sarkozys France will be aligned with, or a mere appendix of, American diplomacy in his speech, Sarkozy first underlined that he was a good European and favorable to a stronger Europe. Rather, it means that Sarkozys France will stop trying to berate, harass, and scoff at the United States at every opportunity; that Sarkozys France will stop trying to lead a worldwide anti-American coalition, as was the case under the bumbling but tenaciously noxious stewardship of Jacques Chirac. The professional America-loathers at the French foreign ministry, the Quai dOrsay, will have to watch their step. Israel will be able to count on a more level playing field and less Islamophilia. Washington can do business with Nicolas Sarkozy, whereas Chirac only wanted to do injury to America. The European Union can again envision a center-right French-German leadership that is not intent on pitting the EU against America.
THE END OF LE PEN
The second French exception that suffered a fatal blow Sunday is Jean-Marie Le Pen, a clever, oafish demagogue. By defying the politically correct denial that there was any problem at all with Muslim immigrants, with their wayward, violent, and inassimilable children, or with the ghetto-like banlieues breeding grounds for drugs, criminality, and Islamic recruitment Le Pen proved a powerful attraction for the popular electorate and dragged it away from the mainstream, which in turn strengthened the Left. Plus several rightwing notable figures reported how little he was interested in actually getting power, and how his party was firstly a vehicle for his ego, and his purse, managed as a family business, like a petty dictator ripe with nepotism. Mitterrand and the Socialists underhandedly supported Le Pen so as to weaken the Right, which gave Le Pen an otherwise unattainable lease on life. The fact is that Le Pens strength was a mainstay of Socialist power. Deprived by Le Pen of more than 15 percent of the electorate, the Right was politically weakened; with Le Pen unwilling to engage in coalition politics except on his own terms, the conservative camp was in poor shape. The farce of the 2002 presidential election, where all the Left voted for Chirac the crook, as they called him in order to stop the Fascist Le Pen was the crowning tomfoolery of the French exception.
The portion of the popular electorate that supported Le Pen, at least 15 percent of the whole, had shifted over decades from de Gaulle to the Communists and then from the Communists to Le Pen. Sarkozys strategy, tested and steadfastly practiced over many years, much resembles Richard Nixons recapture of George Wallaces electorate. Nixon did not deny, as the respectable elites did, that there were serious reasons for disaffection among blue-collar workers and disenfranchised whites. Sarkozy likewise stated the obvious, which the Chiraquist, as well as Socialist, elites were discounting giving Le Pen, as a result, a monopoly on proclaiming that uncontrolled North African and West African Muslim immigration had created a massive problem; that the withdrawal of police and justice from the high-density clusters of immigrant and second-generation Muslims and the abandonment by the authorities of the poorer, lower-middle-class French had worsened the problem; and that some major policy-shift was urgent.
MARGINALIZED FRINGES
On the abhorrent basis of ideological racism and hatred for foreigners (he even badgered Sarkozy for his Hungarian roots), Le Pen recognized the Muslim problem and spoke up strongly about it. In so doing, he strongly contributed to the disintegration of the Communist party, which was once one of the most vigorous in Western Europe, with a quarter of the vote and a powerful grip on labor: Le Pen stole the Communists popular base. In the present election, Le Pen lost about half his electorate and the Communist candidate polled 2 percent of the vote.
The radical (Left or Right) hijacking of blue-collars has come to an end, even if various Trotskyites and Greens and sundry absurdists managed to siphon off about 10 percent of the total vote in the first leg of the election. In France, the fringe radicals are on the wane. Just as, in Germany, the CDU-CSU was wide enough a tent to include more nationalistic oriented voters, so it will now be in France.
THE END OF AN ERA
The exceptions of Gaullism, the Communist party, and Le Pen have been fatally weakened or eliminated altogether. The French body politic is ripe for a thoroughgoing reshuffle, and this is what will occur now. A new, post-Gaullist conservative pole will take shape around Sarkozy. Should the new president go to the country to acquire the parliamentary majority he needs, he would consolidate a five-year majority for himself, enabling him to implement what priorities he will select, which, if the campaign is any indication, will represent a pro-market inflection (not revolution) in the étatist policies of the French state.
The Socialist party will be torn by defeat, by the exhaustion of the 68 generation, by the failure of the post-68 (Ségolène Royals) generation to capitalize on even as calamitous a 12-year legacy as that of the pseudo-conservative Chirac. The moderate, more Social-Democratic types in the Socialist party have been signaling their willingness to deal with the center: Former Socialist government minister Bernard Kouchner, founder of the French Doctors, is now talking of joining François Bayrous new Centrist (Christian-Democratic) party. Claude Allègre, renowned geophysicist (and noted global-warming skeptic) and a former Socialist minister of Education, was spotted leaving Sarkozys offices a few days ago.
The grip of the Sixty-Eighters (soixante-huitards) on the political and cultural establishment and the complete connivance between Gaullists, Communists, and 68ers on anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Christian, pro-Arab, pro-Muslim, pro-Russian, and pro-third world policies has now been seriously weakened. In his campaign, Sarkozy emphasized national identity and cultural roots (Judeo-Christian, Catholic, French, and Western) subjects that drive the Left into fits of rage. The 68ers idolized cultural relativism and multiculturalism; the new president has no sympathy for their shibboleths. The virtues he stresses and the vices he attacks have nothing in common with the worldview of the 68ers.
With the end of its persistent and toxic exceptions, from the so-called French social model to the conceit of French international leadership, and with a new chief executive unburdened by these follies, France will join again the ranks of reasonably governed nations. Good news for the French, good news for us.
Laurent Murawiec is a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. His next book, The Mind of Jihad, will appear next year.
#2
You used to buy French Wine? With a winery just down the road? Tsk-tsk. I don't mind helping out the French wine makers a bit now and then. It's good stuff.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
05/09/2007 15:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The winery on the hill used to be good 10 years ago. Its all overly sweet stuff now. The old man who started the business has left it to others. I dont recommend it anymore.
Now the Australians can make some very good wine at a decent price.
#4
There is a Scottish wine--Buckfast. "True to its name, Buckfast will get you "bucked up" real fast. Buckfast was thick, with a strong taste of molasses. There was also a hint of some type of herb reminiscent of oregano, and a soapy aftertaste."
President-elect Nicolas Sarkozy's first speech to the French nation concluded with a wonderful endorsement of human rights.
Sarkozy spoke from a prepared text , which appears on his official campaign websites. If you read the text while listening to the speech, you will find various minor ways in which he deviated from the text, such as by inserting an extra word. The text of the speech as actually delivered is on Le Figaro's website.
In the prepared text, the penultimate paragraph is:
Je veux lancer un appel à tous ceux qui dans le monde croient aux valeurs de tolérance, de liberté, de démocratie et dhumanisme, à tous ceux qui sont persécutés par les tyrannies et par les dictatures, à tous les enfants et à toutes les femmes martyrisés dans le monde pour leur dire que la France sera à leurs côtés, quils peuvent compter sur elle.
In English: "I want to launch a call to all those in the world who believe in the values of tolerance, of liberty, of democacy and of humanism, to all those who are persecuted by the tyrannies and by the dictators, to all the children and to all the martyrized women in the world to say to them that the pride, the duty of France will at their sides, that they can count on her."
(The italicized words were in the speech as delivered, but not in the prepared text.) Pretty good so far. Then, Sarkozy delivered a paragraph which did not appear in the prepared text, and his rising passion matched that of the audience:
La France sera aux côtés des infirmières libyennes enfermées depuis huit ans, la France n'abandonnera pas Ingrid Betancourt, la France n'abandonnera pas les femmes qu'on condamne à la burqa, la France n'abandonnera pas les femmes qui n'ont pas la liberté. La France sera du côté des opprimés du monde. C'est le message de la France, c'est l'identité de la France, c'est l'histoire de la France.
In English: "France will be at the sides of the Libyan nurses locked up for eight years; France will not abandon Ingrid Betancourt; France will not abandon the women who are condemned to the burqa; France will not abandon the women who do not have liberty. France will be by the side of the oppressed of the world. This is the message of France; this is the identity of France; this is the history of France."
The speech concludes:
Mes chers compatriotes, nous allons écrire ensemble une nouvelle page de notre histoire. Cette page de notre histoire, mes chers compatriotes, je suis sûr qu'elle sera grande, qu'elle sera belle. Et du fond du coeur, je veux vous le dire, avec la sincérité la plus totale qui est la mienne au moment où je vous parle: Vive la République et vive la France.
"My dear compatriots, together we will write a new page of our history. This page of our history, my dear compatriots, I am sure that it will be grand, that it will be beautiful. And from the bottom of the heart, I want to say to you, with the most total sincerity which is mine at the time when I speak to you: Long live the Republic and long live France."
If Sarkozy can govern as he spoke, if he can lead France in leading the worldwide fight for human rights, if he can energize 21st century France with the eternal truths of liberty that are the best elements of France's tradition, then Nicolas Sarkozy--like Charles de Gaulle and Ronald Reagan--will earn a place in the pantheon of the most important democratic leaders, who took a tired and timid nation in decline, and led it to a new era of greatness.
Hillary Clinton is twisting herself into a pretzel on Iraq. Her latest effort to find some way to appease the Democratic Party's anti-war base is a proposal for a vote to "deauthorize" the war. Her proposal is unserious - and consciously so. There has never been such a vote in all of recorded history, and there won't be one now.
It's highly unlikely Hillary wants this transparent gimmick to be given serious consideration. Rather, she has signed onto it to give her something specific to say in speeches and debates when people ask her what she has done to end a war wildly unpopular with her constituents - a war she voted to authorize.
This raises the key question that I, as the author of a book on Hillary's presidential ambitions, am asked constantly. Why, people ask, doesn't she just say she was wrong to have voted for the war in the first place? Good question. And I have an answer.
Let's begin with the most rational premise, which is that in her heart of hearts, Hillary believes the war was a mistake: No WMDs, we haven't stabilized the country, America's reputation abroad is at a low point and so on.
She has said all this repeatedly. She has claimed to be among those duped into voting for the war - a disingenuous claim by most senators but especially coming from the wife of the president who said, in a nationally televised 1998 address, that "the credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program."
But she has not said it was a mistake to go to war, and she has not expressed regret for her vote. You know she regrets it, though. After all, if she hadn't decided to play hawk in 2002, she'd be the darling of the netroots activists who are instead seeking an alternative to her
And she would've remained the relentless subject of withering criticism from right-wingers - the very sort of criticism that would only soften the hearts of all Democrats who might find her a bit off-putting.
So why not simply say she is sorry for her vote and move on? Because she can't. Because to say such a thing now would be political suicide next year. Before those of you who are anti-war blow raspberries at me, I swear I am not saying this as a supporter of the war - which I am - but strictly as a political analyst.
Hillary wants to be president. She is the front-runner in the Democratic Party. The prospect of her winning the nomination and facing the voters in November 2008 is very real to her, as it ought to be. She does not want to do things to win the primary that will make her general-election victory more difficult. Saying she is sorry to have voted for the war and that her vote was a mistake would be a gigantic gift-wrapped treat for a Republican rival, and she and her team know it.
Consider the larger meaning of such a statement. Hillary would be presenting herself to the American people as follows: Iraq is the most important issue facing the nation, and the most important matter on which I have cast my vote in the Senate. And on this most important matter of our time, I was wrong. She wouldn't phrase it in that way, but that would be the gist of it.
And it would be the source of the Republican campaign's strategy against her. "She says the war she supported was a mistake. What else will she do that she will regret - and that we all will have to regret right along with her?" To go before the American people claiming to have been wrong on the central issue of your time is, to put it mildly, not a good idea.
I know that Hollywood movies about politicians always end with the politician apologizing for a past wrong and becoming more popular and beloved than ever. But that is why Hollywood is Hollywood and the real world is the real world.
What does a presidential contest come down to anyway but the question of which candidate has the best judgment? To acknowledge having had poor judgment may seem modest and charming. But it is also unnerving. It is the easiest thing in the world for a rival candidate to play on the unnerving aspect - and that kind of attack will have resonance.
Yes, I know John Edwards, who is running for president also and who voted for the war also, has explicitly renounced his vote. But he is trying as an underdog, and needs to do everything he can just to emerge from the second tier in the Democratic field.
Hillary is trying to thread a political needle here. It would be easier for her in the short run to stop trying and give her Democratic doubters what they want. In the long run, it would be very dangerous for her. Either way, she's not behaving very admirably. But she's doing what she has to do to win.
#2
"Let's begin with the most rational premise, which is that in her heart of hearts, Hillary believes the war was a mistake: No WMDs, we haven't stabilized the country, America's reputation abroad is at a low point and so on. "
She could believe that the war is a mistake because of how Bush waged it, which she could believe is he reason the country hasnt stabilized,etc. Thus she could in her heart of hearts NOT beleive HER vote was a mistake.
"She has said all this repeatedly. She has claimed to be among those duped into voting for the war - a disingenuous claim by most senators but especially coming from the wife of the president who said, in a nationally televised 1998 address, that "the credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program." "
But that was containment force - no fly zones, surgical strikes, etc. We can argue till the cows come home if that was actually sustainable (I lean to the view that it was not) all im saying is that Clintons statement, doesnt mean she wasnt deceived about the WMD situation in 2002/2003. And suppose she was not - was she not deceived, as were all of us, about how unseriously the admin would prosecute this war?
"But she has not said it was a mistake to go to war, and she has not expressed regret for her vote. You know she regrets it, though. After all, if she hadn't decided to play hawk in 2002, she'd be the darling of the netroots activists who are instead seeking an alternative to her "
Now thats really bunk. The Netroots folks despisal of Clintonism is far deeper than Iraq. Its about "triangulation" which goes againt their deep partisanism. Its about NAFTA, which goes against their protectionism and their populist hatred of Wall Street. Its about the Clintons alliance with Goldman Sachs, and Silicon Valley. And, to the extent its about foreign policy, its about the Clintons neo-Wilsoniasm, which they hate. and yes, its about Israel, which the Clintons have long supported.
#3
Everytime the lie is said, I'll keep posting. WMD are chemical, biological, and nuclear. They have indeed found WMD and everyone in Congress knows it. THEY LIE and LIE again. Care to have these held in your town or neighborhood for storage?
Ann being Ann. Just the highlights here.
I'm off to Paris! I hereby revoke every churlish remark I've ever made about those lovely Gallic people...
In celebration of France's spectacular return to Western civilization, I bought a Herve Leger dress on Monday, and we're having croissants for breakfast every day this week. This delicate French pastry, by the way, is in the shape of a crescent to commemorate the Crusaders' victory over Islam. Aren't the French just peachy? LOL! I didn't know that! "Sarkozy the American," as he is known in France, called Muslim rioters "scum." Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
He explained his position on Muslim immigrants in France, saying: "Nobody has to, I repeat, live in France. But when you live in France, you respect its rules. That is to say that you are not a polygamist. ... One doesn't practice female genital mutilation on one's daughters, one doesn't slit the throat of the sheep, and one respects the republican rules." Damn! Did Sarko actually say that? Sarko never issued an apology or entered rehab. To the contrary, he said: "I called some individuals that I refuse to call 'youth' by the name they deserve. ... I never felt that by saying 'scum' I was being vulgar, hypocritical or insincere."
It looks like the Democrats are going to have to drop their talking point about Bush irritating the rest of the world evidently not as much as Muslim terrorists irritate the rest of the world. The politicians who hate Bush keep being dumped by their own voters.
At the Democratic presidential debate a few weeks ago, B. Hussein Obama carped that Bush had "alienate(d) the world community" and vowed that he would build "the sort of alliances and trust around the world that has been so lacking over the last six years."
Democrats are terrific at building alliances. Remember how Jimmy Carter won the love of the world by ditching our ally the shah of Iran, allowing him be replaced by a string of crazy ayatollahs? Since then, we haven't heard a peep from that area of the world.
As I understand it, the center of the supposedly America-hating world is France. But now it turns out even the French don't hate America as much as liberals do. Au contraire! (We can say that again!) Our Georgie is the most popular American with the French since Jerry Lewis.
All over the civilized world, voters are turning terrorist-coddling liberals out of office and voting for politicians friendly toward Bush, the world's sworn enemy of Islamic fascism.
Only Spain remains a nation of women. As long as Spain exists, it will not outlive the shame of its gutless capitulation to terrorist bombings in 2004. It is worse than Sweden's neutrality toward Hitler.
Apparently, even the French prefer Western civilization to clitorectomy-performing, car-burning savages.
The Democratic Party is now officially the only organization on Earth that does not take the threat of Islamic fascism seriously. Between the Democrats and the media, America has gone from its usual position as the world's last hope to radical Islam's last hope.
I found this page linked off of Instapundit.com. I thought it was interesting in regards to the second amendment and government policy regarding gun purchasing and WOT. Your call if you think the readers may find this of interest.
As I read it, the bill would allow the Att'y General (in practice, some of his underlings) to find that persons are "appropriately suspected" of aiding terror, and reasonably believed to be likely to use guns in that.
If a person is put on that list, they are not forbidden to own guns, but they are put on the instant check list, so they can't buy from a dealer.
If that sounds pretty strange ... if a dealer is put on the list his license can be revoked. Or if a person responsible for a licensee's policies is on the list, it can be revoked.
In any appeal from any of the above, the government may furnish the court with summaries of its evidence, or redacted versions of it. The court may review the originals only to ensure that the summary is appropriate, but may not rely on the original. (My guess: so the court reads the original, and whether you say it can't rely on it or not, the judge is human and will do so. But the individual challenging only sees the summary).
The questionable nature of giving a person legal status because they are "appropriately suspected" of something (the term is undefined -- presumably it's less than probable cause, since if they have that they could arrest him anyway) is clear to me. But the rest is just plain wierd. A terrorist snapping his fingers in frustration because he can't clear the instant check, and protesting that he has a clean record and something must be wrong here, he's gonna write the FBI....
I wonder if the real target isn't dealers and manufacturers. A gun gets into a terrorist's hands ... or is suspected of the same. The mfr knows nothing of it, but you can "appropriately suspect" that they do. Note also that the list would cover anyone "appropriately suspected" of aiding domestic terrorism, too.
[UPDATE: .416 Rigby's comment is dead on. As I recall, part of the escalation in the Randy Weaver case involved the local US Atty (whom I knew from Interior days) sending Mrs. Weaver's letters to the FBI for a threat assessment. They came back with a completely unjustified assessment of her as extremely dangerous, etc.. I recall reading FBI's psychologists' assessments of David Koresh's letters, sent out during the siege ... the evaluation was positively wacky. Only made sense if you assumed they were writing so as to please their bosses. Among other things they called him a "virulent paranoid" -- meaning they weren't quite in command of English. And leaving me wondering how you could assess paranoid traits in a fellow whose *reality* was that he was surrounded by government tanks, had the government playing music and wierd noises all night to disrupt his sleep, sending in listening devices to spy on him, testing a device to shut down all radio and TV reception, and testing three battlefield robots in his front yard, etc. His reality at that point was far wilder than fifty paranoid schitzs could cook up with a team effort. And the letters focused upon his prediction that, as part of the end times, there was going to be an earthquake, and he was warning FBI not to let their agents camp below the dam nearby, because he figured the dam would breach. Paranoids do not normally show concern for the safety of their supposed persecutors.].
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
