We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
No matter who coined the phrase, the meaning is pretty obvious: freedom should not extend to the point where people have the right to destroy freedom itself. There was a brilliant story in The Onion a few years back that perfectly illustrated this principle, something to the effect of “ACLU Sues for Right of Neo-nazis to Blow Up ACLU Headquarters.”
Hillary's Campaign Website is up and it looks like the strategy is triagulation, again
"The Framing Wars" - Matt Bai at the NYT has the Dems new language figured out
From Northeast Intell:
18 July 2005: In a U.S. Treasury Department memo dated July 14, 2005 that seems to have received little press coverage, authorities allege for the first time that Abdurahman Alamoudi raised money for Al Qaeda in the U.S. For those unaware, Alamoudi, 53, portrayed himself as a “moderate Muslim” who served as a liaison between the U.S. government and American Muslims for two decades. A founder of the American Muslim Council (AMC), Alamoudi played a key role in developing the Pentagon's Muslim chaplain program, represented the State Department and attended meetings at the White House spanning two administrations. Accordingly, the significance of the allegations by the U.S. Treasury Department that Alamoudi raised money for al Qaeda cannot be understated.
Diana West has had it with multiculturalism (who hasn't?) at Town Hall:
Notice I didn't say "Islamists." Or "Islamofascists." Or "fundamentalist extremists." I've tried out such terms in the past, but I've come to find them artificial and confusing, and maybe purposefully so, because in their imprecision I think they allow us all to give a wide berth to a great problem: the gross incompatibility of Islam -- the religious force that shrinks freedom even as it "moderately" enables or "extremistly" advances jihad -- with the West. Am I right? Who's to say? The very topic of Islamization -- for that is what is at hand, and very soon in Europe -- is verboten.
Africa is poor because they are poorly governed
I'd say that that is no longer debatable - it's a fact. More on this from Ammann at Reason.