Though most Americans are unaware of it, the American Civil Liberties Union takes millions of dollars per year from the American taxpayers to cover attorneys' fees for suing them. This is based on a Federal law that requires a plaintiff's attorneys' fees to be paid by the government if a court finds that the plaintiff's civil rights have been violated. The law has become a gravy train for the rapacious solicitors who make the aCLU their career. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 10:23 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

From the Washington Post, indications that the mullahs have gone too far:

TEHRAN -- Nine months after the election of hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president, Iranian politics has shifted so sharply to the right that some traditional conservatives are warning of the dangers of radicalism.

With reformists sidelined and Ahmadinejad setting a strident new tone on the global stage, figures from the extreme right of Iran's political spectrum are defining the terms of political debate in the country. In remarks that set off a domestic firestorm, a senior cleric close to the new president suggested in January that Iranian voters were largely irrelevant because the government requires only the approval of God.

Now is the time to make the Iranian people understand clearly what their leaders are monkeying with, and perhaps to make Russia and Red China question the wisdom of sucking up to the current regime.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:41 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

Clinton Taylor at Townhall quoting Yale student Sayeed Rahmatullah Hashemi in his former official capacity as front-man for the Taliban:

So for the Afghans, he is a good guy. If we were to hand this good guy to the U.S., what kind of justification will we give to our people?

Apparently he had impressed the mullahs with his footwork in America, because soon after he returned, Mr. Rahmatullah went to work as a personal adviser to Mullah Omar.....

When UPIÂ’s Arnaud de Borchgrave interviewed Mullah Omar in June 2001, Mr. Rahmatullah did all the talking. Where Mullah Omar comes off as the strong, silent type in the interview, Mr. Rahmatullah emerges as the idea man, the big picture guy, the strategist with both eyes open, Mullah Omar having lost one of his fighting the Soviets.

We've known Clinton Taylor for some time now. Long time readers may recall that I appeared on his Stanford radio program awhile back. Apparently I'm a much better blogger than radio guest since I've never been invited back! In any event, keep up the good work Clint.

UPDATE: More on the Yale Taliban problem here by Penraker (via Glenn). In another note and aside, rumor has it that the WSJ's John Fund is a Jawa Report reader.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:11 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

The George Mason University Patriots, the poster-child of a libertarian-oriented university... and unique in its niche, is playing in the NCAA tournament tonight at 7:10PM againt evil statist anti-libertarian Michigan State University. Your assignment is to root for the underdog... (and I don't mean the Spartans).

Whisper in Evolution's or God's ear, whichever appeals to you... We aren't above appealing to dumb luck either, if you happen to know her telephone number. Sucking down more beer than is strictly healthy is optional...

Posted by: Demosophist at 05:42 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

As you may recall Clinton and Debbie are co-authors of an idea to mail fake fingernails to Yale in response to it’s admission of a former Taliban spokesman to the university. The protest is intended to point out that the policy of the Taliban was to remove the fingernails and toenails of women in Afghanistan who painted their nails. A Yale employee, one Alexis Surovov, apparently used university records to look up the pair of Yale alumni so he could call them “retarded” via email. Yale has suspended Mr. Sorovov, but Yale has still not addressed the problem of just why Mr. Rahmatulla is still at Yale. I have Mr. Taylor’s reaction below as well as a more from the WSJ opinionjournal and links to all Jawa Report coverage the extended entry.

Clinton W. Talylor via Townhall : Just an apology would have sufficed. (A personal one, though, instead of a general one through the media. Let's not pretend they don't know my e-mail address.) Mr. Surovov accessing our records to send us a letter was creepy and lame, and kind of funny. It's not funny that they welcome the Taliban's spokesman on campus as a student, which is the real, unacknowledged problem here. Still, Mr. Surovov's suspension in the Yale Alumni Office creates an opportunity for Yale. They need to defend to the alumni their indefensible decision to admit the Taliban's deputy foreign minister. Mr. Rahmatullah is a certified expert at defending the indefensible. Rather than re-admitting Rahmatullah as a sophomore this month, perhaps Yale's Development Office should hire him.

Posted by: Howie at 11:48 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 487 words, total size 3 kb.

Tooling around the internet this morning, I came across ex-Taliban spokesman and current Yale student Sayeed Rahmatullah Hashemi's NCAA tournament picks. It looks like he thinks Duke will beat UCONN. If Duke is trailing at the half, I'd get myself out of the arena quick. I hear that in addition to stoning infidels in his free time, Hashemi is a chronic gambler.....and he hates to lose!

More on Sayeed Rahmatullah Hashemi and how you can pressure Yale University here.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:06 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

Is there really free speech on college campuses today? Yes.

And by yes I mean as long as you don't say or print anything which isn't exactly what we want you to say or print.

And it's not like we're going to arrest you for saying or printing stuff. You're just going to get fired.

Oh, and you might just fail all of your classes.

And there is a slight possibility that we'll kick you out of school.

Marginal chance that we'll also ruin your reputation by labelling you bigot.

Might just ruin your career if you hope to go into the media.

Or any other occupation where people might not want to work with a bigot.

Which, now that I think about it, is pretty much all of them.

Other than that, the college campus remains the last true refuge for free speech on the earth.

Go support Acton Gort who just got fired from the The Daily Illini for printing the Muhammed cartoons. He could use it right now.

Peoria Pundit claims that the Daily Illini is the now officially the crappiest student newspaper in America. Hard to argue.

Hat tip: Glenn Reynolds

Posted by: Rusty at 10:47 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 2 kb.

My friend at Signal 94 isn't what you'd call a prolific blogger - two posts since starting up the site on Friday - but quality trumps quantity most of the time, as it does here.

Sig94 doesn't offer any solutions, just the observations of a beat cop:

This is not a “bad” young man. He is not a criminal. He does not use alcohol or drugs. He is courteous, respectful and is very intelligent. He is also a vegan; I do not comprehend how he can work as a burger flipper. He has made a series of bad decisions in his young life and now has made another that is very different from all his prior bad choices.

He has condemned two other people to a life of grinding poverty. And if not an entire lifetime, at least a long, very difficult period of precarious, hand to mouth, daily living. These three people are on the Road To Poverty.

"Signal 94" means "end of shift".

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:14 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

Hey, Yale. I got something in my pocket for you. Remember to keep sending your fake fingernails to Yale.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:23 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

From NEWS.com.au:

Tougher anti-hoon laws planned
March 06, 2006
THE West Australian Government is planning tougher anti-hoon legislation in a bid to crack down on road rage and reckless driving.

Premier Alan Carpenter said today that amendments to the state's anti-hoon laws would be introduced into Parliament during its first session this year.
Police would be able to impound the cars of drivers who endangered other road users or caused criminal damage to their vehicles as part of road rage incidents, he said.

Whether or not the story is related depends on just what the hell a "hoon" is.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:50 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "HOON? We have all been one or seen one. The slightly rebellious, sunglass clad, ever so cool dude usually spotted behind the wheel of something special, his arm mysteriously jutting out the window, usually with a smile a mile wide - he has an abnormally heavy right foot and it is believed gasoline flows freely in his veins. He longs for the good old days - when auto makers had imagination and flair - when they produced vehicles of style and individuality - he loathes the clone cars produced for the last 25 years. Herds of HOONS gather in their thousands at motor racing events, auto shows, swap meets and cruises. HOONS are happiest behind the wheel or tinkering under the hood/bonnet of his bride & joy - he is simply a petrolhead!" Courtesy of Google.

Posted by: blert at March 06, 2006 03:03 AM (/cQjW)

2 American equivalent; rednecks, trailer trash etc

Posted by: dave at March 06, 2006 04:53 AM (Xa/Xn)

3 So, dave, anyone who likes cars is a redneck and trailer trash? Here's a hint for future reference; if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, remember that it's better to remain quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 06, 2006 05:02 AM (0yYS2)

4 Now that confused me until "blert" explained what a hoon was. I thought, with the accompanying link about racism, that a "hoon" was a race I hadn't heard of yet.

Posted by: Oyster at March 06, 2006 06:47 AM (YudAC)

5 Source - Wikipedia: Hoon is an Australian and New Zealand colloquial term applied to individuals who typically drive fast and dangerously. The term is also used as a verb: "to hoon" or "to hoon around", meaning to act in a reckless or otherwise less than sensible manner. The stereotypical hoon is a young male who owns and/or drives a high-performance or otherwise modified automobile, often a Japanese import.

Posted by: wiremu1306 at March 06, 2006 07:00 AM (pEQyL)

6 Over here they put spoilers on Ford Escorts.

Posted by: Oyster at March 06, 2006 07:41 AM (YudAC)

7 I become a "hoon" every time I drive my wife's Nissan Maxima. What's wrong with that? After driving a GMC Sierra 4-wheel drive all week, I look forward to "hooning" on the weekends. In the USA, that's cool, at least to me.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 06, 2006 08:33 AM (rUyw4)

8 No I don't. Hoons are dickless punks and a social menace. Theres nothing nice about em. Thats all.

Posted by: dave at March 06, 2006 09:03 AM (Xa/Xn)

9 Cracking down on hoon what are the aussies planning? i have this feeling their going after emus and kangaroos that are doing road rage

Posted by: sandpiper at March 06, 2006 09:43 AM (UwJcR)

10 looks like I'm going to have to acquire a new nickname, that's the second 'dave' to post in the last two weeks that pissed off the regulars.

Posted by: dave at March 06, 2006 10:47 AM (CcXvt)

11 I knew it wasn't the real "dave", dave. LOL! It was a "dickless punk and social menace" who tried to steal your nick.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 06, 2006 10:53 AM (rUyw4)

12 I gotta agree with Dave. Hoons are a social menace. 'Hoons' are also very different from car. Car enthusiasts generally show responsibility in how they drive and where they choose to open their cars up. For a hoon the car is merely a way of gaining attention, hence the blinding paint and overall obnoxiousness of their creations. If you're not sure if you're a hoon or not, check out those new Volkswagen GTi commercials. If you dress like that and your car looks like that, you're a hoon and VW is making fun of you. I hope the Missus gets to take the Sierra off roading, JJ. Fair is fair, after all.

Posted by: Graeme at March 06, 2006 10:57 AM (cm8TO)

13 Dave, can we pick a nick for you?

Posted by: Oyster at March 06, 2006 11:01 AM (n/nt4)

14 I say we hold a contest for picking a new nick for Dave.

Posted by: Oyster at March 06, 2006 11:04 AM (n/nt4)

15 I was just going to add a single character in front of 'dave' seeing some of the entries in the last contest probably not a good idea

Posted by: dave at March 06, 2006 11:26 AM (CcXvt)

16 The missus hates my truck, Graeme, saying that it is like driving a tank. Compared to her Maxima, well, it is, but the Maxima doesn't quite make it when there is serious hunting and hauling to do. However, she does like to drive my son's Toyota Tacoma. After looking at some photos of those hoons, I am more in the car enthusiast category, as I like to open up the Maxima on the Interstate Highway system where I don't interfere with other drivers. Especially in rural Arkansas where I can really open it up and see what the Maxima will do. I chickened out at 130 mph, which would be about 200 kph, I think.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 06, 2006 11:45 AM (rUyw4)

17 Well JJ, if your wife reads these comments, she'll now understand why every Monday morning she needs to change the tires and the brake pads A 'new nick for Dave' contest sounds cool, Oyster. I cast my vote for 'Fabio', since it stands out and I can't see anyone wanting to steal it.

Posted by: Graeme at March 06, 2006 12:12 PM (cm8TO)

18 Fabio? Hmmm...that name sounds familiar, Graeme. But I have to agree that no one would steal it, that's for sure. Well, dave, the ball is in your court. Or should I say the Fabio is in your court.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 06, 2006 01:16 PM (rUyw4)

19 Oh man I've been flamed big time. Sorry to all the hoons I've offended here. Or the rednecks, or the trailor trash for that matter.

Posted by: not dave anymore at March 06, 2006 08:01 PM (amAMP)

20 And don't forget us car enthusiasts either, not dave anymore.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 07, 2006 10:41 AM (rUyw4)

21 so where did the word come from?

Posted by: pst314 at March 08, 2006 09:04 AM (OA547)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The author is a 30-veteran retired Syracuse Police Lieutenant. He has sent a letter containing the essential points below to the New York State Senate. - Bluto

I am a retired police officer with over thirty years experience. As a Sergeant, and later Lieutenant, for the Syracuse PD, I worked with the Director of the Bureau of Research in City Hall. We examined and proposed programs for violent crime reduction. Now retired, I basically perform the same tasks on a contract basis.

Read the Rest

Posted by: Bluto at 01:34 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "It is not the gun laws that are weak, it is the pitiful imposition of sentencing and bail guidelines that frustrate police officers!" EOM

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at March 04, 2006 04:12 PM (XU9K/)

2 I have a very different view of gun control than what these pricks in NYS have. Gun control for me is being able to hit the target every time I shoot, expecially with that all important second shot....to the chest cavity. Gets the bastards every time, if you use the .45 auto, or something similar. I just prefer the .45.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 04, 2006 04:43 PM (rUyw4)

3 Like he said its nothing more than Democrat politicians exploiting the PC angle to satisfy constituency, with the end goal of eliminating all guns. They've got no evidence, no facts. It is that simple. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Jawa Report: An error occurred: Fruitcake error: Too many connections

Posted by: Javapuke at March 04, 2006 07:31 PM (eRdh4)

4 AMEN...Jesusland Joe! A .45 is indeed very good, but in the past I used a .38 cal....same result! I worked with this Lieutenent and he knows what he's talking about. I'm a Retired Sergeant from the same Department and he wrote a very truthful and factual letter...Cookie

Posted by: Cookie at March 04, 2006 07:32 PM (Ffvoi)

5 You hardly even need to aim with a Mossberg.

Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 08:27 PM (YudAC)

6 can anyone explain to me how certain states can prohibit possession of firearms, like: Thus, it is unlawful to possess, acquire, or bring into Washington D.C. any handgun which was not registered as of Feb. 5, 1977. and why it is not a problem to remove a citizens constitutional rights depending on which State they live? Does this mean, you could in theory be disarmed by the State, at a time of their choosing, just by the State prohibiting personal possession of weapons to civilians? excuse my ignorance

Posted by: dave at March 04, 2006 09:30 PM (CcXvt)

7 Does this mean, you could in theory be disarmed by the State, at a time of their choosing, just by the State prohibiting personal possession of weapons to civilians? Posted by Dave. As long as there are red necks and the NRA exists, it will be difficult to take away the guns from American citizens. The following from an old bumper sticker may help. They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands. I like a S&W simi 40 cal or a 20 guage.

Posted by: The Texican at March 04, 2006 10:38 PM (2hBg0)

8 dave, good question, and one that has yet to be fully answered by the SCOTUS. Handguns have been banned in certain jurisdictions such as Washington, D.C. and cities in Illinois and California. There may be other examples. However, the 2nd Amendment has so far prevented the outright ban of all firearms such as what we have seen in Britain and Australia, and to a lesser degree in Canada. What the SCOTUS will decide in the future is unclear, and that is why it is so important to have strict constutionists on the SCOTUS rather than liberals who seem to think the Constitution can be changed by judicial fiat. We shall see in our lifetimes how this plays out, but I am more hopeful now that there are at least 2 new conservative justices on the Court.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 04, 2006 10:48 PM (rUyw4)

9 I love Oysters! Raw, thank you very much!

Posted by: forest hunter at March 05, 2006 02:18 AM (Fq6zR)

10 Ten years ago, whenever guys started talking guns around girls, it was rare that a girl would join in. Now, it's surprising to learn how many girls own guns and/or shoot regularly and love to talk about it. My very own mother-in-law, who wouldn't even allow guns in her house when I started dating her daughter, just last weekend proudly showed me her shiny new concealed carry permit. We're winning, the libtards are losing, and I love it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 05, 2006 06:36 AM (0yYS2)

11 I grew up with guns. My dad made sure that we understood and had respect for guns. He completely removed the fear and ignorance that so many suffer from in regards to firearms. He took us out in the everglades for target practice often growing up. It was fun and exciting. Because of him I can take my Glock apart completely, clean it and reassemble it. I've never hunted though. I just don't have it in me. I'm sure if I was starving I'd kill something with a quickness, but as long as the grocery store is nearby and I have a dollar in my pocket I won't be shooting at anything but a painted target ..... or a burglar. I did have to point a gun at another person one time, but thankfully didn't have to pull the trigger. He ran away.

Posted by: Oyster at March 05, 2006 09:53 AM (YudAC)

12 Dave, The Second Amendment only restricts the federal government. Some amendments have been "incorporated." You can search "incorporation doctrine." States can ban firearms unless there is a state constitutional provision to the contrary. Only then do you get into federal and state case law. What is most annoying is the idea gun laws will stop someone who alread breaks the other laws. How simple can it be?

Posted by: Chip at March 05, 2006 10:23 AM (9VozQ)

13 Go to the site of the National Rifle Association, dave, or perhaps a group called The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Both of these are excellent. The NRA also published a book called The Second Amendment Primer a few years ago, but it may be out of print. I have a copy but haven't seen it around in a few years.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 05, 2006 01:47 PM (rUyw4)

14 How about instead of anymore worthless and rediclous gun control why dont they instead go after the lowlifes who misuse guns like giving them 60 or 70 years in prison with no parole and no furloughs

Posted by: sandpiper at March 05, 2006 02:08 PM (stdEd)

15 dave, You should also join the NRA if you have any concern about gun and gun confiscation laws. The NRA works nationwide to promote gun ownership and gun safety so that all Americans can have access to weapons that make self-defense possible. Self-defense is hardly a right if you have no means to defend yourself. You would think this to be elementary logic, but few liberals can grasp the concept. Thus you can get what you now have in Britain, one of the highest crime rates in the World with an almost total firearms ban. That's when you should realize that firearms bans have nothing to do with crime and everything to do with totalitarianism. Britain is headed down that road like a bat out of hell. Their totalitarianism will be of the Islamic flavor.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 05, 2006 02:13 PM (rUyw4)

16 You're not wrong there, Joe. In England you have the right to be murdered in your home, it is against the law to use lethal force to defend your life, a lot of the violence is against the elderly, during a burglary. 13,140 people murdered in Britain in the past 20 years. Britain's murder rate for the population as a whole has almost doubled in the past 20 years, with young men from poor backgrounds by far the most likely victims. Last year Home Office statistics recorded 833* murders in England and Wales, compared with just 565 a decade ago wow, more people murdered in a year than the loss of the U.K military in three years in Iraq. The study reveals that the five main causes of murder were fights, poisoning, strangling, firearms and cutting by glass or broken bottle. WHERE DO THE FIREARMS COME FROM?? in fact, proportionately more murders are committed with guns in well-to-do areas. They account for 29% of murders in the richest parts of the country Wait something doesn't make sense here? what could it be?? Ah, yes it's the fact that all the weapons are being used by Farmers, obviously seeing as they have most access, wouldn't that mean that Farmers are very rich people?? One reason for this is that farmers still have legal access to shotguns. "The more affluent an area, the more likely it is that guns will be used," said Dorling. Richer, more educated people, he says, also prefer to kill by methods that do not involve physical contact, possibly because they are too squeamish. As Dorling puts it: "For the rich, the brutal methods are going out of fashion." ah, Evil,rich White Men™ do the most murdering! Do not defend yourself however: Man guilty of burglar manslaughter http://news.b\bc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2248635.stm Farmer who killed burglar jailed for life http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/2000/04/20/nmar20.html Director 'battered and stabbed' burglar http://news.b\bc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/2976496.stm Anyone that supports a gun ban, deserves everything they would get, relying on the Police to do violence on their behalf.

Posted by: dave at March 05, 2006 04:12 PM (CcXvt)

17 dave, I was on Tim Blair's blog a few minutes ago and saw some of the same statistics you just reproduced. I also know that crime in Scotland has shot(nice term) through the roof and might be ever higher than what you quote for England and Wales. What we see happening in the UK is this: the more gun control and bans you have, the higher the crime rate. You see, logic should tell you that criminals are more likely to assualt, rob, and kill people who are unarmed. Even the criminals are smart enough to use logic, whereas the liberals are either too stupid or too brainwashed. But we know this is not about crime anyway as the liberals and leftists are concerned about taking over, which they are unable to do as long as the populace at large is armed. That's why one of Hitler's first actions after taking over the German government was to ban private ownership of firearms. Totalitarianism rears its ugly head, so know where the Left is going with gun confiscation.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 05, 2006 04:25 PM (rUyw4)

18 Joe, Indeed. The amusing part for me was the ability to use numbers to give a skewed perspective of what is occuring, e.g that firearms being used by the "rich" and then claiming it's because Farmers still have firearms! lacking also, was a comparison between criminals using illegal Firearms to commit murder, but statistics for wealthy people using guns! I guess we can see the enemy in the U.K class system, the wealthy are evil, because they have things other people want to steal

Posted by: dave at March 05, 2006 04:41 PM (CcXvt)

19 Good point, dave, as the liberals reach the genius category when it comes to skewing statistics to favor whatever outcome they desire. And heaven forbid that any facts should get in their way.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 05, 2006 04:59 PM (rUyw4)

20 Don't let these lefties fool you. These liberal elites who push for gun control have a very good understanding of the difference between law-abiding citizens being stripped of their right to bear arms and the criminals who don't pay attention to any other laws and are not likely to adhere to gun laws as well. They have such a good grasp of the concept they have no problem with their body guards carrying guns to protect them from those who want to steal their stuff. It's not that they "don't get it". They "get it" all right. They just feel that their reason for wanting protection is legitimate - but not the great unwashed. Oh my, no.

Posted by: Oyster at March 05, 2006 07:15 PM (YudAC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Created by Erik Axelson

If you think you might have Bush Derangement Syndrome, or BDS, just take this simple self-administered test: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:09 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 810 words, total size 5 kb.

That's nothing. My high-school social studies teacher was the President of the California Radical Teachers Association. No joke.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:05 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.