Unmitigated lies

Mexican Drug Cartels Armed to the Hilt, Threatening National Security:

They were armed to the teeth. Their arsenal ranged from semi-automatic rifles to rocket-propelled grenades. When the smoke finally cleared and the government had prevailed, Mexican federal agents captured 540 assault rifles, more than 500,000 rounds of ammunition, 150 grenades, 14 cartridges of dynamite, 98 fragmentation grenades, 67 bulletproof vests, seven Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifles and a Light Anti Tank (LAW) rocket.

[...]

This is modern Mexico, where the leaders of the powerful drug cartels are armed to the teeth with sophisticated weapons, many of which are smuggled over the border from the United States. It is with this array of superior weapons that drug cartels are threatening the very stability of their own country. And it's why America's outgoing CIA Director, Michael Hayden, says violence in Mexico will pose the second greatest threat to U.S. security next year, right after Al Qaeda.

The headline, at least, is true. They are armed to the teeth and they are threatening national security.

But if you really believe that these weapons are being purchased legally in the U.S. by "straw" purchasers and then smuggled across the border, I want you to try something.

I want you to go to the first gun store you see, and try to buy assault rifles, grenades, dynamite, and light anti-tank rockets.

But you might want to consult with your lawyer first.

You must read this

Right now, then save it and memorize it.

The Hidden Weapon of "Gun Control" Advocates

Thanks to the folks at JPFO.

The Islamic war on free speech

From National Review, 2009: A year to defend free speech.

The Islamic bloc has been on record for two decades as opposing free speech. In 1990, foreign ministers of the 57 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), currently the largest voting bloc in the United Nations, adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. It states clearly that Islamic law—sharia—is the only true source of human rights. Few analysts in 1990 understood that this was tantamount to declaring the legitimacy of institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims, and signing the death warrant of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience as well. And not just in Muslim lands: The OIC and allied organizations have been aggressively pursuing efforts to extend elements of sharia into the West, though few people realize it even today.

Due to the relentless efforts of the OIC, passage of a resolution on combating defamation of religions is now a yearly ritual in the United Nations. First introduced in the General Assembly in 2005, the resolution has been adopted with landslide votes every year since. While this resolution is non-binding, the OIC has declared its intention to seek a binding resolution—one that would require UN member states to criminalize criticism of Islam, as the OIC defines such criticism. This is a clear indication of the progressing Islamization of the United Nations.

On March 28 of last year, the UN hit rock bottom. Its Human Rights Council—whose members include such stalwart defenders of freedom as China, Cuba, Angola, and Saudi Arabia—adopted a resolution that severely modified the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression. Instead of simply reporting on cases in which the right to free expression is being violated, the special rapporteur will now also have to report on cases in which that right is being “abused”—including when individuals use their freedom of speech to criticize Islam, or the particular elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify violence and Islamic supremacism. In essence, this means that the function of the special rapporteur has changed 180 degrees—from safeguarding the rights of individuals who hold unpopular or controversial ideas, to trying to limit the freedom of individuals to express such ideas.

I heard a report on NPR this morning about a man in Georgia who murdered his own daughter in an "honor killing." Not once in the entire report did they specify the man's essential motive. Even the LEO who they snatched a soundbite from sounded like he had been coached; he was allowed to say "because of his religious beliefs" but not to say what that religion was. The man was from Pakistan. He murdered his daughter because he claimed she had "brought shame to the family."

On the other hand, we all heard over and over again about the "fundamentalist Mormon sect" who were practicing polygamy and had fundamentalist Mormon old men marrying fundamentalist Mormon young girls. By the way, did we mention the fundamentalist Mormon part? Because they were, you know.

Connect the dots.

via The Liberty Sphere

Halbrook on Holder

From the Independent Institute:

For your review, here is the C-SPAN video of our Research Fellow Stephen P. Halbrook on January 16th before the Senate Judiciary Committee, testifying against the confirmation of Eric Holder, Jr., for Attorney General of the U.S.

Dr. Halbrook’s full written testimony is also available here, and since his presentation, the confirmation vote on the Holder nomination in the Senate has been delayed, unlike any of Barack Obama's other Cabinet nominees.

Incredibly enough, in reporting on the hearings in his January 21st article, “Clinton Is Approved, but Vote on Holder Is Delayed,” David Stout of the New York Times not only fails to mention Dr. Halbrook’s testimony but actually makes the flatly erroneous claim that “No one has questioned Mr. Holder’s qualifications.”

Except it isn't flatly erroneous. It's a flat lie, and authorized journalist Stout knows it. And we can expect the lies to come out fast and furious from here on, folks.

Net control

From The Observer:

Pause for a review of recent events. Among the subjects of interest to contributors to Wikipedia, the online, user-generated encyclopaedia, is the German heavy metal band Scorpions. A learned Wikipedia page (http://bit.ly/MgzH) covers their early history, rise to popularity, commercial success and 'later days' .

The page mentions the band's 1976 album, Virgin Killer, the cover of which consisted of a striking photograph of a nude, pre-pubescent girl covered by broken glass. Someone reported this image to the IWF, which then implemented its well-oiled procedures for reviewing potentially illegal content.

The IWF concluded the image did indeed constitute illegal content and put the page on the blacklist it maintains for implementation by UK internet service providers. The ISPs, in turn, speedily blocked the page.

At which point all hell broke loose and the IWF, accustomed to dealing mainly with publicity-shy purveyors of filth, found itself under siege from Wikipedians and online libertarians. UK users (who account for 25 per cent of editing activity on Wikipedia) found themselves unable to edit. The story escalated in the media and even reached the dizzying heights of the Today programme. It was pointed out the offending album had been on sale for over two decades; had appeared over the years in print and on websites; and that it was ludicrous to penalise Wikipedia simply on the basis of a complaint.

In the end, sanity prevailed. The IWF rescinded its blacklisting and the page is back. But the IWF's statement insisted that the image in question 'is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978'. It has changed its mind after considering 'the contextual issues'.

The Wikimedia Foundation statement was similarly conciliatory. 'We are grateful to the IWF for making this swift decision, and to thousands of internet users from around the world for their outpouring of support', said Sue Gardner, the foundation's executive director. 'Millions of Britons now have access to all of Wikipedia, and volunteers can resume their important editing work.'

Any outbreak of sweetness and light is welcome in these gloomy times, but the episode highlights an issue most of us would prefer not to have to think about: who actually controls the net? And who - if anyone - should control it?

In the early days of the network, a kind of libertarian euphoria led people to suppose that it was beyond control. The internet, we were told in a celebrated aphorism, 'interprets censorship as damage and routes around it'. Experience over the past decade has made us wiser (and perhaps sadder) on that score. It turns out that the internet is rather easy to control if you're a sovereign state (cf. Australia, China, Burma, Zimbabwe) or have access to high-priced lawyers (cf. the music industry, innumerable large corporations, the 'church' of Scientology, etc.) The ease with which the IWF was able to turn off Wikipedia access in the UK was just the latest illustration of the controllability of the network.

Although the IWF may be subject to criticism over the lack of transparency of its decision-making, there's no doubt that it's a serious, well-intentioned, non-statutory body that is doing important work. And it's a not-for-profit enterprise - so it's not in it for the money.

But there is an aggressively for-profit outfit out there which exercises far more control over the internet than the IWF could ever dream of. It's called Google. It owns YouTube, fast becoming the world's main TV channel. In a recent New York Times article on 'Google's Gatekeepers' (http://bit.ly/lg8h), Professor Jeffrey Rosen described how Google's staff try to balance freedom of speech and thought on YouTube versus the demands of corporations, states and ideologies to restrict that freedom. What's striking is the revelation that the Google folks don't like what they have to do - but that at the moment there's nobody else who can do it. How long, one wonders, will that uneasy state of affairs continue? Power, like nature, always abhors a vacuum.

We've taken care of everything...

The words you read, the songs you sing,
The pictures that bring pleasure to your eye...

Google publicly changes policy, announces: We are the Priests of Syrinx.

Now what, you may be thinking, is an "obvious change"? Is it one that is frivolous? (Thereby introducing a Google Frivolitimeter™ [Beta]). Or is it one that goes against the grain of the consensus? If so, then who decides what the consensus must be? Make no mistake, Google is moving into new territory: not only making arbitrary, editorial choices - really no different to Fox News, say, or any other media organization. It's now in the business of validating and manufacturing consent: not only reporting what people say, but how you should think.

Trust us because we say so.

Read the whole article for the full explanation. It was written by the same guy who, several years ago, caused something of an uproar by revealing how Google's search results could be rigged.

P.S. No more Adsense on this blog.

P.P.S. I just noticed that Blogger now has an import/export function.

via Sipsey Street Irregulars