Via:

Wafe Sultan and Daniel Pipes were in Toronto recently. Joanne Hill has a report:

For Dr. Pipes, the only solution to the problem of radical Islam is for those in the West to support moderate Muslims.

“It’s incumbent upon us to help the moderates, those who want to integrate, who want to be patriotic citizens, who want to live under our system, our beliefs and customs, rather than according to the Shari’a.... We need to encourage them, we need to fund them. We need to help them, not the Islamists.”

(…)

Dr. Sultan took the stage after Dr. Pipes and began by quoting Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, who said in 2007: “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

Dr. Sultan asked, “So what is the essence of Islam? The underlying foundation of Islam is to rule the world and submit it under Islamic Shari’a.” She quoted from the Koran as proof.

Joanne also had an opionion piece in the National Post about the event:

I am a freelance reporter; I covered the debate between Dr. Pipes and Dr. Sultan for the Jewish Tribune. I have an audio recording of the entire event, including the Question and Answer period, so I can state with complete accuracy what was and was not said by Dr. Sultan.

Contrary to what Mr. Fatah writes, Dr. Sultan did not say:  "Muhammed was a child rapist."

Rather, she said:  "As a married man, Mohammed raped Aisha when she was nine; he was 54."

If Mr. Fatah is hurt by this statement, perhaps he should consider the source:  Islamic doctrine.  I challenge Mr. Fatah to deny this. (...)

I was paying close attention throughout the debate and at no time did I see Dr. Sultan sneer.  She did not say, per Mr. Fatah, "I am 'clean' of Islam."

Mr. Fatah writes that he was "traumatized" by Dr. Sultan's words.  If this is truly the case, I would suggest that Mr. Fatah's sensitive feelings render him too delicate for this Western society in which he has chosen to live...

Conversate is Not a Word writes:

OK, I wanted to wait until everyone's Obama high wore off before I dare write this and I know I'm risking the ire of every negro in the land and the motherland but I have something to say and, frankly, me pissing everyone off is really nothing new.

It all started...

So: which future (male) Thatcherites did Marxist Hitch boink at Oxford?

Highlight: a friend avers that one candidate is in fact "impenetrably heterosexual."

My NEW Talk Radio Watch column is now up at WND!

Check out all the FREE audio and video highlights from the week in conservative talk radio: Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin and more.

Obama should make this guy the head of the Dept. of Education.

Sound familiar?

His college degree was held up for more than a decade because he repeatedly failed an English proficiency exam then required for graduation at Wayne State University.

But Mathis is liked and defended by many of his peers, who cite his collegiality...

It should:

Still, the low African IQ of 70 remains hard for many to accept. One reason for the disbelief: Africans—and African Americans—display high levels of social competence. They are outgoing, talkative, sociable, warm, and friendly. Psychometrically speaking, they score high on the Extraversion personality dimension. They are also much less anxious, shy, and fearful than Whites—they are low in the Neuroticism dimension. This combination of high Extraversion and low Neuroticism results in a socially dominant personality profile.

It is this "winning personality" among Blacks, I believe, that makes it hard for so many to accept the validity of their failing tests of abstract reasoning ability.

A typical academic story comes from professors who, on first exposure to African students, express their delight in the high levels of classroom performance. The students are described as engaged, offering lively opinions, and giving a clear impression of brightness. Only when the students took objectively measured essay or multiple-choice examinations did it become painfully obvious to even the most well-wishing faculty members that their grasp of abstract material failed to live up to their classroom rhetoric.

It's bad enough we're forced to feed the ones in our own jails.

But if you voluntarilty sent money to Haiti, rest assured that you helped them out, too.

It sounds better when he says it, anyhow:

A year or two back, when the Canadian Islamic Congress attempted to criminalize my writing north of the border by taking me to the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission, a number of outraged American readers wrote to me saying, "You need to start kicking up a fuss about this, Steyn, and then maybe Canadians will get mad and elect a conservative government that will end this nonsense."

Makes perfect sense. Except that Canada already has a Conservative government under a Conservative prime minister, and the very head of the "human rights" commission investigating me was herself the Conservative appointee of a Conservative minister of justice. Makes no difference.

Once the state swells to a certain size, the people available to fill the ever expanding number of government jobs will be statists — sometimes hard-core Marxist statists, sometimes social-engineering multiculti statists, sometimes fluffily "compassionate" statists, but always statists.

The short history of the postwar welfare state is that you don't need a president-for-life if you've got a bureaucracy-for-life...

David Warren on bureaucracy:

This is one of the points that was grasped in the earliest stages of turning India around, by such as the late Rajiv Gandhi. The argument was that business and all other private activity suffered, because the country's "best and brightest" were magnetically attracted to the prestige of so-called "public service." It was what upwardly mobile parents prepared their children for.

But through that "public service" came the self-serving blindness and arrogance of India's "ruling caste." These were people who did not have to stoop to pleasing the labouring masses, in the way capitalists must, if they are going to sell anything. Instead they acquire the attitudes that I have found here, too, in almost every encounter with a "public servant," dressed in a little authority.

I've got the latest scoop from independent investigative journalist Donna Laframboise's debunking of that "peer review" bunk -- you won't believe what's really in that Nobel Prize winning ICPP report.

Check it out at my new post at David Horowitz's NewsReal blog!

Patrick West writes:

To my mind, the image of the Nice Canadian is best debunked by another son of Montreal, the scientist Steven Pinker, who recalled in his 2002 book The Blank State:

‘At 8:00 A.M. on October 17, 1969 ... the Montreal police went on strike.

By 11:20 A.M. the first bank was robbed. By noon most downtown stores had closed because of looting. Within a few more hours, taxi drivers burned down the garage of a limousine service that competed with them for airport customers, a rooftop sniper killed a provincial police officer, rioters broke into several hotels and restaurants, and a doctor slew a burglar in his suburban home.

By the end of the day, six banks had been robbed, a hundred shops had been looted, twelve fires had been set, forty carloads of storefront glass had been broke, and three million dollars of property damage had been inflicted, before city authorities had to call in the army and, of course, the Mounties to restore order.’

Check out where "Katrina victims" get to live -- on your dime!

And just in case you are wondering how the poor in this country are doing, this is what passes as government subsidized housing these days. These photos are of the "low income" housing paid for by your tax dollars in the form of Hurricane Katrina money. Average rent, one hundred thirty dollars a month, average cost, one hundred twenty dollars PER FOOT for apartments.

Poor? Covered parking with a waterfall at the swimming pool, and a beach volleyball court? Washer, dryer, and microwave. Poor.

Blogger "Seraphic Single" has a new book out, especially for Catholic women (and men) who are still unmarried in their 30s, and worried about it.

Her advice? Don't panic!

Click here to watch a short video trailer for the book, Seraphic Singles: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Single Life -- the first Catholic Canadian chick-lit book.

(Yes, books have trailers now -- great idea, too.)

This piece is entitled: "If Only We'd Picked Our Own Cotton"!

John Carpay writes:

The Taylor test might sound like a clear standard until one considers that extremism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Merely 41 years ago, sodomy was a Criminal Code offence and gay marriage would have been viewed as "extreme" by almost everyone. Today, gay marriage is legal, and the idea of criminalizing sodomy would be viewed as "extreme" by most Canadians. A court's determination of what is "extreme" is bound to be arbitrary and subjective.

PLUS: new development re: "Lemire" here.

Hurrican Katrina "victims" to sue oil companies over global warming or something.

So THAT'S what happened to the OJ jury!

Wow, I guess this makes everybody at the BCCLU is a "racist" then, eh lefty losers...?

Via Marc Lemire (with complete set of PDF documents):

On February 25, 2010, Canada's largest Civil Liberties Association has filed at the Federal Court of Canada to intervene in the Marc Lemire Constitutional Challenge to the internet censorship of the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission and Section 13 of the "Human Rights" Act.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association have made some very good submissions to the Federal Court of Canada on why the power to censor the internet should -- and MUST  -- be removed from the ambit of the fanatical Canadian "Human Rights" Commission.

The BCCLA submits that:

    * Freedom of expression is a fundamental democratic right. The BCCLA's mandate is to preserve, defend, maintain and extend civil liberties and human rights across Canada
    * Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act infringe s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights And Freedoms and that the infringements cannot be justified under s. 1 of the Charter
    * The context has changed since the Taylor decision in 1990 (which found s. 13 constitutional). The main change is the law is now punitive and penal in nature. And that sec. 13 has been expended to the Internet
    * The digital era changes everything, and sec. 13 should not restrict expression on the internet.
    * The Internet is par excellence a democratic "marketplace of ideas", which provides its own self-corrective solution to problems of inaccurate, offensive and hurtful content.
    * The potential for "psychological injury" to members of society (which formed the basis for the Taylor decision) is lessened by user control over content, and provides individuals with a high degree of control over viewing of information
    * Severing S. 54 (fines) from the Human Rights Act, does not make s. 13 constitutional. (As the CHRC claims). It does not address 1) strict liability and the absence of defences. 2) the extension of the hate speech provision to the internet.
 

"San Francisco: Muslims shoot gay man in the face, videotape the attack"

Robert Spencer points out:

...this happened Friday, and was not reported until Wednesday. Why the delay?

Can you imagine how fast the news would have hit the mainstream media if the attackers had been Christian?

New twist on "Roll Up the Rim to Win" days? 

Not sure the differnce between these entitlement morons and that chick who died trying to win a radio station contest.

My new post at NewsReal looks at two idiots on the government payroll, getting things about "global warming" just plain wrong by orders of magnitude.

I'm scheduled to be on the air around 11:30AM ET:

David Kupelian, managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com and editor of Whistleblower magazine, discusses his new book, "How Evil Works: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America."

Kathy Shaidle, a blogger with FiveFeetofFury.com, WorldNetDaily.com, Examiner.com and NewsRealBlog.com, discusses the DNC's "seminar caller" talk radio campaign as well as her book, "The Tyranny of Nice" 

UPDATE: here's the audio