Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
English As A Primary Language Topic: Immigration
ESL or English as a Secondary Language is a well known concept in America. After all 33.5 Million US residents, some 11.7% of the population are Foreign Born and quite a few of them had to learn English as a Second Language. Those of course are the official figures, Legal Resident Aliens and Naturalized Citizens, add to that some 12 Million Illegal Aliens.
All of this has been a matter of grave debate recently and various laws are being debated in Congress.
I won't speak on the main focus of the latest Immigration Legislation, that has been done extensively over broad regions of the Internet.
There was one amendment I chanced upon that got my immediate attention. I really do hope that it or some version of it becomes US Law.
S.Amdt. 1151: To amend title 4, United States Code, to declare English as the.
To amend title 4, United States Code, to declare English as the national language of the Government of the United States, and for other purposes.
An amendment to S. 1348: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes. Offered: May 22, 2007 Sponsor: Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK] Actions: Jun 6, 2007: Amendment SA 1151 proposed by Senator Reid for Senator Inhofe to Amendment SA 1150. Jun 6, 2007: Amendment SA 1151 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 64 - 33. Record Vote Number: 198. [Vote Details]
Here is a graphic presentation of the voting and more information on the voting.
Text of amendment
SA 1151. Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Burr, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Bunning, and Mr. Coleman) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1348, to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 702 and insert the following:
SEC. 702. ENGLISH AS NATIONAL LANGUAGE.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``S.I. Hayakawa National Language Amendment Act of 2007''.
(b) In General.--Title 4, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:
``CHAPTER 6--LANGUAGE OF THE GOVERNMENT
``161..Declaration of national language.
``162..Preserving and enhancing the role of the national language.
``163..Use of language other than English.
``SEC. 161. DECLARATION OF NATIONAL LANGUAGE.
``English shall be the national language of the Government of the United States.
``SEC. 162. PRESERVING AND ENHANCING THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE.
``(a) In General.--The Government of the United States shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language of the United States of America.
``(b) Exception.--Unless specifically provided by statute, no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform or provide services, or provide materials in any language other than English. If an exception is made with respect to the use of a language other than English, the exception does not create a legal entitlement to additional services in that language or any language other
``(c) Forms.--If any form is issued by the Federal Government in a language other than English (or such form is completed in a language other than English), the English language version of the form is the sole authority for all legal purposes.
``SEC. 163. USE OF LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH.
``Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the use of a language other than English.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of chapters for title 4, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``6. Language of the Government
(As printed in the Congressional Record for the Senate on May 22, 2007.)
Some may raise objections to the idea that we should define English as the official language of the United States but the vast majority of Americans agree.
And many of those who do agree have learned English as Second Language!
National polling data indicates that the overwhelming majority of Americans, including Hispanics, support making English the official language.
* 85% of Americans, including 92% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats, and 86% of those not affiliated with either party, favor making English the official language of the United States of America. 
* 77% of Hispanics believe English should be the official language of government operations. 
* 82% of Americans support legislation that would require the federal government to conduct business solely in English.
Government should do more to preserve role of English
* 92% of Americans believe that preserving English as our common language is vital to maintaining our unity; 69% agree that the United States is at risk of becoming 'disunited' by language. 
* 78% of Americans believe that the government should do more to help immigrants learn English; More Americans also believe that Congress and the President aren't doing enough to preserve America's unity in the English language (60%-26%) 
* 79% of Americans believe immigrants should be required to learn English before they are granted citizenship; only 14% disagree.
* 68% of Americans oppose bilingual or multilingual election ballots. 
Most immigrants say learning English is essential.
* 91% of foreign-born Latino immigrants agree that learning English is essential to succeed in the U.S., according to a 2002 Kaiser Family Foundation poll.
* A 2002 Carnegie/Public Agenda poll found that by more than a 2-1 margin immigrants themselves say the U.S. should expect new immigrants to learn English.
Most immigrants reject "bilingual education." * The 2002 Carnegie/Public Agenda poll found that 73% of immigrants believe schools should teach English as quickly as possible. 63% said that they believe that all teaching should be done in English, while only 32% supported allowing some teaching in their native languages. 
So despite what some groups on the Left or the Mainstream Media might try to portray, this sentiment is not limited to Xenophobic, Racist Neo-Con Bigots.
It is instead the Will and the Word of the American Polity.
**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email stiknstein-at-gmail-dot-com and let us know at what level you would like to participate.
The Deniers -- Part III Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post Published: Friday, February 02, 2007 December 8, 2006
You're a respected scientist, one of the best in your field. So respected, in fact, that when the United Nations decided to study the relationship between hurricanes and global warming for the largest scientific endeavour in its history -- its International Panel on Climate Change -- it called upon you and your expertise.
You are Christopher Landsea of the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory. You were a contributing author for the UN's second International Panel on Climate Change in 1995, writing the sections on observed changes in tropical cyclones around the world. Then the IPCC called on you as a contributing author once more, for its "Third Assessment Report" in 2001. And you were invited to participate yet again, when the IPCC called on you to be an author in the "Fourth Assessment Report." This report would specifically focus on Atlantic hurricanes, your specialty, and be published by the IPCC in 2007
I realise that it is a given in some circles to place those who do not tow the Party Line on the Global Warning Issue in the category of Cranks, Misfits and Fringe Experimenters. I don't think that can apply here. Do you?
Then something went horribly wrong. Within days of this last invitation, in October, 2004, you discovered that the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth -- the very person who had invited you -- was participating in a press conference. The title of the press conference perplexed you: "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity." This was some kind of mistake, you were certain. You had not done any work that substantiated this claim. Nobody had.
As perplexing, none of the participants in that press conference were known for their hurricane expertise. In fact, to your knowledge, none had performed any research at all on hurricane variability, the subject of the press conference. Neither were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability, you knew, showed no reliable upward trend in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. Not in the Atlantic basin. Not in any other basin.
Now there are two important points in this last paragraph that bear repeating and emphasis.
none of the participants in that press conference were known for their hurricane expertise. In fact, to your knowledge, none had performed any research at all on hurricane variability,
That does not sound like it fits well with
"Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity
Or at least it does not to me. As it turns out it did not sound right to Christopher Landsea he contacted the IPCC leadership in protest.
What was the result of this action by one of the Top Hurricaine experts in the world?
Next year, the IPCC will come out with its "Fourth Assessment Report," and for the first time in a decade, you(Christopher Landsea) will not be writing its section on hurricanes. That task will be left to the successor that Dr. Trenberth chose.
I have not included the full article here. I urge the reader to go to the above link and read it's entirety.
It would appear in this case that "No Experts Need Apply" does fit the facts.
In the following days and weeks, I intend to present further examples.
Only through preserving our past can we guarantee a future where the lessons and legacy of D-Day will be remembered
D-Day: It is hard to conceive the epic scope of this decisive battle that foreshadowed the end of Hitler's dream of Nazi domination. Overlord was the largest air, land, and sea operation undertaken before or since June 6, 1944. The landing included over 5,000 ships, 11,000 airplanes, and over 150,000 service men.
After years of meticulous planning and seemingly endless training, for the Allied Forces, it all came down to this: The boat ramp goes down, then jump, swim, run, and crawl to the cliffs. Many of the first young men (most not yet 20 years old) entered the surf carrying eighty pounds of equipment. They faced over 200 yards of beach before reaching the first natural feature offering any protection. Blanketed by small-arms fire and bracketed by artillery, they found themselves in hell.
When it was over, the Allied Forces had suffered nearly 10,000 casualties; more than 4,000 were dead. Yet somehow, due to planning and preparation, and due to the valor, fidelity, and sacrifice of the Allied Forces, Fortress Europe had been breached.
Some people remember.
"A Canadian veteran reflects as he sits on the waters edge at Juno beach in Courseulles-sur-Mer, France on the Normandy coast Sunday June 6, 2004. Canadian veterans were honoured in a ceremony on the 60th Anniversary of D-Day."
said today that cemetery caretakers and visitors were left "shocked, upset and disgusted" after seeing a British war memorial in France covered with anti-war graffiti. The memorial at Etaples, near Boulogne on the Channel coast, was daubed in red paint with slogans including "Rosbeefs [British] go home", "Saddam will win and he will make you bleed" and "Dig up your rubbish, it is contaminating our soil".
Some 11,000 British servicemen and women are buried at the cemetery, most of whom died defending France in the first world war.
The vandalism which also included a swastika, was discovered by workers at the site. They alerted the commission's French division, who set to work removing the paint from the memorial, which is visited by hundreds of thousands of people every year.
Two workers spent two days cleaning off the paint and grinding down the stone to remove the shadow of the words left behind.
Peter Francis, of the Commonwealth war graves commission, said vandalism at the thousands of sites looked after by the organisation was rare but this incident was "particularly foul".
"The reaction of the people who found it was shock, upset and disgust, which was our reaction as well. I think that was also the reaction of the local people and the French authorities and the gendarmerie is now watching the site," he said
Keep in mind Decent French Citizens were as outraged as we might be. The ones who might not have been outraged are beneath contempt.
The End of the Kyoto Protocol Topic: Global Warming
By Peter Zeihan and Bart Mongoven
European leaders have expressed dismay over U.S. President George W. Bush's June 1 call for the creation of a long-term dialogue among the 15 largest greenhouse gas-emitting countries. The plan, they say, is another stall tactic designed to allow the Bush administration to appear as though it is trying to work with the international community on climate issues, when in reality it is not. Such action, they say, would take time and attention away from the difficult work being done on the issue via the Kyoto Protocol process.
In reality, however, the Bush plan signals the end of Kyoto -- and the beginning of a new international consensus that relieves Kyoto's pressures on governments.
The United States, China, India, Canada and Australia produce more than half of the world's greenhouse gas emissions -- and those emissions are growing. To be effective, then, any climate regime that endeavors to make real cuts in emissions must include these countries. By bringing the Pacific Rim countries into alignment on the issue, Bush has brought the United States far more power over global greenhouse gas emissions policy than Europe ever has had. With this, Bush takes from Europe its one global foreign policy success story. The Regime
Signed in 1997 by more than 75 countries, the Kyoto Protocol is the recognized international regime on climate change. The protocol is an addendum to the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, in which parties agreed essentially to cut greenhouse gas emissions if it was convenient for them. Since cutting those emissions is highly inconvenient, very few followed through, making the protocol necessary.
Under Kyoto, each party agreed to cut its emissions by a specific amount from 1990 levels by 201. (The European Union signed up for an 8 percent cut, the United States for 7 percent and Japan for 6 percent.) But the agreement expires in 2012, at which point all participants are once again legally free from the deal. Moreover, the protocol imposed no emission restrictions on developing countries -- including China and India -- which explains why poorer countries so strongly support it.
Though from a U.S. perspective Kyoto was flawed in many ways, it was this lack of restrictions on developing countries that rendered ratification a nonstarter in the United States. Despite the tone of the current political conversation in the United States, in a 1997 vote both Republicans and Democrats unanimously vowed to reject any climate treaty that did not include commitments from developing countries. Sens. John Kerry, Paul Wellstone, Barbara Boxer and many of the climate issue's current champions were among those who essentially declared Kyoto dead on arrival. Within four months of taking office, Bush did the same, saying the United States would take no part in talks regarding a treaty it had no interest in joining.
Amazingly, the global reaction to Bush's announcement was shock. Bush became an environmental pariah at home and around the world, with Greenpeace dubbing him the "Toxic Texan" and European leaders pleading for the United States to reconsider. European Logic
From the European standpoint, simply bringing the United States into the climate change conversation is far more important than forcing it to cut its emissions by 2012. Given that the United States is the world's single-largest source of carbon emissions, any deal that does not have explicit American buy-in simply cannot achieve the ultimate end goal: reducing global emissions to the point of heading off the worst-case scenario of global warming.
To get the United States into the talks, then, G-8 leaders agreed in 2005 in Gleneagles, Scotland, to stop pressing for U.S. adherence to Kyoto if Washington agreed to take part in international discussions on the issue. European leaders hoped this would bring the United States into the fold for the more important negotiations on a broad and binding treaty that would address what happens after Kyoto expires in 2012.
U.S. activists fit their tactics into this broad European strategy. Kyoto proponents in the United States considered it a foregone conclusion that, under Bush, the United States would not pass a greenhouse gas-emissions-reducing policy on environmental grounds. The trick, then, was to get Bush to budge for other reasons. Environmental groups thought that if industry were faced with a maze of climate-related regulations at the state and local levels, then business -- normally hostile to greenhouse gas-related policies -- would appeal to the administration for harmonization. This, the environmentalists believed, would sneak in a U.S. greenhouse gas policy via the back door.
The environmentalists' key insights were simple: One of the few things businesses dislike more than patchwork regulation is uncertainty -- and having dozens of constantly changing competing regimes is about as uncertain as one can get. Therefore, the environmentalists believed industry would be more successful than they had been in lobbying the administration for a unified national policy on greenhouse gases. The strategy was a sound one, and local/state directives have proliferated, with laws in 15 states now forcing some climate change-related action or accounting on industry -- laws the Supreme Court already has ruled constitutional.
In the end, however, both U.S. environmental groups and European governments miscalculated. The former mistakenly assumed industry's desire for a single standard would lead industry to Kyoto; it only led industry to Washington. The latter assumed that dropping discussion of Kyoto I would lead Washington to participate in Kyoto II; instead, it led Washington to the Pacific. American Counterpoint
History will remember 2007 as the year the United States lost its infamous position as the world's leading emitter of greenhouse gases to China, an event that has been inevitable for years. From the U.S. point of view, therefore, any successful greenhouse gas-limiting agreement is not dependent upon Washington's participation, but on Beijing's.
As such, Bush has engaged China, India, Australia, Canada and even a discontented Japan -- birthplace of the Kyoto Protocol -- in separate negotiations outside the Kyoto system. Called the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, this strategy eschews firm caps on emissions -- which the Americans, Chinese and Indians oppose and which have thus far proved impossible to align with Australian and Canadian resource policy. It instead focuses on sharing technology that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in developing countries; it also offers companies that are developing efficiency-related technologies an expanded market for their products. Key among such technologies are clean coal, nuclear, carbon capture/sequestration and fuel cells.
The Europeans at first saw this "Pacific direction" as a stall tactic, but deemed it acceptable as long as the goal remained intact -- that the United States would eventually join Kyoto.
That too was a miscalculation.
Ultimately, U.S. industry and the Bush administration believe joining an international regime only brings more uncertainty, as both the ideological and practical design of such regulations not only originates in but also is designed explicitly for Europe. As the train of thought runs, the only way U.S. industry can rest assured that the regulatory environment is not going to change constantly -- punishing U.S. investments and rewarding European companies at their expense -- is not simply to take part in a climate regime, but to design one at home. That means abandoning Kyoto in every form imaginable, and launching a fundamentally new program.
The U.S. business community needed Bush to present a climate policy that provides clarity and certainty. A week ago, the only "certainty" was that the United States eventually would accept some new version of Kyoto, and that the climate change issue was locked into European leadership. Bush's June 1 announcement flipped that conventional wisdom on its head. Bush has killed Kyoto and assured businesses regulatory clarity by launching an international system that the United States will heavily influence, if not control outright.
For the Europeans, the key concern so far is that the expected laxness of the Pacific plan will enamor not just the Americans, but all of the major Pacific Rim economies. Compared to the strict expectations for any Kyoto successor -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel has suggested a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 -- Chinese and Indian preference for the Pacific plan is a shoo-in. In fact, a Chinese environmental white paper released June 4 dovetails seamlessly with the Bush plan -- and almost ignores Kyoto's existence. With Australia and Canada unwilling to divorce their climate plans from that of the United States, the likely membership in any Kyoto II would be limited to Europe alone. (Europe is the only significant signatory that actually has put the current Kyoto Protocol into practice.) But this time there will be a clear alternative, which will constantly raise the question: Why doesn't Europe get with the program? Life after Kyoto
Bush's next job is simple: Wait until the Europeans declare Kyoto and Kyoto II dead (the protocol was mortally wounded at the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland) and then present U.S. industry with a policy based on the results of negotiations with the other 14 major emitters by the end of 2008. This policy will not reflect Kyoto and will not force action by other countries.
Of course, there also is the little detail that if the Bush administration does hammer out a deal before 2009, then the next U.S. president -- regardless of party affiliation -- will take office with an internationally acceptable deal already in place. Even a Democratic president whose heart lies with Kyoto will be loathe to walk away from an agreement that puts the United States in the driver's seat and all of Asia riding shotgun. (Bush already has won support from Boxer, the Democratic senator from California, who is not exactly wed to the Bush party line.)
Ultimately, the Europeans are looking not just at a policy defeat, but also at the union's strategic failure to have any joint foreign policy. Kyoto/environmental issues have long been the only significant program in which the union has managed to make its voice heard globally. Should Europe continue to champion Kyoto now, it not only will be left out in the cold, but it also will face sharp internal debate about the reasons for deeply cutting emissions when no one else is. Several European governments already are suing the European Commission over climate-related regulations they consider too restrictive, while a newfound Polish bellicosity has led Warsaw to threaten vetoes over this and a wide raft of issues.
For those who believe that nothing but firm caps, as in the Kyoto Protocol, will forestall global warming, this is an unmitigated disaster. Those who feel that any successful global policy has to include the major non-European emitters, however, will see this is a successful first step in a way that Kyoto never was.
This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com. For media requests, partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
interrogated before the Inquisition. For over two weeks he is imprisoned in an apartment in the Inquisition building. Galileo agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for a more lenient sentence. He declares that the Copernican case was made too strongly in his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, and offers to refute it in another book.
And on June 22, 1633
sentenced to prison for an indefinite term
Now some may say, "Isn't it a bit late to start a Free Galileo Galilei Movement?"
For the Man, yes he died almost 400 years ago, still imprisoned by the Inquisition.
But NOT for his Principles, it is not too late for them.
It has been said those who study History are doomed to see it repeated by those who do not.
Not since the purges of Soviet Academia has the Civilized World seen the Body of Science so diminished on the grounds of doctrinal purity. The Cause of Galileo Galilei is alive in our day.
The Acid of Dogma versus Scientific Inquiry is once again on the attack lead by a Neo-Inquisition.
Those attacked, denigrated and outcast, are not cranks, not fringe experimenters, but have among their ranks some of the Best, the Brightest Minds of our Age.
So for the Intellectual Descendants of the Great Master I call out the battle cry.
Free Galileo Galilei
Do not let his Spirit be once more imprisoned, take up the gauntlet he threw down all those Centuries ago and defend it.
Does this mean we can now have a VGWOT Day like we had a VE and VJ Day? Not really
Democrats have banned the phrase "global war on terror" from the draft Pentagon budget, arguing that it is a propagandist term designed to boost President George W Bush's contention that the Iraq conflict was a war of necessity.
The term, coined by the Bush administration shortly after the September 11 attacks, soon entered the American political lexicon. In Pentagon documents, it has its own acronym - GWOT.
But Democrats on the House of Representatives' armed services committee, in an unconscious echo of Basil Fawlty's refrain of "Don't Mention the War!" in a Fawlty Towers episode "The Germans", has said that GWOT should be avoided.
What a concept! Just think how many lives we could have saved at the Normandy Invasion or the Storming of Iwo Jima if the Democratic Party of some 60 odd years ago had come up with this concept!
It beats "Cut and Run" or "Declare Victory and Leave" hollow. Just pretend there is no War and stop using the phrase that has been used to describe it thus far. Just erase the words from History
The Republic can now rest secure in the knowledge that the Global War On Terror has Ended and that the Security of the Nation is in the good hands of the more innovative thinking of the Democratic Party.
Has anyone Informed Al Qaeda and the other associated Jihadist Islamic factions?
I mean what a complication if they failed to hear that the Global War On Terror was over.
Doing some reasearch I have discovered this method of dealing with unpleasant situations has a long History, from antiquity upto today it is called:
Damnatio memoriae is the Latin phrase literally meaning "damnation of memory", in the sense of removed from the remembrance. It was a form of dishonor that could be passed by the Roman Senate upon traitors or others who brought discredit to the Roman State.
Explanation The sense of the expression Damnatio memoriae and of the sanction is to cancel every trace of the person from the life of Rome, as if he had never existed, in order to preserve the honour of the Urbs; in a city that stressed the social appearance, respectability and the pride of being a civis romanus as a fundamental requirement of the citizen, it was perhaps the severest punishment.
Practice Its most visible practice was in the condemnation of unpopular Emperors upon their deaths. The Senate wanted to condemn the memory of Caligula, but Claudius prevented this. Nero was declared an enemy of the state, but then given an enormous funeral honoring him, thus his status is unclear. Similarly, the Roman senate condemned Domitian and Commodus. Shortly after Commodus' death, they restored the original name of the city of Rome and its institutions which had been renamed in Commodus' honour during his lifetime. Other notable examples are the damnatio memoriae of Geta by his brother Caracalla, and of Elagabalus.
Upon passage of the damnatio memoriae, the person's name was stricken from any rolls of honor on which he may have appeared - some of them were called memoriae. In the case of the Roman Emperors so condemned, their statues were destroyed, or recycled with the heads of their successors, and their name removed from public buildings.
Similar practices in other societies It has been suggested that Person#Implications of the person, non-person debate be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)
A modern example: A Soviet "unperson" vanishes: commissar Nikolai Yezhov retouched after falling from favor and executed in 1940.
The cartouches of the heretical 18th dynasty pharaoh Akhenaten were mutilated by his successors. Earlier in that same dynasty, Thutmose III carried out a similar attack on his step-mother Hatshepsut late in his sole reign. However, only engravings and statuary of her as a crowned king of Egypt were attacked. Anything depicting her as a queen was left unharmed (and the campaign ended after his son by a secondary queen was crowned co-regent), so this was not strictly speaking damnatio memoriae. There is also some debate whether this defacement was Thutmose's doing at all, since most of the damage is estimated to have happened some 47 years into this reign. Herostratus set fire to the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus to become famous. The Ephesus leaders decided that his name should never be repeated again, under pain of death. Marino Faliero, fifty-fifth Doge of Venice, was condemned to damnatio memoriae after a failed coup d'etat. More modern examples of damnatio memoriae in actual practice was the removal of portraits, books, doctoring people out of pictures, and any other traces of Josef Stalin's opponents during the Great Purge. In a twist of fate, Stalin himself was edited out of some propaganda films when Khruschev became the leader of The Soviet Union. A famous example of the concept of damnatio memoriae in modern usage is the "vaporization" of "unpersons" in George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four in the quote "He did not exist; he never existed".
After blogger Judith Klinghoffer and an army of Davids declared a "Buy Danish" campaign to combat the Muslim boycott. The Guardian says "fervent rightwing Americans" participated in the buying spree and implies that the cartoonists were responsible for the deaths of 139 people.(like it was the cartoonists who killed those people instead of the ones who shed their blood, how like the Progressive TransNazi viewpoint)
Words by: Adam Gottlob Oehlenschlager Music by: Hans Ernst Kr?yer Adopted: 1844
"Derer et yndigt land" was first performed for a large gathering of Danes in 1844, and became popular quickly with the Danish people. It was adopted later that year by the Danish government as a national anthem, but not the sole national anthem. This anthem is on equal status with "Kong Christian",which is both the national and royal anthem.
When the Danish anthem is usually performed or sung, the first verse is played in its entirety, then it is followed by the last four lines of the last verse. (This is true whether the lyrics are sung or not
Recently I have been posting music to Illustrate the Diversity of America, this week I have a different motive to express Solidarity with DENMARK
I maintain my Support of Denmark, and will later today, post links to and my thoughts about a Danish Editorial "We are being pissed upon by Per Nyholm "
I think I shall title my Post, "There is no "But" in "Freedom of Speech".
When I first started upon my journey through the blogverse I created a Statement of Purpose Now upon reading it, one can realize that I did not hold to every detail of that original statement, but from it's basic premise, I have never swayed, in my belief that the Blogs are in fact the Committees of Correspondence of the Second American Revolution.
And that it is a Revolution of Information, no longer can we afford and allow elite gateways to control what we can see, hear and discuss.
For I believe that those bloggers who find their way, here and in particular from the Blogs associated with Sam.
HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY.
Some of us are more Serious, some of us are more lighthearted and some post the common ordinary things that make one smile and recall that Life without the simple things to treasure is meaningless.
And it is important that all have a platform from which to speak.
As I understand this process you can link to this post and trackback to this post on ANY subject or post you think important. It is open. I will repeat this every Monday.
The Committees of Correspondence welcomes your intelligent comments. And also welcomes you to join the
OPEN TRACKBACK ALLIANCE
This week I also have shortened my usual introduction for a more important message.
MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism Created by Mark Jefferson on March 1st, 2006 at 5:42 pm AST
After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism. We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all. "
Spanning The Globe
Periodically I like to check my Geo Tracking to see where my readers are from and use this handy "where have you been in the world" tool to map them. It's a lot of fun as well as very interesting. I have yet to cover the world but I am getting there. ;-)
[Editor's Note: The following was written by Robert Spencer on behalf of Frontpagemag.com.] Tashbih Sayyed, 1941-2007
With great sorrow, Frontpagemag.com informs our readers that Tashbih Sayyed, a courageous foe of the global jihad, has passed away.
After a long career at Pakistan Television, Tashbih's differences with the Zia ul-Haq regime in Pakistan (which gave the Islamization of Pakistan its first great boost) led him to come to the United States, where he founded two newspapers, Pakistan Today and Muslim World Today, and wrote eight books, including Mohammad – A Secularist's View. He appeared in documentaries including Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West. He was the President and founder of The Council for Democracy and Tolerance, an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute, and a member of the Jihad Watch Board.
Tashbih was insightful, humorous, and above all, fearless in his opposition to the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism. Despite numerous threats and a relentless barrage of insults and personal attacks, he kept on trying to awaken the world to the magnitude of the threat we face, never trimming his truth-telling to fit current fashion.
He was a dear friend, and he will be greatly missed.