DUTCH DILEMMA

Here is a translation of a Dutch newspaper article in a comment on Little Green Footballs:

In the Netherlands the national flag is now banned on most schools. If a student wears the national flag of his own country he will be suspended or expelled from school. The reason for this is that this provokes the immigrants (the muslims) and therefore it is considered discrimination if you wear your country's flag in your own country. Even people who have an bumpersticker with the flag on their car are harassed and called a facist by the Muslims. Most schools also ban certain clothing like the Lonsdale brand and combat boots with white or red laces. This is also concidered a sign of racism. There are, of course, no restrictions for the immigrants on clothing.

One of the greatest tragedies of the post-WWII reconstruction of Europe was the wholesale abandonment of the historic Christian faith by the Dutch (and the majority of Old Europeans.)

The Dutch are dominated by an intolerant and immoral form of secular relativism that has earned them the dubious distinction of leading in the moral degeneration of Old Europe. Now the Dutch (read: French, British, Belgians, Germans, Swiss, Danes, Spanish, Italians, Swedes, Norwegians, etc.) are threatened by the distorted moral militancy of Islam

Like my ol’ Mammie used to say, “Son, if you don’t stand for something, then you will fall for anything.”

GOOD COP, BAD COP

It looks like Secretary of State Rice is giving Old Europe just enough rope on the Iranian Nuclear Disarmament issue to potentially hang themselves. Our strategy seems to be for the "bad cop" America to wait just outside the interrogation room door making threatening sounds while the Iranians are read the riot act by the "good cop" Europeans.

Unfortunately, it appears the Europeans are likely to go the way of the DooDoo Bird, just like the UN Security Council did with Iraq. President Bush seems to have adopted Teddy Roosevelt's recommendation to "walk softly and carry a big stick."

Let's pray the suicidal wing of Iran's ruling Mullahs don't make Saddam's mistake of misunderestimating President Bush's determination to spread liberty throughout the world, particularly in Syria, Iran and North Korea. Do these madmen really think Allah can protect them from the wrath of the Coalition of the Willing, which will include Israel the next go round?

Or, maybe we should take Senator Biden's recommendation (hattip: Jayson at Polipundit):

Even if Iran was a full democracy like India, it would want nuclear capability, like India. What the world needed to address was Iran’s emotional needs, with a nonaggression pact. – Senator Joe Biden, as paraphased by the Boston Globe, February 2005

The braying donkey is the perfect icon of the modern Democrat party as personified by Senators Biden, Kennedy, and Kerry. Biden demonstrated his command of the emotional needs of the Iranian Mullahs when he stood up their delegation for dinner in Davos last week. So much for practicing what he preaches.

FDR MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN BUSH

That's right. A recent revelation (Hattip: DJ) on Polipundit proves that FDR was politically more conservative on the issue of Social Security than President Bush is today! I'm not making this up. This quote is from Bill Bennett's website:

FDR's Message to Congress on Social Security on Jan. 17, 1935:

"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions.

Second, compulsory contributory annuities that in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations.

Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

Not only was the third phase of Roosevelt's SS plan to include private annuity accounts, but, the old-age pension plan was to be ultimately supplanted by those private accounts. Now read it again carefully. Roosevelt in 1935 said the old-age benefits of Social Security were to be supplanted, not supplemented, by private annuity accounts. Dictionary.com defines supplant as "to replace, to displace, to substitute for (i.e., as the computer supplanted the typewritter.)"

So when the Democrats crowded around FDR's statue for a photo op, and boldly denounced President Bush for wanting to privatize Social Security, they were actually dissing the vision of their Democrat demi-god Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Well, la-te-da.