Some very clever computer work here.

Le Petit Chef

The French restaurant “Le Petit Chef (Little Chef)” came up with an original
way to entertain guests while waiting for their order by using an overhead
projector on the ceiling. The animation appears on the table and your

There is a small chef who appears on your plate,… watch what he does!
Gotta’ love this new way of dining!! Bon Appetite’!!

Quote of the Day 02/09/16

If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago, and a racist today.–Thomas Sowell

Will Banning Muslim Migration Ruin the Anti-ISIS Coalition? by Daniel Greenfield

The most common attack on proposals to end Muslim migration to the United States is that this policy would somehow interfere with the coalition to fight ISIS.

Lindsey Graham asked, “How do you go to any of these countries and build a coalition when your policy is simply because you’re a Muslim you can’t come to America?” “This policy is a policy that makes it impossible to build the coalition necessary to take out ISIS,” Jeb Bush objected.

The White House agreed, “We have an over-60-country coalition fighting with a substantial number of Muslim-majority fighters who are absolutely essential to succeeding in that effort.”

But there are two things wrong with this argument.

First, no Muslim country or faction is fighting ISIS because they like us. They’re not doing us any favors. They’re protecting themselves from the Islamic State.

The insistence of ISIS that it is the supreme authority over all Muslims has even led it into battles with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. No one fighting ISIS is doing it because of our immigration policy. Jeb Bush referenced the Kurds. The Kurds want their own homeland. Those who want to come to America don’t want to fight ISIS. Those who want to fight ISIS aren’t looking to move to Dearborn or Jersey City.

Second, Muslim countries in the anti-ISIS coalition have much harsher immigration policies for Christians than anything that Donald Trump or Ted Cruz have proposed for Muslims.

When Obama gave his speech, the first Muslim country he mentioned in the coalition was Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia bans all religions except Islam. No churches are allowed in Saudi Arabia. Christmas parties are targeted with police raids. Converting to Christianity is punishable by death. Non-Muslims are entirely banned from some Saudi cities and the legal system discriminates against them.

Saudi Arabia also engages in blatant racial discrimination and denies basic civil rights to women. And yet there are no problems with having Saudi Arabia in the anti-ISIS coalition. Certainly the Saudis don’t worry that we’ll drop out of the coalition because they ban Christianity.

Other Muslim anti-ISIS coalition members include Turkey, whose leader threatened to ethnically cleanse Armenians, Egypt, where discrimination against Christians has led to government persecution, the UAE and Qatar, where churches are not allowed to display crosses, and Somalia, which banned Christmas.

Saudi Arabia’s Islamic justice system is often indistinguishable from ISIS. Turkey and Qatar’s governments have ties to Al Qaeda. Both also have alleged ties to ISIS.

And they are the core of Obama’s Muslim anti-ISIS coalition members.

Why exactly does the United States have to worry about meeting their standards for accommodating Muslims, when they have no interest in meeting our standards for the treatment of Christians?

Muslim coalition countries routinely block citizenship for non-Muslims, some forbid marriages to non-Muslims, yet we’re expected to provide citizenship to hundreds of thousands of Muslims, many of whom support ISIS, Al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood, just to maintain this coalition?

What use is an anti-ISIS coalition that not only forbids us to protect our own national security interests, but actually demands that we undermine them to accommodate some larger Islamic agenda?

But despite claims by Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham and the White House, the anti-ISIS coalition has no interest in our immigration policy. Its Muslim components are divided into local militias and regional powers. The militias are fighting ISIS for the sake of their own interests and their own survival. All they want from us are guns and they don’t care about our immigration policy. The regional powers want us to overthrow Assad. Their own interests, not our immigration policy, are their priorities.

The majority of the Muslim anti-ISIS coalition hates us. Some members actually sponsor terrorism against us. We will not alienate them with a migration ban because they are not our friends.

The Muslim countries in the coalition against ISIS are absolutely unashamed of putting their own religious and national identities first. Yet Bush, Graham and the White House would have us believe that we will destroy any coalition with them against ISIS if we put ourselves first for once.

We need to stop worrying about offending Muslim countries that deny Christians and Jews basic human rights and start looking out for our interests, our own security and our own welfare.

Not only won’t this weaken the coalition against ISIS, it will make it stronger. Countries can be united by shared values or shared interests. No matter how much presidents from both parties may pretend, we have no values in common with Saudi Arabia. We are not united with it or the rest of the Muslim members of the coalition by shared religious or cultural values. We are occasionally united with them by shared interests. It’s time that we were honest about that with them and ourselves.

Jeb Bush’s pretense that we must have shared values to have shared interests is a common foreign policy fallacy. Instead of trying to build shared interests around shared values such as democracy or interfaith dialogue that we clearly do not share with them, we should just focus on our interests.

Saudi Arabia is a brutal totalitarian monarchy that hates everything that we care about from our religion to our way of life. Picture anything from a 4th of July barbecue to Christmas and the Saudis will have banned everything from the beer to the pork chops to the men and women sitting together.

But we both hate ISIS and that’s all that we really need for a coalition against it.

If we are ever going to have an adult relationship with the Muslim world, it will be based on our interests, not values. It will work because both sides know exactly what they are getting out of it.

The Muslim world wants to know what to expect from us. It hates Obama because of his unreliability. To them, his political ideology resembles some species of mysticism which they do not share. It much prefers an arrangement based on mutual interests over our misguided mystical attempts to discover shared values by pretending that Islam is just Christianity misspelled.

It’s not an immigration ban that poses a threat to the coalition, it’s the insistence that shared values come before shared interests. If we are to have shared values with a Muslim coalition, that requires us to prosecute blasphemy against Islam, provide a special status to Muslims and a lower status to non-Muslims. Such an approach is incompatible with our own values, yet we have begun doing just that. Locking up filmmakers and condemning cartoonists has given us more in common with Saudi Arabia and ISIS. And it would be unfortunate if we had to become an Islamic state to fight the Islamic State.

We can best fight ISIS by being a free nation. There is no use in defeating ISIS just to become ISIS. That will not prevent us from joining coalitions of shared interests with anyone else, but it will stop us from trying to find shared values with Islamic tyrannies of the axe, burka and sword. A ban on Muslim migration will allow us to fight ISIS abroad instead of fighting ISIS and becoming ISIS at home.

Source: Sultan Knish blog

Why pundits, politicians and the press hate Ted Cruz By Todd Starnes

Senator Ted Cruz is now the frontrunner in the Republican race for the White House.

But if you believe the Mainstream Media and the political pundits — Marco Rubio won the Iowa Caucus.

Just look at Tuesday’s news coverage — they marginalized Senator Cruz — and glorified Senator Rubio.

And that’s the narrative. Cruz may have won — but Rubio is more electable. And yet… the numbers in Iowa tell a very different story.

One out of three evangelical voters chose Cruz — so did four out of ten very conservative voters.

And 26 percent of young voters — 18 to 29 – — they didn’t vote for Rubio — they also voted for Cruz.

The voters recognize a simple truth. Senator Cruz has been a man of his word — a principled conservative — and that is something the Establishment cannot tolerate.

“What we are seeing is evangelicals who have been dormant in the political process that are turning out,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “It’s something we haven’t seen in a number of years.”

Perkins, who has endorsed Cruz, told me the voters are not interested in a moderate candidate. They don’t want someone in the “middle.”

“There’s nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead animals,” Perkins said.

Looking back on the results in Iowa, Perkins said there should be one take-away for voters.

“Do not listen to the pundits or the polls – but vote your values,” he said. “It was values voters and the return of those voters that put Ted Cruz over the top.”

It’s not that the pundits and politicos hate Senator Cruz – they know he can’t be controlled — and that has them terrified.

Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. His latest book is “God Less America: Real Stories From the Front Lines of the Attack on Traditional Values.” Follow Todd on Twitter@ToddStarnes and find him on Facebook.

EPA metastasizing into national zoning board By Washington Examiner

This past fall, federal courts put a temporary halt on the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to redefine “waters of the United States.” The well-known rule would expand EPA power over nearly every wet patch in America, including puddles. But this is not the only important case in the courts today about federal control of water.

Back in 2009, when the new Waters of the United States rule was still just some bureaucrat’s bad idea, the EPA began a separate power grab. And the Supreme Court may soon choose to review it.

Near the beginning of his first term, President Obama issued an executive order on “Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration.” It called on EPA to develop a plan that would impose new responsibilities to limit each source of pollution within the bay’s watershed, which extends as far west as West Virginia and as far north as central New York state.

In 2010, EPA released a 280-page document which went well beyond its statutory mandate. Whereas the Clean Water Act calls for the agency to set limits on the “Total Maximum Daily Load” of pollutants (in this case nitrogen, phosphorous and other nutrients), the EPA subdivided the watershed into 92 separate segments and set thousands of separate limits for the smaller units within them. This allows EPA to impose sanctions and forbid various economic activities within the watershed even if the total amount of pollution running off into the bay is below the overall limit.

The American Farm Bureau Federation filed suit in 2011, arguing that the EPA was claiming extensive powers over local land use that it was never meant to have. The bureau’s petition notes, “As a practical matter, the power to set numeric limits for sediment and nutrients by source type within specific geographic areas equals nothing short of the power to allow farming here, but not there, building here, but not there.”

State and local governments, who traditionally make land use decisions and with whom EPA is legally obliged to cooperate, say EPA’s goals are unattainable. Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection has called EPA’s calculation of local limits “wholly unjustified and arbitrary and capricious.”

The EPA’s plan, like so much that it does, is both economically damaging and anti-constitutional in its distribution of powers. It would have the federal government taking on zoning powers reserved to states, counties and towns. Federal sanctions could be imposed and federal permits required for several activities that have not previously been considered “point sources” of pollution.

Importantly, this policy would doubtless leak out from the Chesapeake watershed and across the rest of America. It is, the Farm Bureau argues, a blueprint for future regulation of all other watersheds. The EPA could literally become a national zoning board.

So far, the Obama administration has been winning this legal battle to arrogate powers to the EPA. It won the case in federal district court, and again in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. But these rulings seem to contradict recent Supreme Court rulings that set limits on how far federal agencies can go in rewriting statutes.

Everyone wants clean water, and efforts to date have already brought dramatic improvement to the long-ailing Chesapeake. According to the EPA, nitrogen and phosphorus emissions are down 21 percent since 1985, and sediment pollution is down 30 percent. The bay’s water quality has improved gradually since then, as one would hope.

But whatever the outcome, processes matter, too. Government processes can either safeguard personal and economic freedoms, or they can erode them.

Neither Obama’s nor any other president’s EPA should have the sweeping powers over all economic activity that it is claiming with this watershed plan. Nor can the constitutional order bear them.