Thursday, July 31, 2008

Decapitated body of British girl, 17, found hacked to pieces in suitcase in Brazil

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 8:00 PM on 31st July 2008

Cara Marie Burke arrived in Brazil on a tourist visa three months ago
The decapitated body of a 17-year-old British girl has been found in a suitcase in Brazil, police have said.
The remains of Cara Marie Burke were found by officers in the town of Goiania on Monday, according to Lenita Alves de Brito, a spokeswoman for Goiana's Policia Civil.
The teenager's boyfriend Mohamed D'Ali Carvalho Santos, 20, a Brazilian whose mother lives in London, has been arrested.
Mohamed D'ali Carvalho Santos
He is reported to have confessed to the killing after she threatened to tell authorities he was a drug dealer, de Brito said.
The Foreign Office said in a statement: 'We can confirm the death of a British national in Goiana in Brazil.
'Next of kin have been informed and we are providing consular assistance to the family.'
Goias state police inspector Jorge Moreira da Silva said officers discovered the torso of Miss Burke in a suitcase by the side of a river 20 miles from the city.
Police were able to identify Cara's body by a tattoo. Cara's mother identified her daughter's body through photos distributed by Interpol.
Burke and dos Santos met in Britain. She arrived in Brazil on a tourism visas three months ago and they had shared an apartment.
Police found drugs in the apartment.
Karine Neves, a spokeswoman for the British Embassy in Brasilia, said a British vice consul is in Goiana, tracking the case and the police investigation.
Goiana is the largest city in the Brazilian state of Goias in western Brazil. It is 120 miles southwest of the capital Brasilia.
Crime is rising at an alarming rate in Brazil and the Foreign Office warns on its website that levels of crime are particularly high in major cities there.
Tourists are warned to avoid going out at night in many Brazilian cities.

CANADASTAN: Man fatally stabbed in Marlborough Park

Jason van Rassel and Gwendolyn Richards , Calgary Herald
Published: Thursday, July 31, 2008
CALGARY - A man swarmed by several others and stabbed in the chest has died, launching another homicide investigation by city police.
Officers were called out to what was initially a serious assault in the 100 block of Manora Place N.E. around 10:30 last night. There, they found a man bleeding from a chest wound.
Paramedics took the man to hospital where he later died from his injuries.
"Five to six (Middle Eastern) males came up to a condo complex and stabbed the victim once in the chest," said duty inspector Frank Farkas.
Although police located witnesses, they had no suspects in custody. It's believed the culprits sped from the scene in a grey truck.
Police taped off a large section of the townhouse complex and street in Marlborough Park to preserve any evidence. An autopsy is expected later today.

Top Ten Signs Barack Obama is Overconfident

Proposed bill to change Oklahoma to "Oklobama"

Offered Bush 20 bucks for the "Mission Accomplished" banner
Asked guy at Staples, "Which chair will work best in an oval-shaped office?"

The affair with Barbara Walters

Having head measured for Mount Rushmore

Guy sits around eating soup all day

He's voting for Nader

Offered McCain a job in gift shop at Obama Presidential Library

Announced his running mate will be Andy Dick

Been cruising for chicks with John Edwards

Fjordman: The Organization of the Islamic Conference and Eurabia

The European essayist Fjordman elucidates recent Islamic initiatives to end free speech in the West, and shows what's at stake:
July 31, 2008
Dr. Andrew Bostom, editor of the excellent book The Legacy of Jihad and the recent book about Islamic anti-Semitism, warns that the 57 Muslim nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference are trying to impose Islamic blasphemy law -- which includes the death penalty for those who "blaspheme" the Muslim prophet Muhammad -- as the universal standard across the world.
These sentiments of the OIC were reiterated more brazenly by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. During a sermon in response to the Danish Muhammad cartoons which aired February 3, 2006, Qaradawi demanded action from the United Nations in accordance with sharia-based conceptions of blasphemy: "…the governments [of the world] must be pressured to demand that the U.N. adopt a clear resolution or law that categorically prohibits affronts to prophets—to the prophets of the Lord and his Messengers, to His holy books, and to the religious holy places."
As German journalist Henryk Broder noted back then: "Objectively speaking, the cartoon controversy was a tempest in a teacup. But subjectively it was a show of strength and, in the context of the 'clash of civilizations,' a dress rehearsal for the real thing. The Muslims demonstrated how quickly and effectively they can mobilize the masses, and the free West showed that it has nothing to counter the offensive -- nothing but fear, cowardice and an overriding concern about the balance of trade. Now the Islamists know that they are dealing with a paper tiger whose roar is nothing but a tape recording."
In the aftermath of the Cartoon Jihad, in Norway in June 2007 members of dozens of newspapers, TV stations and organizations participated in an international conference on how to "report diversity" in a non-offensive manner, with Arab News from Saudi Arabia as a moderator. Keynote speaker at the conference, Dr. Doudou Diène, the United Nations Special Envoy for racism, xenophobia and intolerance, urged the media to actively participate in the creation of a Multicultural society, and expressed concerns that the democratic process could lead to immigration-restrictive parties gaining influence in Western nations.
Diène said that it is a dangerous development when increasing numbers of intellectuals in the West believe that some cultures are better than others, and stated that "The media must transform diversity, which is a fact of life, into pluralism, which is a set of values." Getting diversity accepted is the role of the education system, and acceptance is the role of the law. "Promoting and defending diversity is the task of the media." Societies must recognize, accept and promote diversity, which always seems to mean sharia. Mr. Diène represents Senegal, an African Muslim country which is a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the largest voting bloc at the United Nations, sponsored by Arab oil money.
There were already signs that large portions of the mainstream media have been working according to similar ideas long before his conference. In Britain, leading figures of the BBC have proudly announced that they actively promote Multiculturalism. In Denmark in 2008, while their country was threatened by Muslims across the world, public broadcaster Danmarks Radio, the local equivalent of the BBC and with the same left-wing bias, decided to hold a "Miss Headscarf" beauty contest for women with the only requirement being that they are over 15 and wear a headscarf or veil, the way proper Muslim women are supposed to do.
In March 2008, the United Nation's Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned Dutch MP Wilder's movie Fitna as "offensively anti-Islamic," and said that "There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence." Does that mean that the UN is now going to ban the Koran? Earlier in March, the U.N. Human Rights Council, which is dominated by Muslim countries, passed a resolution saying it is deeply concerned about the defamation of religions and urging governments to prohibit it. The only religion specified was Islam. The document was put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
I have been saying for a long time that trying to export "democracy" to Islamic countries is pointless. Islam can be compatible with "democracy" in the limited sense of voting rights and majority rule, but this has never automatically implied individual liberty. (See my online booklet Is Islam Compatible With Democracy?)
It's a sick joke that American soldiers are bleeding literally and American taxpayers financially to export "democracy" to Iraq while Muslims are exporting sharia to us. Freedom is free speech, that's the simplest definition of it. Muslims are using the UN to limit criticism of Islam globally, which basically means putting the entire world under Islamic rule.

My view of the United Nations is quite clear: It is at best irrelevant. At best. Increasingly, it is turning into an outright enemy, an enemy funded by us but used to attack us. I'm tired of sponsoring enemies, at home and abroad. I'm all for boycotting the UN and making it truly irrelevant by bleeding it dry for funds and ultimately withdrawing from it.
Muslims have lots of oil and lots of babies and lots of aggression, but that's all they have. Otherwise, they're a spectacular failure. We need them for very little. They need us for virtually everything. We should exploit that. We should separate ourselves from the Islamic world as much as possible. They will suffer far more from this than we will. We can start by boycotting the UN, which is now little more than a tool for global sharia, and the Arab Muslims of the West Bank and Gaza, who reinvented themselves as "Palestinians" and started whining at the UN after the Israelis kicked their collective behinds in 1967.
Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad called upon Muslims worldwide to boycott Dutch products, following the release of the Islam-critical movie Fitna by Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Personally, I'm all for boycotts of and by Muslims. The more, the merrier. Mr. Mahathir held the notorious speech at the OIC conference in 2003 where he said that the Jews rule the world by proxy and that Muslims must unite to achieve a final victory over them. Not everybody remembers that he also boasted about the age when "Europeans had to kneel at the feet of Muslim scholars in order to access their own scholastic heritage."
Somebody should remind him that the so-called "golden age" of Islam was a result of a still-large non-Muslim population. As soon as that declined, due to harassment and discrimination, the Islamic world never recovered. Malaysia is sometimes portrayed as an economically successful Muslim nation, but that is because it only recently became majority Muslim and still has a large Chinese, Indian and other non-Muslim minority. Since Islam is becoming more aggressive and Muslims increase discrimination of non-Muslims, infidels will leave, and Malaysia will gradually be reduced to just another failed sharia state.
In 2008, the current Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi warned his British counterpart, PM Brown, that Muslim extremism in Britain will grow unless the government and society learn to understand Islam and allow the country's Muslims to live under sharia law. What he didn't say is that sharia applies to all members of society, also non-Muslims, who should have their freedoms curtailed as well.
Historian David Littman is a representative to the United Nations of the Association for World Education. He has spent years tracking the rise of Islamic influence at the UN. According to him, "In recent years, representatives of some Muslim states have demanded, and often received, special treatment at the United Nations." As a result, "non-diplomatic terms such as 'blasphemy' and 'defamation of Islam' have seeped into the United Nations system, leading to a situation in which non-Muslim governments accept certain rules of conduct in conformity with Islamic law (the Shari'a) and acquiesce to a self-imposed silence regarding topics touching on Islam."
In May 2007, the foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) expressed "grave concern" at the rising tide of intolerance against Muslims, especially in Europe and North America. They described "Islamophobia" as a deliberate defamation of Islam, and pointed out that whenever the issue of Islamophobia was discussed in international forums, the Western bloc, particularly some members of the European Union, tried to avoid discussing the core issue and instead diverted the attention from their region to the situation of non-Muslims and human rights in the OIC member states.
In June 2008, the OIC announced its plan for fighting Islamophobia. Here's what Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, their Secretary General, had to say: "We are encouraged to see however, that an awareness of the dangers of Islamophobia is gradually setting in the West. The condemnation by many Western leaders and governments of Islamophobic acts such as the [Dutch movie] Fitna are positive confidence building measures that lead us to believe that all is not lost and that the gap can be closed in time. But mere condemnation or distancing from the acts of the perpetrators of Islamophobia will not resolve the issue as long as they remain free to carry on with their campaign of incitement and provocation on the plea of freedom of expression."
As Baron Bodissey of the Gates of Vienna blog commented, the phrase "as long as they remain free…" clearly reveals their agenda: "Obviously, the intention of the OIC is to do everything within its power to make sure that the citizens of the Western democracies do not remain free." Mr. Ihsanoglu unveiled a ten-point program that he proposed in order to meet the OIC's ambitious goals. The plan is all there, laid out in black and white for anyone to read. Unfortunately, not everybody understands its implications.
In Der Spiegel in June 2008, Dirk Kurbjuweit commented on the Irish popular rejection of the Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution by concluding that "Europe's politicians are determined to avoid asking the people their opinion. And they are right to do so." According to him, "Again and again, they trick their populations into accepting the European Union. It's been going on for 50 years: politicians making policy against the people. The only time anyone ever notices is when the people -- one people, in this case -- are asked for their opinion. It happened in Ireland recently, when the Irish made it clear that they refuse to accept the politics of scoundrels."
Regarding German chancellor Angela Merkel, he speculates whether "she is in fact wholeheartedly behind a strengthening of the European Union, perhaps even knowingly against the wishes of German citizens." Dirk Kurbjuweit seems to approve of this strategy of denying citizens a say in the future of their countries and their children. He concludes:
"Perhaps the EU's secret strategy is called 'strategic boredom' -- attract no attention and make no waves, but continue to plod along, quietly and stubbornly, ignoring the murmurs of concern from all around. The scoundrels in Brussels have sold the European people a lot of things: a single market, the euro, the lifting of many border controls and, most recently, a binding global climate policy. These have all been good things, and they have helped make Europe an eminently livable continent. Despite the many dull moments and emotions that have been negative at best, the end result has been laudable. Most of these improvements would have been held up, if not outright prevented, by referendums. Democracy doesn't mean having unlimited confidence in citizens. Sometimes the big picture is in better hands when politicians are running it, and a big picture takes time."
The "big picture" which is being implemented by these same political elites does not only include political integration within Europe, it also includes European cultural, political and economic integration with the Arab-Islamic world, conducted largely without the approval of European citizens. Mr. Kurbjuweit didn't mention that part.
In March 2008, Terry Davis, a former politician for the British Labour Party and now the General Secretary of the Council of Europe, wrote a letter in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten denouncing the republishing of the Muhammad cartoons, stating that "freedom of speech should not be used as a freedom to insult." As Jyllands-Posten wrote in a response, "Freedom of expression is exactly the freedom to insult anyone within the framework of the law."
The Council of Europe (CoE) was founded in 1949, earlier than the European Community/European Union. It is still a separate organization but very much within the orbit of the EU's Eurabian networks and cooperates increasingly closer on "dialogue" with Islamic countries. For instance, the North-South Centre (for cooperation between Europe and the Arab world), officially named the European Centre for Global Interdependence and Solidarity, is an EU/CoE partnership. A Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union from May 2007 outlines many areas of cooperation between the two organizations, including intercultural dialogue and cultural diversity, education and youth as well as the fight against discrimination, racism, xenophobia and intolerance (which includes "Islamophobia").
One of the websites linked to from the CoE's homepage is the organization "All different, all equal." Yes, it does sound like something out of George Orwell's classic novel Animal Farm. The organization champions many activities. One of them was when the Council of Europe's Directorate of Youth and Sport and the Directorate of External Relations and Co-operation of the Islamic Organisation for Education, Science and Culture (ISESCO) in 2007 organized an "intercultural course" on Arabic language and culture in Morocco, intended for members of European youth organizations between the ages of 18 and 30. It was intended to "develop their language skills, to promote intercultural and interreligious dialogue, international understanding, and to combat prejudice and all forms of racism and xenophobia."
There are also networks Combating Social Exclusion and Discrimination, and several youth organizations linked to by "All different, all equal" participated in a "Rainbow Paper" with recommendations for making Intercultural Dialogue happen on the ground. 2008 is the official "European Year of Intercultural Dialogue," jointly coordinated by the Council of Europe and the European Union. This "dialogue" is an extension of the EU's long-term plans for Euro-Arab dialogue, and focuses mainly on Islam and why Europeans should learn to love Islamic culture.
In connection with this, the Council of Europe in 2008 published a White Paper (pdf) on Intercultural Dialogue entitled "Living Together As Equals in Dignity." It places particular emphasis on providing proper "Multicultural" education to European children: "Within the formal curriculum, the intercultural dimension straddles all subjects.History, language education and the teaching of religious and convictional facts are perhaps among the most relevant." Concerted efforts should be made to "avoid prejudice," and "In 2007, the European Ministers of Education underlined the importance of measures to improve understanding between cultural and/or religious communities through school education."
The White Paper focuses on the young: "Youth and sport organisations, together with religious communities, are particularly well placed to advance intercultural dialogue in a non-formal education context." "Educators at all levels play an essential role in fostering intercultural dialogue and in preparing future generations for dialogue." "Kindergartens, schools, youth clubs and youth activities in general are key sites for intercultural learning and dialogue." Moreover, "The workplace should not be ignored as a site for intercultural dialogue."
Among recommendations, the paper says the following:
"Public debate has to be marked by respect for cultural diversity. Public displays of racism, xenophobia or any other form of intolerance must be rejected and condemned, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, irrespective of whether they originate with bearers of public office or in civil society. Every form of stigmatisation of persons belonging to minority and disadvantaged groups in public discourse needs to be ruled out. The media can make a positive contribution to the fight against intolerance, especially where they foster a culture of understanding between members of different ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious communities. Media professionals should reflect on the problem of intolerance in the increasingly multicultural and multi-ethnic environment of the member states and on the measures which they might take to promote tolerance, mutual understanding and respect. States should have robust legislation to outlaw 'hate speech' and racist, xenophobic, homophobic, antisemitic, islamophobic and antigypsy or other expressions, where this incites hatred or violence. Members of the criminal justice system should be well trained to implement and uphold such legislation. Independent national anti-discrimination bodies or similar structures should also be in place, to scrutinise the effectiveness of such legislation."
"Islamophobia" is repeatedly singled out as one of the forms of "discrimination and racism" that needs to be ruthlessly stamped out through indoctrination as well as legal means across the entire European continent, a policy which is being implemented at an accelerating pace.
In addition to forcing the education system to teach European children to love "Islamic culture," the media should do the same with the adults: "The Council of Europe, together with media professionals and journalism training institutions, is launching in 2008 a campaign against discrimination, bringing into focus the role of the media in a multicultural Europe. Journalism, promoted in a responsible manner through codes of ethics as advanced by the media industry itself and a culture-sensitive training of journalists, can help provide fora for intercultural dialogue."
Finally, the White Paper lists many institutions it should cooperate with, most of them Islamic organizations or organizations geared towards appeasing Muslims, for instance the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue between Cultures, which is one of the EU's most important instruments for Eurabian cooperation:
"The Council of Europe will promote and expand co-operation with other organisations active in intercultural dialogue, including UNESCO and the 'Alliance of Civilizations' initiative, the OSCE, the EU and the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue between Cultures, as well as other regional organisations, such as the League of Arab States and its educational, cultural and scientific organisation, ALECSO, representing a region with many ties to Europe and a distinct cultural tradition. The Council of Europe will also promote intercultural dialogue on the basis of its standards and values when cooperating in the context of specific projects with institutions such as the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) and the Research Center for Islamic History, Art and Culture (IRCICA). The regional focus of this co-operation will be the interaction between Europe and its neighbouring regions, specifically the southern shores of the Mediterranean, the Middle East and Central Asia."
Notice the cooperation with institutions dedicated to "Islamic history." Concerted efforts are underway to rewrite European school textbooks in order to promote Islam in a positive light. In the European Parliament, the German Christian Democrat Hans-Gert Pöttering stated that textbooks should be reviewed for intolerant depictions of Islam to ensure they don't propagate prejudice. He suggested that the EU could co-operate with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to create a textbook review committee. This is in line with the general policy of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which desires to rewrite textbooks around the world to remove anything critical of Islam, silence mentioning of the victims of 1400 years of Islamic Jihad and glorify the achievements of "Islamic civilization."
In June 2008, the OIC stated that "We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed." As Robert Spencer commented, "That sounds like the statement of a victor in a war, dictating terms to the vanquished." Muslims are happy with their "progress" in Europe and now concentrate their fire on North America:
"'We have established an OIC Group in Washington D.C.,' Ihsanoglu explained, 'with the aim of playing a more active role in engaging American policy makers.' This will involve agitating for laws restricting free speech: "And in confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film 'Fitna,'' (which showed Muslims acting on violent passages in the Qur'an), Ihsanoglu continued, 'we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed.' Ihsanoglu says it's already working: 'As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.' In other words, 'irresponsible' speech -- which is defined as speech he disagrees with -- should be banned."
As Spencer warned, "Can honest discussion really be outlawed? You bet it can. As long as free people do nothing to stop it from happening. As the OIC presses American politicians to use anti-discrimination and hate speech laws to 'stem this illegal trend,' we need to stand up now with Mark Steyn and all the others who are on the front lines of this battle, and tell them that what they're doing to Steyn in Canada must never happen here. We must tell our elected officials to stop this outrage, resist OIC lobbying, and reaffirm in no uncertain terms our commitment to free speech -- particularly now, when so much depends on our being able to speak with honesty about the nature of the jihadist threat, and so many powerful entities want to make sure we do not do so. So much depends on this -- possibly even including our survival as a free people."
In the USA, the New York Times has suggested that the US should become more like Europe and Canada, abandon the silly protections of free speech enshrined in the First Amendment and ban "racism and hate speech." "It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken," Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books, "when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack."
The only "vicious attacks" today are those by Muslims against the free speech and liberty of non-Muslims around the world. The attacks by both individual Muslims and international organizations such as the OIC on criticism of Islam are part of a campaign to force the entire planet's population to accept sharia censorship and thus de facto Islamic rule, a scenario which will permanently end human freedom in any meaningful sense of the word. There can be no compromise with such an agenda. I do not always agree with American policies vis-à-vis Islam, and the US is far from free of Political Correctness and informal censorship, but when it comes to legal protection of free speech, the American approach is correct, and the European – and Canadian – one is dead wrong. We do not need more ideological censorship. On the contrary, we need to protect and expand the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Man beheaded on Greyhound in Canada-stan

By: Gabrielle Giroday and Ian Hitchen
Updated: July 31 at 07:50 AM CDT

BRANDON - Thirty-six passengers of a Greyhound bus travelling from Edmonton to Winnipeg Thursday night watched in horror as a fellow passenger stabbed another man sleeping next to him, eventually decapitating him and waving the man’s severed head.
“He didn’t do anything to provoke the guy. They guy just took a knife out and stabbed him, started stabbing him like crazy and cut his head off,” said Garnet Caton, 36, a passenger.
The bus made an emergency stop, and passengers fled in terror onto the Trans-Canada Highway while the bus’s driver and a driver of a nearby truck shut the crazed man inside the bus with the victim. Passengers say they stood outside the bus and watched through the window, horrified, as the man disfigured the victim’s body.
By 10:30 p.m. the eastbound bus was stopped on the highway about 10 kilometres east of Portage La Prairie, surrounded by RCMP cruisers.
Caton and others said once they escaped, they prevented the attacker from getting off the bus by threatening him with makeshift weapons like a hammer and a metal bar.
“We were telling him, ‘Stay put, stay put, stay there, don’t try to come out.’ He tried to get the bus working and the bus driver disabled the bus somehow in the back, I’m not sure how he did it, and at that point, I think the police showed up,” he said, adding officers rushed them away.
“Some people were puking, some people were crying, other people were in shock ... everybody was running, screaming off the bus.”
Caton described the man who attacked the passenger as about six feet tall, 200 pounds, with a bald head and wearing sunglasses. He seemed oblivious to others when the stabbing occurred, said Caton.
Caton said the victim boarded in Edmonton, was aboriginal in appearance, and was wearing hip-hop clothing, and appeared to be a young man around 20 years of age.
“When we saw the head, we knew he was dead,” he said. “I don’t think the guy knew him at all. I think he was really crazy... the poor guy, he didn’t see it coming.”
Two yellow school buses were brought in to the closed-off stretch of highway near MacGregor for passengers to sit in while the stand-off between officers and the man inside the bus proceeded for hours.
Caton said the attacker was only on the bus for a brief period of time, after boarding in western Manitoba.
The passengers were later taken to Brandon to be interviewed by police and to stay overnight at a hotel there.
Crisis counsellors were also at the hotel to provide support to the passengers, and counsellors could be seen chatting with them outside the hotel as groups went out to local stores for snacks or to smoke cigarettes.
One small boy, who was with an adult man and woman, was given a plush teddy bear by a crisis health worker.
Another young man from Nova Scotia sat outside the Brandon hotel smoking around 3 a.m. Visibly shaken, he said RCMP had taken 36 witnesses in for questioning. He said later: “I felt bad that all the young people and old people had to see that.”
The man, who did not want his name used, said the victim of the stabbing had been sleeping before the attack.
Other passengers said that the two men were sitting in the rear of the bus and the stabbing victim was listening to music through his headphones. The attack appeared to be unprovoked.
“The first thing I heard was something like a terrible type (of) yowl and that was from the guy who got stabbed,” said an elderly woman from Winnipeg who was on the bus.
The woman and her adult daughter said they were three or four rows in front of the suspect when the attack began.
“(My daughter said) ‘Oh my God’ and everybody else started screaming,” she said. “They had terror in their eyes.”
Passengers said there was a rush of people towards the front of the bus to get off.
An RCMP spokesman could not be reached early today to confirm the precise time the man was taken into custody or further details.
Two other passengers on the bus, a 22-year-old man and 21-year-old woman, from France, said they were heading to Winnipeg after visiting the woman’s father in Whitehorse. The 22-year-old man said in French that he saw a man holding a long kitchen knife repeatedly stab another passenger. He and his girlfriend said they were shocked by the attack, and the isolation in the middle of the prairies when it occurred.
“There was nowhere to go,” she said.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

The ‘60s Won’t Go Away - by Victor Davis Hanson

July 28, 2008The ‘60s Won’t Go Away
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services
What more can anyone say about the 1960s and all its legacies?
Those who protested some 40 years ago often still congratulate themselves that their loud zeal alone brought needed "change" to America in civil rights, the environment, women's liberation and world peace. Maybe. But critics counter that the larger culture that followed was the most self-absorbed in memory.
Everyone can at least agree that the spirit of the "Me Generation" is not going quietly into the night — especially since that generation ushered in a certain coarseness and self-righteousness that still plagues our politics.
Take grandiose sermonizing about changing the world while offering few practical details how to do it.
Al Gore recently prophesized that America within 10 years could generate all its electrical needs from "renewable resources and carbon-constrained fuels" — mainly wind, solar and geothermal power (which currently together account for less than 10 percent of our aggregate production).
In truth, that daydream has about as much chance of being realized by 2018 as Al Gore this year swearing off the use of polluting SUVs and gas-guzzling private jets as he whizzes to his next environmental pulpit.
Barack Obama, a child during the '60s, is imbued nonetheless with that decade's "hope and change" messianic sermonizing. Now he wants a new mammoth government-funded "civilian national security force," one "that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the Pentagon.
Sounds utopian, but at a time of record aggregate national debt, are we really going to borrow another half-trillion dollars a year to fund a kinder, gentler version of the military?
Gore and Obama may mean well. And we may someday rely mostly on wind and solar electrical power, and even benefit by having more aid workers abroad. But they discredit their proposals with '60s-style exaggeration and feel-good fantasies that cannot be realized as promised.Another permanent '60s legacy is the assumption that the ends justify crude means. The so-called netroots bloggers often celebrate online with glee the illnesses or deaths of supposedly reactionary political opponents.
The crass anti-war group was not just content to object to Gen. David Petraeus testifying before Congress last autumn. In the fashion of 1960s agitprop, it had to go the next step in demonizing at a time of war our top-ranking Iraq ground commander as a traitor — a "General Betray Us" as the group's ad in The New York Times blared.
Due to a "grassroots effort" to garner thousands of petition signatures, the city of San Francisco will have on the November ballot a measure to change the name of one of its water "pollution control plants" to the "George W. Bush Sewage Plant." What a national trend that would be! Should red states follow that pettiness and rename their own sewers and dumps after John Kerry or Bill Clinton?
We still suffer from the same 1960s juvenile petulance when the powers that be did not immediately fall in line as protestors demanded.Now the spirit of that age permeates Congress, whose members won't drill oil off our coasts or the continental shelf, or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Yet in infantile fashion, they rant about "Big Oil's" high gas prices. So, Congress instead threatens to sue OPEC to be fairer and to pump more oil. And we beg the Saudis to drill and pump more in their waters so we don't have to in ours.
Even in the much-poorer 1960s, it was hard to take seriously the idea of loud middle-class suburban kids as street revolutionaries, given the fact that America was the richest and freest society in history. And it's even harder now when many of them are rich seniors and the country itself is far wealthier.
So when a member of the aging baby-boom generation finger-points at us that drilling oil is the moral equivalent of invading Iraq, or that America has become two nations (the haves and have-nots), we can often expect to discover that the self-righteous sermonizer is a hypocrite. Green Al Gore uses a lot more energy than the average American. Populist John Edwards lives in a huge mansion.
By now, we've grown accustomed to elites railing about America's pathologies from the comfort of their own privilege — along with the usual '60s-style apologies that their own lives don't need to match their rhetoric, and that we should just concentrate on their near-divine messages.
In their defense, they can't help it — it's still a '60s thing.
©2008 Tribune Media Services

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Monday, July 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.
IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism
During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

Democrat Barack Obama arrives in Washington on Monday. On the campaign trail, Obama has styled himself a centrist. But a look at those who've served as his advisers and mentors over the years shows a far more left-leaning tilt to his background — and to his politics.
And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.
It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.
"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.
In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.
In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).
Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.
It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.
Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.
Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.
Among his proposed "investments":
• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.
• "Free" college tuition.
• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).
• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").
• "Free" job training (even for criminals).
• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).
• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.
• More subsidized public housing.
• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."
• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.
His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.
That's just for starters — first-term stuff.
Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.
You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress.
But could he really be "more left," as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)?
Obama's voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion.
The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.
A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."
As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.
"They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."
After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago.
His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America.
The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters.
After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale.
While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky's "agitation" tactics.
(A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" — terms right out of Alinsky's rule book.)
Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father's communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa.
As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses "owned by Asians and Europeans."
His ideas for communist-style expropriation didn't stop there. He also proposed massive taxes on the rich to "redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all."
"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed," Obama Sr. wrote. "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development."
Taxes and "investment" . . . the fruit truly does not fall far from the vine.
(Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.)
In Kenya's recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.
With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called "black liberation theology" and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere.
Obama joined Wright's militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of "black values" that demonizes white "middle classness" and other mainstream pursuits.
(Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values "sensible." There's no mention of them in his new book.)
With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for "change" more effectively. "As an elected official," he said, "I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer."
He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud.
Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for "economic justice."
He's been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington.
Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist.
Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider" (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a "breath of fresh air" to Washington.
The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded "r" word.
But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.
Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them — at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk.
Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that's made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Thinking the Unthinkable: Civil War In Europe

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Winds of War: Thinking About the Unthinkable – Part 1: Civil War In Europe
I still stand on the statement that ‘real war’ will start when the free world finally awakes from its Islamist induced slumber. When the war arrives, it will be succinct, clear to everyone and with a focused objective - as it did for Europe on September 1st, 1939 and America on December 7th, 1941.In my opinion and many others, this is the shape of the war to come in three parts.Militaristic: Like all other wars, there will be a theater of battle across the globe.Demographic: Civil war in Europe between the Islamists and native Europeans.Economic: To defeat America they will attempt to seriously damage our economic and social infrastructure and have us sue for peace.In this three part series we’ll look at each of these ‘battle fronts’ and see how they may play out.Today’s installment is civil war in Europe.
Currently, appeasement is the order of the day in Europe. In an article entitled ‘This time the crocodile won't wait’, a review by Spengler of Melanie Phillips book, Londonistan, speaks of the hopes and fears of the appeaser.
“In retrospect, it seems oafish of Neville Chamberlain, Britain's prime minister in 1938, to have betrayed Czechoslovakia to Nazi rule in return for the empty promise of peace. Yet an overwhelming English majority looked with horror on the prospect of confrontation with Germany and a new world war, until Adolf Hitler forced England's hand by invading Poland. "The appeaser hopes the crocodile will eat him last," said Winston Churchill. Today's crocodiles may not be so patient. The opposing voices in 1938 rang lonely and shrill just as they do today.”
In her book, Phillips portrays an emasculated Britain ashamed of its own national identity and anxious to appease the "clerical fascism" of the jihadis.Britain, Phillips warns, is reaping what it has sown. A large minority of British Muslims are disaffected at best and seditious at worst. Phillips cites a 2004 Home Office survey finding that 26% of British Muslims felt no loyalty to Britain, 13% supported terrorism, and about 1% (up to 20,000 individuals) were "actively engaged" in terrorism or support for terrorism. Another poll found that 32% of British Muslims agreed that "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end".
Phillips believes that in the event of a violent collision between the West and Iran, for example, civil conflict might arise in Britain on a scale resembling that in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. I believe I will be much worse and more along the lines of the Spanish Civil War of the mid to late 1930s. A conflict in which the incumbent Second Spanish Republic and political left-wing groups fought against a right-wing nationalist insurrection led by General Francisco Franco, who eventually succeeded in ousting the Republican government and establishing a personal dictatorship.
Spengler adds, “The battle front in Europe will be based not on traditional warfare but through cultural infiltration where the Islamists exploit the democratic spaces within our society and insert their religious dogma via our own societal modes. And when Islam oversteps and the ignorant Westerners protest, Islam screams, “Racism, Xenophobia”, and the gatekeepers of Western culture rollover and go back to sleep.”
The Brussels Journal keys in with this.
The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations is so extremely high that it is difficult to view these rapes as merely random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. This is happening in most Western European countries, as well as in other non-Muslim countries such as India. European jails are filling up with Muslims imprisoned for robberies and all kinds of violent crimes and Muslims bomb European civilians. One can see the mainstream media are struggling to make sense of all of this. That is because they cannot, or do not want to, see the obvious: this is exactly how an invading army would behave: rape, pillage and bombing. If many of the Muslim immigrants see themselves as conquerors in a war, it all makes perfect sense.
The prized goal of today’s appeaser is multiculturalism and multiculturalism is the flag of the appeaser just as the ‘peace at any cost’ was the flag of the appeasers in the 1930s.
Europe is facing an insurgency no different from what’s happening in Iraq – just not fully violent yet.
Swedish blogger Fjordman writes, “As Mark Steyn points out, the Jihad in the streets of France looks increasingly like the early skirmishes of an impending Eurabian civil war, brought on by massive Muslim immigration and multicultural stupidity. And it is by no means limited to France. Law and order is slowly breaking down in major and even minor cities across the European continent, and the streets are ruled by aggressive gangs of Muslim youngsters. Countries such as France, Holland and Sweden could soon reach a point where the Muslim population will create something akin to civil war, as it already has in the above mentioned nations. Even though this conflict may start out as civil wars in a handful of countries, it could spiral out of control and spread too much of the continent, dragging in foreign fighters from the Arab world.”
This civil war between Europeans and Muslim immigrants who have had success of imposing their kind of civilization on Europe is the result, Fjordman says “of today's decadent, bored, post-religious and post-nationalist Europe that is no match for Islam, unless it rediscovers a belief in its own culture and a will to defend it. If not, the end result will either be Eurabia or a Pakistanization of Europe, the way we have already seen for generations in the Balkans.” The Pakistanization of Europe is one such scenario he sees for Europe.
“Muslims aren't numerous enough to control the entire continent. In the event of war, there will be mutual ethnic cleansing and Muslims will seize parts of Western Europe. For instance, a belt stretching from parts of Germany via Belgium and Holland to France, but maybe even regions within certain nation states. All of Europe will not be lost, but some parts will, and many others will be deeply damaged by the fighting. Many of our cultural treasures will burn. How things will go from there is difficult to predict. Perhaps this new "Pakistan" in the heart of Europe will be the source of constant instability and the staging ground for Jihad incursions into infidel areas, just as Pakistan is to India now.”Fjordman believes that the spark for the civil war many happen in one of two ways.
“It will start, as these things always do, before anyone is ready. It may start more or less by accident. This war may begin with the murder of a symbolic but politically unimportant figure. Or a reverse scenario is possible. A nationalist or rightist murders a prominent Islamic figure, sparking a wave of Islamic terror across Europe. Another possibility is a mega-attack, a chemical weapon or simply a massive suicide bomb or wave of bombs that succeed beyond the bombers plans and kills thousands and/or destroys symbolically important targets, a cathedral, a museum, the Channel. The fearful public then demands harsh government action. Some governments act; others are paralyzed and are incapable of taking action causing citizens to defend themselves.”In other words – chaos and civil insurrection against the feeble social liberal multiculturalists who are unable to respond to the attacks as they do today. Fjordman speaks of the real danger of this.
Once a full-blown civil war starts in one country, it can, and probably will, spread to other countries. We are now witnessing an example of this, as smaller "sympathy riots" have been staged by Muslims in Belgium, Holland, Germany and Denmark following the unrest in France. But that’s not the half of it. The real threat is a rise of neo-Fascism in Europe to counteract the impotence of the socialist liberal in power and in defense of European civilization. A Charles Martel – or even worse – and other Adolf Hitler may arise in Europe – shades of the 1930s. Fjordman says, “This situation could trigger the rise of neo-Fascism and neo-nationalism, and maybe the downfall of European democracy. European neo-nationalism will most likely be hostile to US interests and downright anti-Semitic. None of this will be pretty. The violence will be up-close and quite personal.Europe’s neo-nationalist future will be one filled with paranoia and fanaticism and blind, desperate struggle.In reality, there may be a The Clash of Fascisms. In the civil war that will ensue:
”There would be a widespread feeling that Europe is descending into chaos, and that the governments are unwilling or incapable of stopping this. If this situation continues, some people will cry out for a Strong Man to “cleanse Europe of foreigners" and restore its honor and wounded pride. And He will step forward. By then, you won’t have a “Clash of Civilizations” in Europe, but rather a Clash of Fascisms: Euro-Fascism vs. Islamo-Fascism.”Is civil war in Europe inevitable? That depends on the Europeans and if they awaken to the ticking bomb that’s under their feet.

Is "CULT O'BAMA" official yet?

Monday, July 28, 2008
There's just something creepy about the blue the Obama campaign uses for everything.
It's just not right, not American, somehow. It doesn't feel like a presidential campaign, but a promotion for American Idol, or for a new cult. It's just creepy.
Now, Obama's setting up 2-day camping trips where you can "come to Obama" and commune together with assorted other crazies, in the woods, where no one can hear you scream.
There's also an Obama Youth program (that's wrong on so many levels, we don't even know where to begin) so more children can be like Claire McCaskill and Bob Casey's children, and "bug" their parents to make them vote for Obama. And, we're totally not implying Claire McCaskill and Bob Casey had children together, just that they each have children, individually. As much as we dislike Bob Casey, and think he's something of a fool, we'd never wish that on him.
Here's, seriously, with no snark inserted, what Obama is telling children to do for him:
10 Ways Kids for Obama can get involved:
* Create a Kids for Obama Group on For example, Chicago Kids for Obama or DC Kids for Obama and throw a party!
* Write a letter or editorial to your local news paper, expressing "Why Barack Obama should become the next US President".
* Find a Pen Pal - it could be in your school, city, state, or another state. Write and discuss different ways you can get involved.
* Draw a picture of Senator Barack Obama or "an expression of Democracy". For example, the Senator sitting in the White House or working on Capitol. Hill. You can send your drawing to the Obama for America Campaign Headquarters in Chicago and it will be posted for the Senator to see.
* Implement T-Shirt Thursday. Get friends to wear an official Obama for America T-Shirt to school.
* Take an adult (voting age) to the polls on Election Day and encourage them to vote for you, by voting for Senator Obama. * Post an official Obama for America Campaign sticker/logo on your school bag. * Wear an Obama for America Campaign button and/or clothing.
* Host a Senator Barack Obama House Party or sleep-over.
* Contribute to the Kids for Obama Blog.
There are at least five ways for children to expose themselves to sexual predators and other sickos who'll prey on them in the list of Obama's directives to the Obama Youth above. Can you name them?
Can you draw a picture of how bad an idea it is for a child to put Obama stickers on their bag, so strangers can strike up a conversation about Obama with them and engender a camaraderie that will facilitate any number of horrible things to follow?
Can you imagine why children should not be able to start groups on the Internet and invite anyone with a computer and ISP to come over for a sleepover?

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Holy Islam: Holy Illiteracy, Holy Poverty, Holy Backwardness

This is how illiteracy and poverty are glorified in Islam as Allah’s will. Illiteracy and poverty often go hand-in-hand and followed by backwardness. This is how Muslims achieve all three together. Non-Muslims will never be able to catch up the Muslims in this field.
by Sujit Das
23 Jul, 2008
[A note to the readers: The olden unsolved ‘Chicken or the egg’ riddle does not bother me anymore because very recently another similar type of doubt rose within me. We all know that ignorance, poverty and backwardness are the holy heritage of Islam. But, which came first? Are Muslims poor because they are ignorant and backwards; or ignorant because they are poor and backwards; or backwards because they are ignorant and poor? The billion dollar question is; which came first – Muslim’s ignorance or Muslim’s poverty or Muslim’s backwardness?
I have spent enough sleepless night to solve this puzzle but in vain. I leave it to the readers to make inquiries and to come to a logical conclusion. Thank you.]

Friday, July 25, 2008

Dalibama: He ventured forth to bring light to the world

The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers
Gerard Baker
July 25, 2008
And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”
In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.
He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the
Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.
And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.
From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.
And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.
And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.
From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.
In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.
As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.
And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.
The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.
And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.
Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.
And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.
Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.
But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.
And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.
Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.
On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.
And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”

Police rape of Afghan boys ignored

Defending freedom to abuse: Police rape of Afghan boys ignored
All in the interest of political correctness, and not offending our ‘ally’ in Afghanistan.
8:25 pm on July 23, 2008 by Kal-El
OTTAWA -Canadian soldiers in the main guard tower at forward operating base Wilson last summer winced when I asked about the sudden lineup of teenage boys along the mud walls of the neighbouring Afghan market.
“Wait a few minutes. You’ll see,” said one, his lip curling. “It’s disgusting.”
Sure enough, a handful of uniformed Afghan police officers emerged from their rundown detachment, walked through the barricades and started chatting up the dozen or so teens, some looking decidedly pre-teen.
A few minutes after they returned, the selected kids were waved through the main gates and went straight inside the police station. An hour later, when I left the observation post, the boys were still inside.
This evening ritual is often derided by soldiers as man-love Thursdays.
Afghan officials insist the notion of men and boys getting together the night before the Muslim holy day for sex is a myth. And, sure, it’s theoretically possible the cops were merely good-deed-doers giving these teens reading lessons.
But Canadian soldiers insisted we had just witnessed the regular Thursday evening negotiation for sex between Afghan men and boys, apparently for gifts or money.
It raises the disquieting question of how much responsibility Canadian soldiers shoulder, being military guests and all, to stop Afghan activity that would result in rape or child prostitution charges back home.
It should be stressed that the activity at FOB Wilson does not mean Afghan police and army officers are engaged in an epidemic of juvenile sodomy.
But the issue was given fresh legs last week by a military chaplain named Jean Johns, who reported that soldiers under treatment for posttraumatic stress syndrome had been told to “ignore” any assaults or rapes on Afghan civilians they had seen.
The Toronto Star also reports a Canadian soldier overheard an Afghan soldier abusing a young boy in late 2006 and later saw the victim with signs of rape trauma, specifically protrusions of his bowels and lower intestine.
More child rape in the name of islam. Hey, Muhammad did it, so why can’t they? After all Muhammad is the (in their primitive minds) perfect example of how a man should live.
Had I been that soldier, I would have probably lost my job for sending that pedophile piece of shit to hell.
Read the rest in the National Post.

VDH: It’s America, Obama

A modest dissent to the citizen of the world.
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
July 25, 2008
What disturbed me about Barack Obama's Berlin speech were some reoccurring utopian assumptions about cause and effect — namely, that bad things happen almost as if by accident, and are to be addressed by faceless, universal forces of good will.
Unlike Obama, I would not speak to anyone as “a fellow citizen of the world,” but only as an ordinary American who wishes to do his best for the world, but with a much-appreciated American identity, and rather less with a commonality indistinguishable from those poor souls trapped in the Sudan, North Korea, Cuba, or Iran. Take away all particular national identity and we are empty shells mouthing mere platitudes, who believe in little and commit to even less. In this regard, postmodern, post-national Europe is not quite the ideal, but a warning of how good intentions can run amuck. Ask the dead of Srebrenica, or the ostracized Danish cartoonists, or the archbishop of Canterbury with his supposed concern for transcendent universal human rights.With all due respect, I also don't believe the world did anything to save Berlin, just as it did nothing to save the Rwandans or the Iraqis under Saddam — or will do anything for those of Darfur; it was only the U.S. Air Force that risked war to feed the helpless of Berlin as it saved the Muslims of the Balkans. And I don't think we have much to do in America with creating a world in which “famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands.” Bad, often evil, autocratic governments abroad cause hunger, often despite rich natural landscapes; and nature, in tragic fashion, not “the carbon we send into atmosphere,” causes “terrible storms,” just as it has and will for millennia.Perhaps conflict-resolution theory posits there are no villains, only misunderstandings; but I think military history suggests that culpability exists — and is not merely hopelessly relative or just in the eye of the beholder. So despite Obama’s soaring moral rhetoric, I am troubled by his historical revisionism that, “The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love.”I would beg to differ again, and suggest instead that a mass-murdering Soviet tyranny came close to destroying the European continent (as it had, in fact, wiped out millions of its own people) and much beyond as well — and was checked only by an often lone and caricatured U.S. superpower and its nuclear deterrence. When the Soviet Union collapsed, there was no danger to the world from American nuclear weapons “destroying all we have built” — while the inverse would not have been true, had nuclear and totalitarian communism prevailed. We sleep too lightly tonight not because democratic Israel has obtained nuclear weapons, but because a frightening Iran just might.When Obama shouts,
Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don't look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?
it is the world, not the U.S., that needs to listen most. In this regard I would have preferred Sen. Obama of mixed ancestry to have begun with “In the recent tradition of African-American Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice,” rather than the less factual, “I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in this great city.”
I want also to shout back that the United States does stand for the rule of law, as even the killers of Guantanamo realize with their present redress of grievances, access to complex jurisprudence, and humane treatment — all in a measure beyond what such terrorists would receive anywhere else. It is the United States that takes in more immigrants than does any country in the world, and thus is the prime destination of those who flee the miseries of this often wretched globe.American immigration policies are humane, not only in easy comparison to the savagery shown the “other” in Africa or the Middle East, but fair and compassionate in comparison to what we see presently accorded aliens in Mexico, France, and, yes, Germany. Again, in all this fuzziness — this sermonizing in condescending fashion reminiscent at times of the Pennsylvania remonstration — there is the whiff of American culpability, but certainly not much of a nod to American exceptionalism. Politicians characteristically say to applauding audiences abroad what they wish to hear. True statesmen often do not.
In terms of foreign affairs, I think Americans will finally come to vote for a candidate, who with goodwill, a lot of humility, and a little grace, can persuade the world that universal moral progress, freedom, and material prosperity best advance under the aegis of free markets, constitutional government, and individual freedom, rather than for someone who seems to think, in naïve fashion, that these are necessarily shared and natural human practices, or are presently in force outside the West — or will arise due to dialogue or international good intentions.
©2008 Victor Davis Hanson

Save the Males: Why Men Matter; Why Women Should Care

Save The Males
July 25, 2008
By Heather Wilhelm
Book by Kathleen Parker Random House June 2008, 215 pp
Gender politics can be complicated. I got my first hint of this in fourth grade, on "American History Day," when students were encouraged to dress up like their favorite figure from days of yore.
The choice, in my mind, was obvious: Abraham Lincoln! Best president ever! But as I entered the classroom that January morning, fake beard already drooping, I noticed something startling: All of the other girls had, well, dressed up like girls. Like spouses, to be exact. Half were Martha Washington, and I counted at least three Mary Todds, including my friend Margaret. We made a cute couple, but I also couldn't help wondering why anyone would choose boring old Mary over legendary, honest Abe.
Decades later, we've supposedly made progress in the gender wars. Feminism has flourished, many say, leading to a more enlightened, open, and liberated time. In her new book, "Save the Males," syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker argues that this is, quite simply, a bunch of bunk. We're more confused that ever when it comes to gender, she writes--and males, not females, often bear the brunt of the assault.
Ground zero, she argues, is the classroom. "Boys learn early that they belong to the 'bad' sex," Parker writes, "and their female counterparts to the 'good.'" In schools across America, she reports, boys are stifled, feminized, and drugged; curriculum content is gender-equitable to a near-absurd degree ("We've created a new generation of Americans who may be more sensitive, but they don't know much about history," she writes); and years of "dueling girl and boy crises" have morphed into a we're-all-the-same dogma, ultimately translating into Brave New World-style games of tag where "nobody is ever out."
Beyond the schoolyard, Parker writes, "males have been under siege by a culture that too often embraces the notion that men are to blame for all of life's ills." In films, music, and television, "men are variously portrayed as dolts, bullies, brutes, deadbeats, rapists, sexual predators, and wife beaters." Fictional females are often do-it-all superwomen, either embodying the "sacred feminine" of the DaVinci Code or rolling their eyes at the pot-bellied, "According to Jim" buffoons they've had the misfortune to marry or date. Real-life women, meanwhile, are busy feminizing their men, dragging them to "The Vagina Monologues", pushing them into breastfeeding classes, and sharing way, way too much information. "Here on Planet Lamaze," Parker wryly writes, "everybody's a gynecologist."
Sound silly? It is, and in certain sections, "Save the Males" will make you laugh out loud. But, as Parker argues, these things are also symbolic--and, when it comes to trends like the dramatic devaluation of fatherhood in the U.S., they're also deadly serious. "Historians aren't sure of the precise date," Parker writes, "but sometime around 1970 everyone in the United States drank acid-laced Kool-Aid, tie-dyed their brains, and decided that fathers were no longer necessary." The statistics here are scary, but not unfamiliar: America "leads the Western world in mother-only families"; 30 to 40 percent of American children "sleep in a home where their father does not"; and between 1999 and 2003, the number of babies born to unmarried mothers between the ages of thirty and forty-four increased by nearly 17 percent.
The results have been well documented, Parker argues, and they're not pretty. "Growing up without a father is the most reliable predictor of poverty," she writes, as well as "drug abuse, truancy, delinquency, and sexual promiscuity." Regardless, single motherhood by choice is surging in popularity. When it comes to divorce, child custody, and family law, Parker argues, "pure and simple, the deck is stacked against men"--reducing them, in many cases, to "sperm and a wallet."
"Save the Males" ties some of this dysfunction to our hypersexed, pornified culture--a culture that, Parker argues, is largely fueled by the fairer sex. "For those of you who skipped their women's studies classes," Parker writes, "first-wave feminism got women the vote; second-wave got them employed and divorced; third-wave is busy making them porn stars." Sex, our culture declares, means nothing, and shame is an anachronism. Strip aerobics and pole-dancing classes have invaded even the snootiest gyms, and on college campuses, one-night-stands have taken the place of dating, provoking a "dirty dance of mutual contempt" between our youngest men and women.
It's destructive for young men, Parker writes, to live in a society that's "marinating in pornography." It's also confusing, she argues, to live in a world where the full range of female Halloween costumes seems to be a) slutty nurse; b) slutty housecat; or c) slutty one-eyed pirate. Fair enough. But at a certain point, one is tempted to find one of the "perpetual adolescent" "child-men" we've "created", unplug his Wii, and tell him to toughen up. And while "Save the Males" is full of valuable points, it struggles a bit when it comes to the question of who really gets hurt by the post-sexual revolution culture--because it's often women, not men.
Even famed feminist Germaine Greer, as Parker notes, admitted that the sexual revolution was a lie. "Permissiveness happened," Greer said, "and that's no better than repressiveness, because women are still being manipulated by men." Parker's main disagreement with Greer is that "women, if they are manipulated by men, are having their share of the fun without taking any of the responsibility." Anyone who has spent a lot of time with young women, however, can tell you that the "fun" quickly turns into anguish. "Really, when you look at it, hookup culture is gravy for guys," Laura Sessions Stepp, the author of "Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both," recently told the New York Times. "So how much are we winning?"
"It's not fashionable to question women's decisions," Parker notes. In fact, these days, it's not fashionable to judge anything at all, which may be one of the roots of our problems. This will likely mean that "Save the Males"--which, despite occasional stumbles, is a smart, funny, and engaging read--will make some people cranky. "This book was harder to write than I had expected," Parker concludes, "for reasons that are probably apparent by now: Everything in it could be restated as an argument for saving females."
Obviously, "Save the Males" begs to differ. And regardless of who you think is worse off (or, if you're like me, and you're just tired of victimhood altogether) the book is right on when it comes to our culture's increasing gender confusion. And Parker is also right that America's females don't need to be least not from oppressive, evil men. Judging from many of the problems outlined in the book, if women need to be saved from anyone, they need to be saved from themselves. In the meantime, it's fair to say that everyone--yes, everyone--loses.
Copyright 2008, Real Clear Politics

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Ultimate story of a liberal mugged by reality!

In its May 2003 issue, American Renaissance initiated a series, "My Racial Education: Personal accounts of what led AR readers to racial consciousness." One of the contributions in the first installment was by VFR reader Mike Berman. It is reproduced below. Following Mr. Berman's article, I describe the experience that led to my own "awakening" in this area, then sum up the psychology of vengeance against whites that is at the core of black America. Several readers follow with their own stories. See in particular Kevin V.'s account of the hatred well-to-do blacks directed against him, a young white liberal.
I Was a Red-Diaper Baby
If the definition of a liberal is someone who has never been mugged, then to know my history is to understand my political journey.
I was a red-diaper baby. That is, my father was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA. Years later, he came partly to his senses, but remained a liberal on all issues, including race. Predictably, my parents encouraged their children to go forth and enjoy the multi-racial joys of New York City. I even marched with Martin Luther King when he made his famous speech, but his dream became our nightmare. Multi-racialism resulted in a private, and on some level deserved, holocaust for my family and me.
I am the eldest of five. One of my sisters, who was 13 at the time, was raped when she attended a party on our block. One of the blacks repeatedly asked her to go upstairs to see his apartment. After several rejections, he accused my sister of racism. As a well-indoctrinated, guilt-ridden liberal, she had no choice but to go with him. Out of fear and shame, my sister did not share her story with us until she landed in a mental ward a couple of years later.
Another sister was raped by a black open-enrollment "student" at City College in a locker room after she attended a co-ed swim class. The prosecuting attorney told my sister it was an open-and-shut case because she did everything she was supposed to do: She reported the event immediately, gave a detailed description of the accused (including a bizarrely shaped goatee), and then went directly to the hospital. However, after all the evidence was given, when the jury was polled, the whites voted to convict, but the tribe hung together and hung the jury.
Ironically, before her trial even began, another black tried to rape her in the elevator of her own building. He entered the elevator after her, and sent it down to the basement. There he cut her neck and was about to have his way with her, when someone luckily brought the elevator back up.
The following term, when my sister attended her first political science class, she found that the black who had raped her after the swim class was to be her classmate. She marched off to the administration office in a fury, where she loudly threatened to sue the school for its lack of security. They settled then and there by agreeing to pay for her to complete her education in Israel.
My mother's wrist was broken when an African American relieved her of her pocketbook. I, myself, had a gun at my head twice on the streets of New York when blacks mugged me.
During the period of my family's holocaust in the late '60s and early '70s, I was starting my career as a teacher at George W. Wingate High School in Brooklyn. It had recently opened as the city's first deliberately-integrated high school. At first, it offered a good education, but I was struck by the differences in the abilities, work ethic, and behavior of the races. I also noticed that the students segregated themselves in the cafeteria.
Integration can be defined as the period from when the first black moves in until the last white moves out. As the school began to tip in the expected direction, there was racial violence and several race riots. This festering condition culminated in the infamous Day of Knives. On the last day of the school year, as the students were going home, many blacks menaced their white classmates with knives, and warned them not to come back. The whites got the message and stayed away.
I served as dean of boys during the last of my eight years at that school. We averaged five arrests a day out of a student body of about 3,000. One of my duties was to convince fearful parents of victims to press charges. Every day a paddy wagon came from the local precinct to process the day's catch. Sometimes we ran out of handcuffs.
There were junkies nodding out in the cafeteria, and the aroma of pot was everywhere. It seemed as if more students roamed the halls than attended class. Every six weeks or so, a teacher could be expected to be sent to the hospital. I remember one young handicapped woman who walked with a cane. Someone pushed her down the stairs, and she did not come back until the following year. After only a few days someone pushed her down the stairs again. She never came back.
I also recall the day a substitute cop was assigned to my office. At first, he put his feet up on the desk and expressed pleasure with such an easy assignment. By the end of the day he was complaining he was working harder than a desk sergeant.
One Senior Day started with water pistol battles, graduated to entire waste baskets full of water, and then fire extinguishers. The school had to be evacuated because the water was ankle deep. In one five month period, five of our students had either committed murder or had been murdered. One teacher who was assigned to the school left for lunch on his first day and never came back.
By the 1980s I had developed an interest in the race question. My family and former friends would call it an obsession. They typically dealt with The Problem by running away from it. To me, how liberal a person is on the topic is usually a function of his geographic distance from it.
I have always been interested in statistics, and my first exposure to racial stats came when I was watching a television program about the Bernie Goetz case. [Mr. Goetz was a white New Yorker who shot several young blacks who were trying to mug him.] I was stunned when the announcer said blacks were ten times more likely to commit a violent crime than whites--stunned not by the number, but to learn that this information was available and being discussed. I sent for the transcript, and found myself compiling a collection of articles on crime. My next great discovery was Charles Murray's Losing Ground. In 1992, I learned about Jared Taylor's Paved With Good Intentions from the Bob Grant radio program. The rest, as they say, is history.
It has not been easy for me as a New York Jew, embracing the views that I do. I am regarded as a pariah when I express myself. Mostly by choice, I am estranged from my family. My comrades are my gentile wife and retired former colleagues who have shared my professional experiences and who have drawn similar conclusions from their observations.
Mike Berman, New York, NY
- end of initial entry -
LA writes:
I don't have adequate words with which to respond to Mr. Berman's story.
The single most decisive experience that led me to racial consciousness vis-a-vis blacks was not, thankfully, anything that happened to me personally, but a special episode of ABC's "Nightline" in 1989, as described in my article, "My Views on Race and Intelligence," which was drafted in 1995 and posted at VFR in 2003.
I wrote:
What really convinced me of an inherent, dangerous weakness in black ways of thought, however, was their widespread belief in Afrocentrism and the notion that whites were committing "genocide" against blacks. In September 1989, ABC News did a program on the condition of blacks in America, followed by a special edition of "Nightline" with a panel consisting of several of ABC's black correspondents and other noted blacks. With the exception of Professor Shelby Steele, these accomplished, successful blacks all endorsed the notion of a white conspiracy to commit "genocide" against blacks. The discovery that it was not just ignorant street people, but successful, articulate black professionals who believed these insane and wicked conspiracy theories, made a devastating impression on me. Indeed, with the exception of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, I was more traumatized by this program than by any other public event in recent history. It shook my former belief that blacks and whites could more or less get along in the same society. (I wrote an article about this program, saying the same things I've said in the present paragraph, which New York Newsday rejected because, as the editor put it, it showed an "odd lack of compassion.")
Re-reading the above passage now, I realize how similar it is to my shocked reaction earlier this year to the revelations of Jeremiah Wright's hate-whitey sermons and of his middle-class black parishioners' ecstatic response to them. But why should I have been shocked at the disgraceful behavior of Wright and his congregants in blaming everything bad in the world on evil whites, given that I had already seen, in 1989, that educated successful blacks unabashedly believe and say that whites are committing genocide against blacks? And of course the despicable congregants at Trinity United Church of Christ included the uber-despicable Barack Obama, who for 20 years never expressed the slightest reservations about Wright's repulsive theology and sermons.
It appears that even a race-conscious person like myself forgot what I already knew. Some things are too dark and unpleasant to keep continuously in one's mind. There's a natural human instinct not to believe the worst about people. But that's still no excuse. Given what I had clearly grasped in 1989 and written about subsequently concerning the widespread black belief that white America is carrying out a genocide of blacks, I had no reason to be surprised in 2008 at the spectacle of the blacks at Wright's church joyously whooping it up at the most hideous, poisonous portrayals of whites. (Though there was legitimate reason for shock and repulsion at the discovery that the benign-seeming Obama was part of such a congregation.) What black savages did physically to Troy Knapp when he made the mistake of bicycling through a black neighborhood in Charleston in 1989, knocking him from his bike and bashing in his head with pipes and trash cans until he was brain damaged for life, the congregrants of Wright's church are doing to whites with words and whoops every Sunday. The low-level blacks avenge themselves on whites physically; the "high-level" blacks do it verbally. But the motive and the emotions and the primitive mob dynamics are the same.
Of course, as with Muslims and the belief in jihad, not all blacks hate whites or see them as the incarnation of the principle of evil, as taught by black liberation theology. Many blacks are sweet, kind people who have nothing to do with such sickness. It nevertheless remains the case that hatred of and desire for vengeance against whites constitute the active, vital core of all levels of the black community in this country, from the street to the elite, and--again as with Muslims and jihadism--are not condemned by any authoritative persons or institutions in the black community. The practical question then becomes, given these facts about the black community, how shall whites henceforth relate to organized black America?