Monday, June 30, 2008

The Last Patriot: A Thriller

I can't wait to read this book.
It comes out tonight, midnight...
and the author is already getting death threats.
**
Brad Thor
http://www.bradthor.com/
Reviews
Editorial Reviews
Product Description

Brad Thor, master of suspense and New York Times bestselling author of The First Commandment, returns with his highest-voltage thriller to date. In a pulse-pounding, adrenaline-charged tour de force, Navy SEAL turned covert Homeland Security operative Scot Harvath must race to locate an ancient secret that has the power to stop militant Islam dead in its tracks.
June 632 A.D.: Deep within the Uranah Valley of Mount Arafat in Mecca, the Prophet Mohammed shares with his closest companions a final and startling revelation. Within days, he is assassinated.
September 1789: U.S. Minister to France Thomas Jefferson, who is charged with forging a truce with the violent Muslim pirates of the Barbary Coast, makes a shocking discovery - one that could forever impact the world's relationship with Islam.
Present day: When a car bomb explodes outside a Parisian café, Scot Harvath is thrust back into the life he has tried so desperately to leave behind.
Saving the intended victim of the attack, Harvath becomes party to an amazing and perilous race to uncover a secret so powerful that militant Islam could be defeated once and for all without firing another shot, dropping another bomb, or launching another covert action.
But as desperate as the American government is to have the information brought to light, there are powerful forces aligned against it - men who are just as determined that Mohammed's mysterious final revelation continue to remain hidden forever.
What Jason Bourne was to the Cold War, Scot Harvath is to the War on Terror. Brad Thor has created "the perfect all-American hero for the post September 11 world" (Nelson DeMille) and will keep readers glued to the pages as he once again takes them across the globe on a heart-pounding chase where the stakes are higher than they have ever been before.
**
Here is a comment left at the video site.
"ScotHarvath Says:
May 15, 2008 - Radical vs. Moderate Islam:Radical Muslim: Islam is a peaceful religion and if you say it isn't we'll kill you."Moderate Muslim: Islam is a religion of peace and if you say it isn't we peaceful Muslims can't be responsible for what our less peaceful brothers & sisters do. And by the way, while they are rioting, burning your embassies and slaughtering your journalists, just know that we will expend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for criticizing Islam.
h/t Sam Harris"

SEN. BARACK HUSSEIN + CON. KEITH HAKIM + HAMAS = TRUE LOVE

The Hamas-related support for Ellison and Obama is indicative of the melding of the left with Islamist forces at home and abroad.
June 30, 2008
From Keith Ellison to Barack Obama
Watching the emergence of Barack Obama this year I have experienced at least a slight sense of déjà vu. With modifications and variations, the Obama phenomenon this year was anticipated by the rise of Minnesota Fifth District (Minneapolis) Rep. Keith Ellison in 2006.
I didn't know anything about Ellison when he won the endorsement of the DFL Fifth District convention in May 2006. The endorsement kicked off a competitive three-way primary battle that Ellison won by a plurality of the vote in September 2006. Minneapolis and the Fifth District being one-party territory, Ellison's primary win more or less guaranteed Ellison's election to Congress in November 2006.
After I first posted an item or two about Ellison in June on Power Line, writing about him as carefully as I could, I started getting calls from prominent Democrats and other knowledgeable sources with first-hand knowledge of Ellison. They were unhappy at the thought that Keith Ellison might become the face of the Democratic Party in Minnesota's largest city. With a competitive Democratic primary for the Fifth District endorsement, the information provided by these sources proved to be of interest to many Fifth District Democrats.
Given Ellison's status as the first black and first Muslim congressional nominee, the constraints of political correctness paralyzed the the Minneapolis Star Tribune when it came to Ellison. Indeed, it was frustration with the Star Tribune's coverage of the race and noncoverage of Ellison's past that provided the impetus for prominent local Democrats and others who approached me with information about Ellison.
They helped me kick off a series of Power Line posts on Ellison that I summarized in the October 2006 Weekly Standard article "Louis Farrakhan's first Congressman" and the companion Power Line post "Keith Ellison for dummies." Here I want to draw a few comparisons between Ellison and Obama in somewhat summary but I hope suggestive fashion.
From the time of Ellison's first published article in the University of Minnesota Daily in 1989 under the name Keith Hakim through the time he first ran for public office ten years later under the name Keith Ellison-Muhammad, unsuccessfully seeking the Democratic endorsement for a state legislative seat, Ellison was a self-avowed advocate of the Nation of Islam. Ellison's self-identification as a member and leader of the Nation of Islam remained a deep secret of his 2006 campaign.
Both Ellison and Obama attended Louis Farrakhan's 1995 Million Man March. In Ellison's case, attendance came in the heyday of his involvement with the Nation of Islam. For Obama, attendance appears to have been an act of racial solidarity. In Obama's eyes, Farrakhan himself was retrograde.
In Dreams From My Father, Obama meditates on Farrakhan, finding: "If [black] nationalism could create a strong and effective insularity, deliver on its promise of self-respect, then the hurt it might cause well-meaning whites, or the inner turmoil it caused people like me, would be of little consequence." As Steve Sailer notes, Obama "dispassionately rejected Black Nationalism as economically and politically impractical.” In Sailer’s words, Obama concluded that “the Black Muslims are losers, and Obama, with his two Ivy League degrees and boundless ambition, is a winner."
Obama nevertheless found the functional equivalent of Farrakhan in Jeremiah Wright. Wright had no such reservations regarding Farrakhan. He has an enduring relationship with Farrakhan that goes back at least as far as their joint trip to visit Col. Gadaffi in 1984. In casting his lot with Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama found the useful Christian analogue of the Nation of Islam.
Ellison abandoned his affiliation with the Nation of Islam after he unsuccessfully sought the Democratic endorsement for a state legislative seat as a self-identified member of the Nation of Islam running under the name Keith Ellison-Muhammad in 1998. In 2002, as a Muslim, Ellison won the Democratic endorsement for the legislative seat minus the –Muhammad. This year, after avowing his allegiance to Wright in a celebrated speech, Obama famously cast aside Wright and Trinity United Church under pressure late in the primary process this year.
In seeking their respective nominations, both Ellison and Obama found support among Hamas and friends. The Hamas-related support for Ellison and Obama is indicative of the melding of the left with Islamist forces at home and abroad. It is an alliance that Ellison embodies.
As Joel Mowbray reported on Power Line, in Ellison’s case the support came in bundled contributions from CAIR executive director Nihad Awad. Awad headlined an August 2006 fundraiser for Ellison that netted $15,000 to $20,000. Awad also bundled contributions totaling just over $10,000. (CAIR is the Hamas front group that was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the government’s prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation. The Ellison campaign issued a terse denial regarding Awad’s bundling of contributions to Ellison, though it refused to explain away overwhelming evidence to the contrary.) The Minneapolis Star Tribune did not get around to reporting on the Ellison fundraiser featuring Awad until after the Democratic primary the following month.
Hamas itself has expressed support for Obama. Hamas spokesman Ahmed Yousef expressed Hamas’s support for Obama in April of this year. Al Jazeera reported an even more striking expression of support for Obama from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. According to Al Jazeera, Obama supporters operated a phone bank supporting Obama in the primaries out of an Internet café in the Gaza Strip. Like Ellison's relationship with CAIR, Hamas’s support for Obama has received little interest from the mainstream media.
Both Ellison and Obama have friends among home-grown terrorists. Ellison was a vocal supporter of Kathleen Soliah/Sara Jane Olson, the former Symbionese Liberation member who was apprehended in St. Paul in June 1999. We reported Ellison's support for Olson here and here. (Olson ultimately pled guilty to two counts of possessing explosives with intent to murder Los Angeles police officers in 1975 and to the murder of Myrna Opsahl in the Crocker National Bank robbery the same year.)
By the same token, Obama's friends in Chicago include former Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. We discussed Obama's friendship with Ayers and Dohrn here and here. Ayers and Dohrn spent 10 years in the terrorist group that bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other government buildings in the 1970's.Finally, both Ellison and Obama were the leftward-most viable candidates running for the Democratic Party endorsement, and both won endorsement against heirs apparent. In Ellison’s case, the presumptive nominee was Mike Erlandson. Erlandson was the chief of staff of 14-term incumbent Martin Sabo, and he was Sabo’s handpicked successor. At the Fifth District convention in May 2006 Ellison presented himself as the serious radical alternative to Erlandson. (Dennis Kucinich's counterpart at the Fifth District convention was "peace activist" Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer.) Fifth District delegates rejected Erlandson, instead choosing to take the plunge with Ellison. In the multicandidate primary that followed in September, Ellilson won with 41 percent of the vote.
Similar dynamics propelled Obama over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary contest. Until the Iowa caucus, she was the prohibitive frontrunner and heir apparent to Bill Clinton. Opting for a candidate untainted by support for the war, Democrats ultimately settled on Obama. Obama staked his campaign on the proposition that he was the Ivory Soap candidate on the issue of Iraq. His opposition to the war was deeper and purer than that of the other serious candidates among the multicandidate Democratic field. His position at the far left of the party proved to be a powerful asset against Hillary Clinton.
Despite the natural alliance that should exist between them, Obama has scrupulously avoided Ellison. The New York Times reported last week in an article by Andrea Elliott, for example that Ellison had volunteered to speak on Obama’s behalf at a mosque rally in Cedar Rapids, presumably before the Iowa caucus in January. Prior to the event, aides to Obama asked Ellison to cancel the trip. An Obama aide appeared at Ellison’s Washington office to explain that Obama has “a very tightly wrapped message.” As in the Sherlock Holmes story “Silver Blaze,” the clue that Keith Ellison provides to the meaning of Barack Obama’s emergence in the 2008 campaign is akin to the dog that didn't bark.

Friday, June 27, 2008

Organized Crime Controls More than Half of Mexico's Cities

**
rightsidenews.com
June 27, 2008
As organized crime galvanizes their hold on Mexico, their network infiltrates our colleges, street gangs, and our communities. Our country is being raped and ravaged as our elected leaders remain insulated and uncaring within the halls of Congress. NAFBPOMexico : World’s 6th place in largest organized crime presenceDiario de Yucatan (Merida, Yucatan) - notimex agency, Reforma (Mexico City) , El Informador (Guadalajara, Jalisco) - also o.e.m. national chain; 6/26/08
At a “PGR” (Mex. Dep’t. of Justice) Citizens’ Participation Council meeting, UN consultant Edgardo Buscaglia said that up to 60% of Mexico’s cities are under the control of organized crime and that narcotraffickers and organized crime have infiltrated the local governments by financing the mayors’ political campaigns or by bribing their officials. This, he added, is one of the first steps in “feudalization” (appropriation) which organized crime does in the political sphere. Mexico is in sixth place worldwide regarding the largest presence of organized crime after Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea.
Buscaglia also said that sending troops, having more police and detaining drug cartel bosses is not enough, that their financial webs must be broken up but above all their links with political power (must also be broken.) Further, that there is an 87% error rate in the files concerning investigations or processing of criminal cases. Also from Diario de Yucatan and the o.e.m. chain :Mexico’s Human Rights Commission reported that domestic and international bands of “polleros” (people smugglers) vie for control of smuggling operations of around 500,000 Central and South Americans and Caribbeans. It indicated that the traffickers usually charge from 4,000 up to 15,000 dollars to take them to the “Tortilla Wall” of the United States, which represents a business of from 2 to 7.5 billion dollars. The agency points out that “the profits from people traffic are only comparable to those from weapons, the sex trade and narcotraffic.” The Commission said that to break the vicious circle of corruption and impunity Mexico’s legislators and federal government must adopt certain basic legal changes and procedures allowing the “INM” (Mex. Immigr.) to present charges and strengthening and making uniform procedures as to witness protection.
Tepehuanes, Durango, has now been with only two police officers for three weeks after seven of them resigned due to fear and an equal number of them were fired.————- El Debate (Culiacan, Sinaloa) 6/26/08 Triggermen executed four persons with AK47 gunfire at El Pozo, Imala, Sinaloa last night (Wed.). They also set fire to two houses and forcibly took two persons with them.————- El Diario , Norte (both Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua) 6/26/08 Juarez businesswoman Erika Posselt, sister-in-law of U.S. Congressman Silvestre Reyes, was freed two days after having been kidnapped in Ciudad Juarez after her family paid 32,000 dollars in ransom, according to a document of ICE Border & Customs Protection.
The woman was liberated together with another person whose relatives delivered 56 thousand dollars. The report which indicates it to be a delicate matter of law enforcement was addressed to Under Secretary Myers and is dated June 23, 2008. It narrates the “rescue of the kidnapped relative of federal congressman Silvestre Reyes in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, due to which it should not be made known outside of ICE.” Reyes requested both the FBI and ICE to intervene in the liberation of his relative.
The mayor of Juarez said that organized crime confrontations have generated an impact on tourism, investment commerce and service providers, especially in the areas of restaurants and liquor sales. He added that the city and state governments are reviewing the situation to change strategies and return to normal activities as soon as possible. (Note: the attachment to this report is a cartoon from the editorial page of El Diario; it shows a very large tomb headstone labeled “Juarez #1?, dwarfing two others labeled “Iraq” and “Beirut”)
---------
El Imparcial (Hermosillo, Sonora) 6/26/08 In Nogales, Sonora, witnesses reported to the police that two groups of thugs engaged in a shootout Tuesday night in Colonia Orizaba. “300 to 400? shots were fired, and “hundreds” of .223 and 7.62X39 shell casings were later picked up. The only damage reported was to some buildings at the scene but nothing was said about casualties. There were also three kidnappings, one of them of a man known as “La Pantera” (The Panther). Hours before, the body of a man was found at “El Porvenir Ranch”; he had been strangled with a wire. Three other persons were executed at week’s end, two of them in the Las Torres area and one other who was killed by stoning.———— La Cronica (Mexicali, Baja Calif.) 6/26/08 The smuggler who ran over and killed a U.S. Border Patrol Agent was freed by order of a 12th Judicial District judge who found no evidence against him. Jesus Albino Navarro Montes, 23, was detained 145 days and was freed on June 18 when the judge ordered he be liberated “for lack of elements to process him.”La Cronica confirmed he was under process for violation of the General Law of Population for people smuggling, but not for the death of Border Patrol Agent Luis Aguilar, 32. The patrol officer died Saturday, January 19, when he was hit by a Hummer truck driven by Navarro Montes when the latter was trying to escape from the United States towards the Mexicali Valley, which he was able to do finally. The burned and abandoned truck was later found in Colonia Ahumadita, to the southwest of town, while Navarro Montes was captured in Ciudad Obregon, Sonora, five days later.————- La Cronica de Hoy (Mexico City) 6/26/08 Twelve persons were executed in yesterday’s violent episodes in Sinaloa, Michoacan, Sonora and Chihuahua; and in the area of Naucalpan, Mexico City metro area, the decapitated body of a man was found in a vehicle. His head, also in the vehicle, was wrapped with a tag board with a message which said: “For all those who came into the state without permission that’s the way they’ll finish up.” There was also a bloody 30 centimeter long (12?) kitchen knife.
38 undocumented Central Americans were found in a double bottom truck in Puebla; four others on a freight train in Hidalgo. All were aiming to reach the United States.————- Cambio de Michoacan (Morelia, Michoacan) 6/26/08 - Full transl. - (An op/column by Carlos Enrique Tapia titled “Local laws and anti-immigrant hatred” follows) During recessive socio-historic periods and moments, the American public perception about undocumented immigration arouses a great deal of passion. The current proliferation of anti-immigrant groups and local laws feeds upon the political vacuum left by the failure of a comprehensive immigration reform.
The construction of the border fence, the greater controls backed by the immigration policy, the roundups, the deportations, are the equivalent of the mass expulsions of Mexicans following the end of the Bracero Program, the mistreatment and the growth of racial hatred which seeks justification for the perverse effects of the capitalist cycle.
The excessive federal immigration control which locally is perceived as slight, converting a national problem into a local issue, has fed the public opinion of many Americans whose fear and terror for “the other one” and that which they perceive as foreign is taking them to a racist and xenophobic crusade in many localities.
The candidates for the Presidency of the United States, despite their declarations and speeches, have allowed the local forces to make decisions about an issue which the Bush administration failed to resolve. Local and state laws and ordinances prevent the undocumented from working, renting housing and using public services. The transfer of federal responsibilities places the application of immigration law upon mayors, county executives, city councilors, police chiefs, sheriffs, state and prosecuting officials, hospital administrators, housing inspectors, emergency medical workers and ESL (English as a Second Language) coordinators.
In 2007, legislatures of 50 states introduced more than a thousand immigration related measures; more than 150 were approved. Many laws cover various topics, although several states concentrated on education, employment, driver’s licenses and ID’s, observance of the law, legal services, public programs, people trafficking and voting.
Various 2007 laws promoted local employment initiatives and observance of the law, but those about people trafficking and family laws were the most successful. 306 measures expand the right of immigrants, while 286 restrict them. Texas, New York and Tennessee introduced the majority of state statutes.
Oklahoma’s HB 1804 Law became notorious last week when one of its sections which was to go into effect on July 1st was suspended by a female federal judge. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the Chambers of Commerce of the State of Oklahoma, the cities of Oklahoma City and Tulsa and the hotel and restaurant state associations demanded its suspensions because it imposes irrational demands upon businesses.
The Federal Court suspended a section of law which obligates companies to verify the immigration status of their new employees because it could interfere with a federal law (E-Verify), but it refused to eliminate it completely as was demanded. The suspension does not prevent employers from carrying out the federal requirement.
The political vacuum is practically causing legislators, anti-immigrant leaders, judges and local police to change the local and state scene about immigration issues.. Neither of the candidates, Democrat and Republican, have a reform proposal in their agendas, though they have expressed public speeches on certain topics.
The construction of the fence, the roundups, the deportations, the local and state ordinances, the xenophobia and the racial hatred are becoming official policy. The application of immigration laws has in many localities and states of the United States today the reforms which the Congress refused to adopt.————– El Universal (Mexico City) 6/26/08 “The xenophobia of the Mayor of Ixtepec is criticized” - Full transl. of news item - Ciudad Ixtepec, Oaxaca> Feelings are mixed at the Brothers of the Road Migrant House. There’s fear, uncertainty, indignation and ire. “Why do they attack us with lies?” some Central Americans ask.
Guatemalan Martha Castaneda Lopez, just arrived by train on her route to Nebraska, United States, considers “unjust” that because of some Mara gangsters “they label all of us Central Americans as criminals.”
Unfortunately, adds the parish priest Alejandro Solalinde, “at the meeting we had Tuesday with city officials and residents I found not an iota of mercy among them.” Last Tuesday, a group of locals asked the mayor to close the Migrant House because on June 21 a Nicaraguan, Jose Francisco Alvarado Lopez, detained by the police, violated a six year old girl.
Father Solalinde, coordinator of the pastoral of Human Mobility of the Mexican Episcopal Conference, laments and denounces the xenophobic attitude of the city officials in front of some 100 migrants who arrived Tuesday afternoon,.
“For (municipal) president Gabino Guzman Palomec, this shelter is the root of all the ills of Ciudad Ixtepec. He showed an attitude of intolerance, xenophobia, racist and discriminatory” says the priest.
On Tuesday afternoon, the bishop of the Tehuantepec diocese, Felipe Padilla, was very concise with the mayor during a telephone conversation: The Migrant House will not close its doors”, he told him.
The priest adds “Here, besides a refuge for the migrants, diocesan offices of the pastoral of Human Mobility will be built. And what we ask is that the mayor respect the state of law, that he not attack it”.
Solalinde Guerra says that is to be lamented that even the city ombudsman, Victor Fernandez Gonzalez, has added his voice to the demand for the closure of the shelter. “That man has lost all authority”, he indicates.
During the meeting with the officials, Solalinde Guerra recalls that the city councilman Erasmo Carrasco came up with the idea that they will request the Mexican army to pursue the Central Americans. “And he not only asked that. He also said that they will ask the Tehuantepec Isthmus Railroad company to change its route. I’m consternated by those expressions of xenophobia”, he points out.————–
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FORMER BORDER PATROL OFFICERSVisit our website: http://www.nafbpo.org/Foreign News Report
The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO) extracts and condenses the material that follows from Mexican and Central and South American on-line media sources on a daily basis.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

M. MALKIN: MEX ARMY BUSTED IN AZ MURDER

**
Even Bigger Outrage–Mexican soldiers hitmen arrested for murdering man in his Phoenix, Arizona home
By see-dubya • June 26, 2008 03:02 PM
If you thought this was bad, wait till you see this.
The suspects may have been hired by drug cartels to perform home invasions and assassinations in the U.S.
Police reports show that three men arrested in a Phoenix home invasion and homicide Monday may have been active members of the Mexican Army.
Full tactical gear, AR-15s, 50-100 rounds burped off at the victim’s house (who was suspected to be a marijuana dealer) and alleged plans to “ambush” any Phoenix PD officers who tried to stop them.
When the Wall Street Journal says, “Let there be open borders”, is this what they had in mind?
Forget the fence for just a second and think about this:
The Mexican Army has made several incursions across our Southern border. Some were probably just units getting lost, some had a more sinister reason behind them…but given the recruitment of elite military assassination squads by the cartels, this should be seen as a serious problem.
It would be overstating the problem to say that “the Mexican military is invading us”. But there is a criminal, militarized element that is crossing the border with impunity and distressing regularity, and for nefarious purposes.
Why is President Bush pulling the National Guard off the border? Granted, there have been some problems, but why should we leave potential combat with a militarized incursion to the Border Patrol?
Okay, now think about the fence again. Real, please, not virtual.

UPDATE: That Fox item linked above (and the AZ Republic) is saying they weren’t active Mexican soldiers, but that one had received military training. So, okay, nothing to worry about then. Just business as usual. Six trained hitmen in a Tahoe full of AR 15s and tactical gear can drive across the “border” and kill a guy in his house in Phoenix and expect to get away with it.
No problem here. Everybody go back to sleep.

AZ: Mexican Army Members Busted: Home Invasion and Murder


kfyi.com
Police documents show that at least one of the suspects involved in a home invasion and homicide were active members of the Mexican Army.
View Police Documents:
A top member of a Phoenix police union is standing by reports that at least one of the men involved in a Monday morning home invasion and homicide was an active member in the Mexican Army.
Click Here for the update.
"Even if you put aside the Mexican military, you have illegals in the country... they're protected with tactical gear using tactical strategies in police uniforms willing to ambush police officers. I think that's bad enough," said Mark Spencer, President of the Phoenix Police Enforcement Association.
While on the J.D. Hayworth show Tuesday, Mark Spencer announced that the suspects were hired by drug cartels to perform home invasions and murders.
The incident at 8329 W. Cypress St. resulted in the death of the homeowner. Between 50 and 100 rounds were fired at the house.
Spencer said a police officer told him that one of the men captured said they were completely prepared to ambush Phoenix police, but ran out of ammunition.
He added that all were all dressed in military tactical gear and were armed with AR-15 assault rifles. Three other men involved in the invasion escaped.
Click Here to listen to Spencer's interview on the J.D. Hayworth show.
However, Phoenix Police have not confirmed the men were Mexican Army members.
Sgt. Joel Tranter said one suspect revealed that he had "prior military training," but "no credible evidence" that any of them were active in the military.
Click Here for more from Sgt. Tranter with KFYI reporter Bob Bennett.

- Sheikyermami
** Looks like some Muslims have found their Baby Daddy - British taxpayers.
source:

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Ex-Muslim Quote of the Day

"Any action, activity, remark, gesture, words, sound, utterance, look, manner, habit, conduct, style and so on, which are not in conformity with pure Islamic percepts are considered as blasphemous or ‘waging war’. "
**
- Abul Kasem
ex-Muslim & author of hundreds of articles and several books on Islam including, Women in Islam.
Contributor to the book Leaving Islam – Apostates Speak Out as well as to Beyond Jihad: Critical Views From Inside Islam.
**











State of Hawaii: BARACK CERT. OF BIRTH "INVALID"!!!

... according to the senior spokesman in the relevant department of the State of Hawaii, is not in fact a certified copy. It is not valid.
**
Faked certificate suggests that Obama may not be "natural born" US citizen
By Reuven Koret
June 24, 2008
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm
It is now a certainty that the "birth certificate" claimed by the Barack Obama campaign as authentic is a photoshopped fake. The image, purporting to come from the Hawaii Department of Health, has been the subject of intense skepticism in the blogosphere in the past two weeks. But now the senior spokesman of that Department has confirmed to Israel Insider what are the required features of a certified birth document -- features that Obama's purported "birth certificate" clearly lack. The image became increasingly suspect with Israel Insider's revelation that variations of the certificate image were posted on the Photobucket image aggregation website -- including one listing the location of Obama's birth as Antarctica, one with the certificate supposedly issued by the government of North Korea, and another including a purported photo of baby Barack -- one of which has a "photo taken" time-stamp just two minutes before the article and accompanying image was posted on the left-wing Daily Kos blog. That strongly suggests that Daily Kos obtained the image from Photobucket, not the State of Hawaii, the Obama family, or the Obama campaign.


Photobucket is not generally known as a credible supplier of official vital records for any of the fifty states, and the liberties that other Photoshoppers took with the certificates confirms this. Some of these oddities surfaced in Israel Insider's previous article on the subject, but new comparative documentary evidence presented below, and official verification obtained by Israel Insider from a senior Hawaiian official, provides the strongest confirmation yet.
An authentic Hawaiian birth certificate for another Hawaiian individual has since surfaced which, using the same official form as the presumptive Obama certificate, includes an embossed official seal and an authoritative signature, coming through from the back.
Obama's alleged certificate lacks those features, and the certificate number referencing the birth year has been blacked out, making it untraceable.
Janice Okubo, Director of Communications of the State of Hawaii Department of Health, told Israel Insider: "At this time there are no circumstances in which the State of Hawaii Department of Health would issue a birth certification or certification of live birth only electronically." And, she added, "In the State of Hawaii all certified copies of certificates of live birth have the embossed seal and registrar signature on the back of the document."
Compare the top image presented by his campaign as evidence of Obama's 1961 birth and the other certifying the birth of one Patricia Decosta.






So if he were registered as being born in Hawaii, Barack Obama -- because only he or another member of his immediate family could by law request a "Certification of Live Birth" -- must have a certified paper copy, with embossed stamp and seal, or he could request one. But what his campaign has put forward as genuine, according to the senior spokesman in the relevant department of the State of Hawaii, is not in fact a certified copy. It is not valid. Whereas the uncertified Obama document provides the date "filed by registrar", the certified DeCosta document provides the date "accepted by the registrar." The difference between filing an application for a Certification of Live Birth and having it accepted may be key here.
The Obama campaign, however, continues to flaunt the unstamped, unsealed, uncertified document -- notably in very low resolution -- on its "Fight the Smears" website, with campaign officials vowing that it's authentic, sending the image around as "proof" to reporters, and inviting supporters to refer to it as they battle against supposed distortions and calumnies against their candidate.
However, the campaign refuses to produce an authentic original birth certificate from the year of Obama's birth, or even a paper version with seal and signature of the "Certification of Live Birth." Nor has it even published an electronic copy with the requisite embossed seal and signature. The failure of the Obama campaign to do so, and its willingness instead to put up an invalid, uncertified image -- what now appears to be a crude forgery -- raises the dramatic question of why the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate might have to hide. Until now, it has been thought that there might be some embarrassing information on the real certificate: was the candidate's name something other than Barack Hussein Obama II, as it is claimed? Was no father listed because of the uncertainty over Obama's paternity? Was his father's race listed as Arab, or Muslim, rather than African? These revelations might be embarrassing, and further undermine his credibility, but he could disavow and downplay their significance. Would revealing such embarrassment outweigh the far greater risks involved in perpetuating a palpable forgery, or passing off an uncertified official document as being certified? There is one possibility, however, which alone might justify the risk that Obama and his campaign seems to be taking in putting forward the uncertified document image: Obama was not in fact born in Hawaii and may not be an American citizen at all, or at least not a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution defines the requirement for the nation's chief executive.
Real original birth certificates, circa 1961, have all kinds of verifiable information that would confirm Obama's origins, or throw them into doubt should they be lacking. Research has since uncovered the law, in force at the time of Obama's birth, that were he to have been born in another country, his young American mother's youth extended time abroad would not suffice to make him a "natural born citizen."
Even if he were naturalized later -- and there is no evidence that he was -- he would not be eligible to run for the office of president and -- if forgery or misrepresentation were involved -- he and his staffers might find themselves facing stiff federal and state charges.
But if, at this late date, Obama has no proof of being a US citizen by law, natural born or otherwise, then he or his advisers may be tempted to try to "tough out" the allegations about his "birth certificate" or the lack thereof.
He and his campaign have gotten through other embarrassments: maybe this one will go away, too. Because the consequences were he to admit, or should it come out, that he was not born in Hawaii would be so grave as to make it tempting to take the gamble and hope that no one dares call his most audacious bluff by demanding proof.
Talk about the audacity of hope.
But now the State of Hawaii has dashed those hopes by clarifying that a certified birth certificate must have an embossed seal and signature, features his claimed birth certificate image lack. The longer Obama waits, the graver grow the consequences of waiting. There is one simple way for the candidate to clear up the issue once and for all: produce for public inspection and objective analysis the paper copy of his original Hawaiian birth certificate -- if one exists. If he's lost the original, he can request a certified copy. Ordinary citizens are required to produce one to get a passport or a driver's license. Surely it's not too much to ask from a man who aspires to hold the highest office in the land.
The issue is not whether Obama is black or white, Christian or Muslim. It is whether he was born in the USA and thus a citizen eligible according to the Constitution to run for President. If proof of citizenship does not exist, then surely it would be wiser to admit it now. Because if Barack Hussein Obama II does not produce definitive proof of his "natural born" American citizenship with original, verifiable documents, he will be setting the stage for a very public battle over his personal credibility, the basic legitimacy of his candidacy, and its possible criminality.

Monday, June 23, 2008

HOW TO SPEAK DEMOCRAT


"... Senator Obama thinks that the decision in Boumediene v Bush is an excellent one. I don't know what's worse: that he doesn't understand what the Court has done … or that he actually does and still thinks this was a sound ruling. Good luck to all of us."
**
June 22, 2008
As I pointed out last week, and as legal scholar John Yoo did earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal, the "Boumediene Five" have done our nation and our Constitution no great service. But beyond the rhetoric, we really need to understand the real world impact of this ruling on the war we are waging against our enemies.
In Boumediene v Bush, besides, for the first time in history conferring habeas corpus rights on alien enemies detained abroad by our military during a war, the Court struck down as inadequate what Chief Justice John Roberts called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded enemy combatants." Consider the rights that our country provided to the enemy prisoners in question before Boumediene:
READ IT ALL!

Video: IAEA's ElBaradei: Iran Could Have a Nuke Within 6 Months

VIDEO HERE:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30451_Video-_IAEAs_ElBaradei-_Iran_Could_Have_a_Nuke_Within_6_Months



US TAX $ FUNDING ANTI-AMERICAN BROADCASTS IN MIDDLE EAST

Despite its years of difficulties, Alhurra’s budget has steadily increased. It began with a $67 million budget in 2004 and has asked for $112 million in 2009. Half the government’s investment in public diplomacy -- an effort in promoting this country’s image overseas -- goes to foreign broadcasting. Alhurra and Sawa get the largest share of that money.
**
Lost in Translation: Alhurra—America’s Troubled Effort to Win Middle East Hearts and Minds
by Dafna Linzer
June 22, 2008
An Arab-language television network and radio station, founded by the Bush administration to promote a positive image of the United States, has aired anti-American and anti-Israeli viewpoints, has showcased pro-Iranian policies and recently gave air time to a militant who called for the death of American soldiers in Iraq.
So far, U.S. taxpayers have spent nearly $500 million to fund those broadcasts. The television station, called Alhurra, and the radio network, Sawa, were meant to provide an American perspective on world events and counter the wave of global criticism that had been building against the Bush administration since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Inside Alhurra's Springfield, Va., studios (photo courtesy of 60 Minutes)Instead, Alhurra’s four years of operation have been marked by a string of broadcast disasters that government officials believe are as negative as anything aired by Al Jazeera, the widely watched Qatar-based station that aired unedited speeches of Osama bin Laden.
Alhurra’s reporters and commentators operate with little oversight. Alhurra’s president, Brian Conniff, does not speak Arabic and is unable to understand anything broadcast on the radio and television networks he is paid to manage. Conniff has no journalism experience and worked previously as a government auditor. His news director, Daniel Nassif, grew up in Lebanon and has no background in television. Before coming to the network, he helped promote the political aspirations in Washington of a Lebanese Christian former general.
Both men said in interviews that they are providing effective supervision of the network’s five 24-hour radio and television broadcasts and they praised their staff as professional and committed. A string of highly publicized “mistakes” are behind them, Conniff said.
That does not appear to be the case...
READ IT ALL - IT GETS WORSE...
AND YOU NEED TO KNOW...

Belgium: Raped For No Veil

Rape by gangs of immigrants is an assertion of dominance, and in that sense it is a political act. It says, “We are in charge here, and we do as we please with non-Muslims. No one may stop us; we operate with impunity.”
**
Monday, June 23, 2008
Rape in the Gare du Midi
by Baron Bodissey
gatesofvienna.blogspot.com
There’s been a lot of talk here recently about the increased incidence of rapes, many of them committed by Muslim immigrants, in both Europe and Australia. We’ve highlighted the situation in Sweden, Norway, and Britain. Now it’s time to look at Belgium as well.A reader drew my attention to this news article from the Belgian site La Dernière Heure, which I have translated from the French:
Raped in the middle of the station21-year-old Lola was attacked by two men. Some commuters witnessed it but did not reactSaint-Gilles It is an indignant father, disgusted and outraged, who speaks to us. “My daughter was raped in the Gare du Midi. In Brussels. Capital of Europe. With total impunity.”
It was June 12. “My daughter was returning from Waterloo. It was 9:00 pm. On exiting the train, she headed for the Bancontact.” A public passage. Yet this is where the tragedy took place.
“Right in the middle of a station. But how is this possible?” continues the father of Lola, who is 21 years old. “Two men accused her of not wearing the veil. My daughter is pretty. She is blonde with blue eyes.”
Everything happened very quickly after that. “One of the assailants took out a knife. My daughter was pushed up against the wall of Bancontact. With a knife at her throat, one of the boys raped her. The other watched.”
It was 9:00 pm. It was still light, and outside the station was far from empty. “People were passing by. My daughter is confident that she saw at least three people. None of them stopped to help her.”The rape ended, and the attackers departed calmly. “They were two North Africans. They did not even wear hoods. And don’t tell me that I am a racist because I mention their origin! My daughter was raped because she was not wearing a veil. That’s the truth!”
Lola went to see her girlfriend. “Do I have to tell you what kind of state she was in?” A few minutes later, the young woman was hospitalized.
Obviously, a complaint was filed. “The police were very professional. Her clothes were removed as evidence. DNA was extracted.”
But, alas, the culprits are still at large…
“Following the death of Joe Van Holsbeeck, it was proclaimed loud and clear that there would be more security at stations. With my daughter, you have proof that nothing has changed. There are no cameras around the Gare du Midi, which is still one of the most popular stations.”
Marc is bitter. “I’ll have no more of this Belgium where everything is permitted. It leaves lawless areas like that with young people adrift. These rapists wanted only one thing: to abuse my daughter, to possess and denigrate her because she was not like they hear that girls should be… It’s a disgrace.”
Rape by gangs of immigrants is an assertion of dominance, and in that sense it is a political act. It says, “We are in charge here, and we do as we please with non-Muslims. No one may stop us; we operate with impunity.”
If the Belgium government fails to prove such assertions wrong, then immigrant-dominated areas of the country will become de facto Muslim states.

Friday, June 20, 2008

American Woman, Arab Man: Tales of Horror in the Harem

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2008/06/20/american-woman-arab-man-tales-of-horror-in-the-harem/

**
Cassandra lives.
No, I am not talking about the ancient Trojan prophet whose visions went unheeded and whom the Greek conquerors enslaved. This is another kind of Cassandra. Her visions of danger and doom concern what happens when an American woman marries an Arab and Muslim man. Cassandra herself was once married to an Arab Christian and, based on that experience has, so far, written two books: Escape from an Arab Marriage. Horror Stories of Women Who Fled From Abusive Muslims Husbands (2006) and Thirty Three Secrets Arab Men Never Tell American Women (2008). In the first book, she tells the stories of many American women who married Arab Muslim men and what happened to them.
The stories are gripping, terrifying, highly dramatic–and depressingly similar. At first, the men are utterly charming, generous, solicitous of their American girlfriend’s every need. After they are married to American citizens and can claim their own citizenship, they revert to form: Almost overnight, they become cruel, condescending, physically abusive, suspicious, insanely controlling, unfaithful, deceptive, and highly secretive. Look, she is not writing about the happy marriages; as her title suggests, she is writing about “abusive Muslim Husbands.” The need to balance everything out, to allow every point of view, will prove our undoing.
These are men who do not support their wives but expect their wives to support themselves, the household, and the children, even while they are pregnant or ill. And then, things always take a turn for the worse. This behavior accurately describes the family life of double honor murderer, Yasir Said, of Dallas, Texas. I have written about this case for PJM many times. See HERE and HERE for example.
Here’s what’s worse. These spoiled and pampered sons kidnap their American children, which forces their American wives to live in dangerous and unfriendly Muslim countries and households, (often with first or subsequent wives), and that’s if they’re lucky. Just as often, the American mothers may simply never see their children again. The American government, Embassies, and Consulates do not help such American citizen-hostages to return home. Once an American woman marries a foreign national, she and her children are no longer entitled to any American citizenship rights.
I know this is true because some of this also happened to me. Read HERE and HERE.
Custody of the children automatically belongs to the father and to his family. And the Arab and Muslim families routinely abuse the children just as they abuse their own children–only more so, because these are American children whose mothers are (unacceptably) Christian. And yes, Christians are hated and persecuted in Muslim countries. This is the truth, unpalatable as it might be.
In addition, according to Cassandra, recently, some members of Al Qaeda and of other terrorist groups have specifically come to America to gain American citizenship through marriage, create terror cells, brainwash their own American citizen children into jihad and recruit other Americans to Islamist jihad. Adam Gadahn of Oregon was apparently recruited this way by Hisham Diab, Sarrah Olsen’s Saudi husband. Olsen started calling the FBI in 1992, after her terrorist husband hosted the blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman (who is now in jail for having plotted against the World Trade Center), and Khalil Deck, who was arrested in Jordan while planning to blow up the U.S. Embassy.
The FBI did not take Olsen’s information seriously.
I can just hear the politically correct reader saying: C’mon, this can’t be true of every single Arab and Muslim man. Isn’t it unacceptably racist/colonialist to think this way? Isn’t this a form of intellectual profiling that leads directly to Abu Graib and Guantanamo? Doesn’t this play right into the allegedly fascist hands of American Homeland Security and Immigration Department racism?
Well yes, it could–but what if each and every story is true? What if what we in the West have finally begun to consider crimes (wife- and child-beating, incest, paternal non-payment of child support, child kidnapping, polygamous marriages arranged against a child’s will), are still normalized behaviors in the Muslim world? What if the truth itself is shameful and therefore offensive? Do we refuse to tell the truth? Refuse to hear it?
Many people do just that. And then there are the glorious, high-profile exceptions: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Alyami, Bat Ye’or, Andrew Bostom, Nonie Darwish, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Bassam Eid, Tareq Hegy, Ibn Warraq, Aaron Klein, Nancy Kobrin, Matthias Kunzel, Robert Spencer, Mark Steyn, Wafa Sultan. Although some on this honor roll are Muslims, ex-Muslims, and “people of color,” they too have been accused of “racism” and “reactionary conservatism” for daring to tell the truth about jihad, Islam/Islamism.
Yes, the stories are strong, horrifying, and therefore border on “offensive,” but they are also true stories. Cassandra is not a scholar. She is passionate and personal. The stories she tells are real page-turners. Some of the praise for her books borders on the fanatically patriotic and is slightly vulgar and hysterical. But authors are not responsible for their admirers. In any event, such a tone is still decibels below its Arab and Muslim propaganda counterparts. Although I flinch when reading it, perhaps such loudness may eventually serve the cause.
Cassandra has chosen to self-publish (XLibris) because she needs to remain anonymous and wants to control the editorial content. Cassandra urgently wants to warn naive American women away from marriage to Arab and Muslim men. I beg everyone to read the stories and make up their own minds. In a recent email to me, she writes:
“In a nutshell, what I want to do next is to be instrumental in turning the tide against Muslim terrorists and help eradicate their agenda forever in the U.S. and then the rest of the world.”
A worthy and difficult goal.
I will be writing about this again. And, let me recommend two other books which are due out much later this year. Dr. Nancy Kobrin’s book The Sheikh’s New Clothes: The Naked Truth About Islamic Suicide Terrorism and Nonie Darwish’s new book about women living under Shari’a law Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Sharia Law. They are fitting Cassandra-like companions.
Will contemporary Westerners pay attention to these new Cassandras or will they refuse to listen to them until we have been conquered?

Islam’s War Doctrines Ignored

Alas, far from taking the most basic and simple advice regarding warfare — Sun Tzu’s ancient dictum, “Know thy enemy” — the U.S. government is having difficulties even acknowledging its enemy.
**
by Raymond Ibrahim
MESH (Middle East Strategy at Harvard)
**
At the recent inaugural conference for the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA), presenter Ltc. Joseph Myers made an interesting point that deserves further elaboration: that, though military studies have traditionally valued and absorbed the texts of classical war doctrine — such as Clausewitz’s On War, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, even the exploits of Alexander the Great as recorded in Arrian and Plutarch — Islamic war doctrine, which is just as, if not more, textually grounded, is totally ignored.
As recent as 2006, former top Pentagon official William Gawthrop lamented that “the senior Service colleges of the Department of Defense had not incorporated into their curriculum a systematic study of Muhammad as a military or political leader. As a consequence, we still do not have an in-depth understanding of the war-fighting doctrine laid down by Muhammad, how it might be applied today by an increasing number of Islamic groups, or how it might be countered.”
This is more ironic when one considers that, while classical military theories (Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, et. al.) are still studied, the argument can be made that they have little practical value for today’s much changed landscape of warfare and diplomacy. Whatever validity this argument may have, it certainly cannot be applied to Islam’s doctrines of war; by having a “theological” quality, that is, by being grounded in a religion whose “divine” precepts transcend time and space, and are thus believed to be immutable, Islam’s war doctrines are considered applicable today no less than yesterday. So while one can argue that learning how Alexander maneuvered his cavalry at the Battle of Guagamela in 331 BC is both academic and anachronistic, the same cannot be said of Islam, particularly the exploits and stratagems of its prophet Muhammad — his “war sunna” — which still serve as an example to modern day jihadists.
For instance, based on the words and deeds of Muhammad, most schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that the following are all legitimate during war against the infidel: the indiscriminate use of missile weaponry, even if women and children are present (catapults in Muhammad’s 7th century, hijacked planes or WMD by analogy today); the need to always deceive the enemy and even break formal treaties whenever possible (see Sahih Muslim 15:4057); and that the only function of the peace treaty, or hudna, is to give the Islamic armies time to regroup for a renewed offensive, and should, in theory, last no more than ten years.
Quranic verses 3:28 and 16:106, as well as Muhammad’s famous assertion, “War is deceit,” have all led to the formulation of a number of doctrines of dissimulation — the most notorious among them being the doctrine of taqiyya, which permits Muslims to lie and dissemble whenever they are under the authority of the infidel. Deception has such a prominent role that renowned Muslim scholar Ibn al-Arabi declares: “[I]n the Hadith, practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated. Indeed, its need is more stressed than [the need for] courage” (The Al Qaeda Reader, 142).
Aside from ignoring these well documented Islamist strategies, more troubling is the fact that the Defense Department does not seem to appreciate Islam’s more “eternal” doctrines — such as the Abode of War versus the Abode of Islam dichotomy, which in essence maintains that Islam must always be in a state of animosity vis-à-vis the infidel world and, whenever possible, must wage wars until all infidel territory has been brought under Islamic rule. In fact, this dichotomy of hostility is unambiguously codified under Islam’s worldview and is deemed a fard kifaya — that is, an obligation on the entire Muslim body that can only be fulfilled as long as some Muslims, say, “jihadists,” actively uphold it.
Yet despite all these problematic — but revealing — doctrines, despite the fact that a quick perusal of Islamist websites and books demonstrate time and time again that current and would-be jihadists constantly quote, and thus take seriously, these doctrinal aspects of war, apparently the senior governmental leaders charged with defending America do not.
Why? Because the “Whisperers” — Walid Phares’ all-too-apt epithet for many Middle East/Islamic scholars, or, more appropriately, apologists — have made anathema anyone who dares imply that there may be some sort of connection between Islamic doctrine and modern-day Islamist terrorism, such as in the recent Steven Coughlin debacle. This is a long and well known tale for those in the field (see Martin Kramer’s Ivory Towers on Sand: the Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America).
But consider for a moment: though there are today many Middle East studies departments, one will be sorely pressed to find any courses dealing with the most pivotal and relevant topics of today — such as Islamic jurisprudence and what it has to say about jihad or the concept of Abode of Islam versus the Abode of War — no doubt due to the fact that these topics possess troubling international implications and are best buried. Instead, the would-be student will be inundated with courses dealing with the evils of “Orientalism” and colonialism, gender studies, and civil society.
The greater irony — when one talks about Islam and the West, ironies often abound — is that, on the very same day of the ASMEA conference, which also contained a forthright address by premiere Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis (“It seems to me a dangerous situation in which any kind of scholarly discussion of Islam is, to say the least, dangerous”), the State Department announced that it had adopted the recommendations of a memo stating that the government should not call al Qaeda-type radicals “jihadis,” “mujahidin,” or to incorporate any other Arabic word of Islamic connotation (“caliphate,” “Islamo-fascism,” “Salafi,” “Wahhabi,” and “Ummah” are also out).
Alas, far from taking the most basic and simple advice regarding warfare — Sun Tzu’s ancient dictum, “Know thy enemy” — the U.S. government is having difficulties even acknowledging its enemy.

THE GREATEST BETRAYAL IN HISTORY

This is part of a massive and prolonged campaign of psychological warfare against whites in general that has been going on for several generations now, to strip whites of any sense of pride or self-respect.
The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files.
There is also a multi-index listing here.
This post was compiled from comments made on one of last night’s posts.
**
The scale of violent crime white people are being subject to in countries such as Sweden resembles warfare. Not only does the state not protect people against this racist violence, it actively sides with the attackers. Which means that the social contract is now dead and buried in most Western countries. The state is either expensive and irrelevant or it is an outright enemy.The numbers in Sweden, and no doubt elsewhere, are worse than we are told. They are being heavily manipulated by the authorities and the media, who claim that the massive increase in rapes is caused by:
A. The warm weather/global warming,
B. Alcohol,
C. Internet dating sites, and
D. A technical increase due to the fact that women suddenly report rape more frequently than before.
These are the explanations that are mentioned. There is no other.
Suggesting that it has something to do with mass immigration of alien cultures is quite literally banned by law. A Swedish man was arrested, brought in front of the local court and sentenced for “hate speech” for carrying a sign during a demonstration suggesting that rape was linked to immigration.
Meanwhile, Norwegians are being told that we need to hire thousands of more cops to contain the massive increase in crime brought on by mass immigration (which is still supposed to be “good for the economy), a mass immigration that will not only continue but increase. Nobody among the Leftist media elites says it should stop, they say it should continue indefinitely, and there are more and more hysterical witch-hunts against “racism” by the white indigenous people. It’s state-sponsored ethnic cleansing of the native population, cheered by our own media and intellectuals, in short: The greatest betrayal in history.
The current Swedish “conservative” prime minister has stated in public that his county’s traditional culture was merely barbarism, and that anything good was imported from abroad. While Swedish girls get gang raped by Muslim immigrants who are met with “respect for their diverse culture,” Swedish boys are being systematically indoctrinated with radical Feminism, in the most extreme cases being forced to wear female clothes and take female names by kindergarten teachers.
On the International Women’s Day, March 8 2008, the columnist Marte Michelet in the left-wing pro-Multicultural Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet attacked “brown” feminists. And no, by that she did not mean feminists with a dark skin, but those championing “Fascist,” racist and Islamophobic forces. She is the daughter of the Communist writer Jon Michelet and was until 1998 the leader of the Red Youth, the country’s “revolutionary youth league.”
Many Marxist feminists, who have for generations worked to break down Christianity and the nuclear family in the West, now passionately embrace Islam, the most repressive religion on earth. Marxists do not care about “women’s liberty.” They do not care about anybody’s liberty. They support anything that can destabilize the West. The fact that a newspaper that has been at the forefront of radical Feminism for generations now suddenly warns against “Islamophobia” and “prejudice” against the world’s most anti-female religion is highly revealing.
Attacks on Western history in order to instill shame into Western youths, a shame that militates against their thinking that their civilization is worth defending, are very common, especially targeting female students.
*
Here is a quote from the book Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t by Robert Spencer:- - - - - - - - -
A white American student, ‘Rachel,’ unwittingly summed up this attitude when she told American Indian professor Dr. David Yeagley in 2001: ‘Look, Dr. Yeagley, I don’t see anything about my culture to be proud of. It’s all nothing. My race is just nothing…. Look at your culture. Look at American Indian tradition. Now I think that’s really great. You have something to be proud of. My culture is nothing.’
Yeagley mused: ‘The Cheyenne people have a saying: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground….
When Rachel denounced her people, she did it with the serene self-confidence of a High Priestess reciting a liturgy. She said it without fear of criticism or censure. And she received none. The other students listened in silence, their eyes moving timidly back and forth between me and Rachel, as if unsure which of us constituted a higher authority….
Who had conquered Rachel’s people? What had led her to disrespect them? Why did she behave like a woman of a defeated tribe?’
I have engaged in endless debates with people who see no relationship between traditional economic Marxism, as promoted by Karl Marx himself, and today’s “cultural Marxism.” But they miss the point. The most important mutation that happened with the various strains of Marxism during the twentieth century was that they understood that the traditional doctrine that a Socialist society was “inevitable” was incorrect. Their revolutions didn’t happen, in the West at least. But this didn’t mean that they gave up their end goals, which have largely remained the same.
They just changed the strategy needed in order to achieve these main goals, and focused on breaking down Western culture in every way, until there was no resistance left to implement their totalitarian society. That’s what has been going on for decades now, where traditional attitudes to marriage etc. have gradually become banned by law. Turning Western women, especially white women, into weapons of mass destruction against their own civilization has been a key component of this strategy, and unfortunately a rather successful one.
Also, I don’t buy this “blaming Western men” stuff. I’m tired of it. If we are guilty of anything, it is of being too kind too Western women, and letting them get away with their nonsense too often.
If women want to be taken seriously, they should take responsibility for their own actions. Women cannot attack men for decades and blame them for being male chauvinist pigs, generally evil, stupid and weak and then expect men to come rushing to their defense to clean up the problems women themselves voted to create.
There are still a few sensible self-designated feminists left in the West, but they clearly constitute a minority. I’ve been told by radical feminists that rape is a weapon used by men — that is, men in general — to keep women down. This is also the line Swedish feminists usually take regarding rapes: It’s about the “patriarchy,” not about mass immigration. Swedish men are just as bad as the Taliban, as one prominent feminist famously said.
As one of Marilyn French’s characters said, “All men are rapists, and that’s all they are.” In Norway in 2008, we had a case where a native teenage girl had been gang raped by Muslim immigrants, and the four female judges voted in favor of giving the rapists a “discount” on the minor compensations they were sentenced to pay to the victim. The one dissenting judge was the one male. As the female blogger Nina commented, this and other cases indicate that we need fewer female judges, not more.
Women are simply too soft and emotional to be performing these kinds of tasks. The effect of radical Feminism is to treat all men as criminals, except those who really are criminals, who should receive soft treatment. All men are rapists, except those who actually are. They are victims of “society.” Despite the fact that Muslim immigration has triggered an unprecedented wave of anti-female violence, women still vote disproportionately for pro-immigration parties, and yell “racism” at men who suggest it’s not a good idea.
Women cannot be cruel to decent men and kind to evil men and expect that this has no consequences in the long run. Why should Western men worry about women who show us nothing but hostility? Maybe we’ll just be patriarchal simpletons, drink beer, fart and watch football on TV?
What we are dealing with in the Western world is demographic warfare closely aligned with psychological warfare, aimed at breaking down our self-confidence and self-awareness to the point where our technological superiority is rendered useless because we are ashamed of ourselves or incapable of articulating what we should fight for. Sun Tzu in The Art of War said that wars are won in the temples before they are fought. The mass media are the temples of our time, which means that we are currently losing badly.
Robert D. Kaplan says that he “re-read both The Art of War by the 6th-century BCE Chinese court minister Sun-Tzu and On War by the early 19th-century Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz. What struck me straight away, thanks to my recent travels-in-arms, was not what either author said, but what both assumed. Both Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz believe — in their states, their sovereigns, their homelands. Because they believe, they are willing to fight. This is so clear that they never need to state it, and they never do… Both oppose militarism, but accept the reality of war, and from that acceptance reason that any policy lacking martial vigor — any policy that fails to communicate a warrior spirit — only makes war more likely.”
According to Clausewitz, “In affairs so dangerous as war, false ideas proceeding from kindness of heart are precisely the worst…The fact that slaughter is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms.”
As a final note on this whole sorry state of affairs — the Swedish parliament passed a law yesterday which orders comprehensive electronic surveillance of all citizens:
Swedish lawmakers voted late on Wednesday in favour of a controversial bill allowing all emails and phone calls to be monitored in the name of national security.
This law will make Sweden more totalitarian than even the former Communist dictatorship of East Germany.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

UK: YET ANOTHER PERSON BURNED ALIVE BY MUSLIMS

Today's appeal comes as a 15-year-old girl and a man in his 20s are both still critically ill after being set alight in two separate attacks in the Greater London area last weekend.
**
Hindu man set on fire in East London 'for dating Muslim girl'
Thursday, 19 June 2008
Police were appealing for witnesses today following the attempted murder of a man who was doused in petrol and set on fire in east London.
The 20-year-old, who is fighting for his life in hospital, was torched as he sat in his car in Forest Gate.
It is believed the Hindi victim, who suffered 65 per cent burns in the attack, was targeted because he was dating a Muslim girlfriend.
He had just parked his car, a green Honda Prelude, in St George’s Road when he was approached by the suspect or suspects and had petrol poured over him before being set alight.
He managed to get out of the vehicle and was discovered nearby before being taken to hospital and transferred to a specialist burns unit where he remains in a critical condition.
A police spokesman said: “Officers were called to the scene at 6am last Thursday to reports of a man on fire.”
DI Sam Faulkner, from the violent crime unit at Forest Gate said: “This was a very nasty attack and the victim remains in a critical condition.
“We are appealing for witnesses or anyone with information to come forward and would particularly like to hear from anyone who saw the suspect making off.”
Two men aged 20 and 21 have been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder and released on bail.
Today's appeal comes as a 15-year-old girl and a man in his 20s are both still critically ill after being set alight in two separate attacks in the Greater London area last weekend.

No room under the bus? 3 Gay Trinity Members "Executed" in 4 Weeks


Investigator close to case believes there’s more to the brutal murders than mainstream press is letting on
By Victor Thorn
Is a Barack Obama bombshell lurking in the shadows, waiting to derail one of the biggest Cinderella stories in recent history?
While most political prognosticators in the mainstream press presume that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, they still wonder aloud if Hillary Clinton (or some other entity) has something up their sleeve.
The bombshell may involve the murder of Donald Young, a 47-year-old choir master at former Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ—the same congregation that Obama has attended for the past 20 years. Two other young black men that attended the same church—Larry Bland and Nate Spencer—were also murdered execution style with bullets to the backs of their heads—all within 40 days of each other, beginning in November 2007. All three were openly homosexual.
What links this story to Barack Obama is that, according to an acquaintance of Obama, Larry Sinclair, Obama is a closet bisexual with whom he had sexual and drug-related encounters in November 1999.
Further, Sinclair claims that Obama was friendly with at least two of these deceased parishioners, and that choir director Donald had contacted him shortly before being murdered from multiple gunshot wounds on December 23, 2007.
These killings are receiving a number of different reactions. Mike Parker, reporting for CBS in Chicago, wrote, “Activists fear gay African-Americans are being targeted for murder,” while Marc Loveless of the Coalition for Justice and Respect queries, “Are we under attack? Is this a serial killer?”
An even more sinister aspect of this case is being investigated. According to Sinclair in an affidavit to the Chicago Police Department, Donald Young had informed him that he and Barack Obama were “intimate” with each other. Sinclair, it should be noted, declared on a January 18, 2008, YouTube video that on two separate occasions in November 1999, he engaged in sexual acts with Obama, and that Obama smoked crack cocaine—once in a limousine and the other time at a hotel in Gurnee, Ill.
Sinclair has also asked: why would Young—whom he had never met—initiate these calls by contacting him on cell phone numbers known only in the Obama camp? Further, a private investigator connected to the Chicago Police Department told the Globe, “Donald Young was silenced because of something he knew about Obama. Donald was in a position where he heard a lot of things and saw a lot of things concerning Barack.”
Another questionable Obama associate is openly homosexual. That person is Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig, who was listed during the 2008 campaign as being part of Obama’s “technology initiative.”
In April, Lessig showed a video at a Google seminar entitled Jesus Christ: The Musical where “Jesus Christ lip-syncs Gloria Gaynor’s late 1970s disco hit I Will Survive during which he strips down to just a diaper, effeminately struts along a city street, and finally gets run over by a speeding bus.”
Are three murders within the span of 40 days among members of America’s most discussed church—one run by the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright—enough to arouse the suspicions of Chicago law enforcement officials and members of the national media?
Or, as Sinclair wrote in a May 18 email, was the murder of Young “made to look similar to other recent murders as to make it look as if it were a hate crime” because he had become a political liability?
One can only hope that this isn’t the beginning of another body count eerily reminiscent of that associated with Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Postcards - and Video - From the Edge

**

Time To Dump U.S-Mexico Interparliamentary Meetings

Say It Ain’t So, Brian Bilbray!
June 17, 2008
Memo From Mexico
On June 7th and 8th, 2008, the 47th Annual Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Group Meeting was held, in Monterrey, a prosperous city in northern Mexico.
It’s an annual meeting, of selected members of the U.S. Congress and the Mexican Congress, alternating between the U.S. and Mexico, to discuss issues of bilateral interest. And it’s been going on for 47 years.
These annual get-togethers are much more highly-publicized in Mexico than in the U.S., where they are mostly ignored. If you follow the hyper-links in this article, you’ll see that most of my sources—and the most informative sources—are from the Mexican and Spanish-language media (my translations).
You may have the impression that the "Interparliamentary", as I refer to it hereafter, is just a useless gabfest, a waste of the taxpayers’ money.
Would that it were so! It would be better if it were just a useless gabfest. The Interparliamentary is now developing into more than a gabfest. It’s becoming another vehicle for Mexican politicians—with the help of American collaborators—to meddle in U.S. immigration policy.
And who knows—the Interparliamentary could serve as a nucleus for a future North American Union parliament!
This year, the U.S. congressional delegation consisted of 11 members. It was headed up by Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT).
The Mexican delegation, however, held higher-ranking members, including Mexican Speaker of the House, Ruth Zavaleta, and the Leader of the Mexican Senate, Santiago Creel (mentioned in my most recent Memo from Mexico column as a non-exemplar of family values). It was also attended by Mexican Ambassador to the U.S., Arturo Sarukhan, and the governor of Nuevo Leon, the state of which Monterrey is the capital.
As for Senator Dodd, what did he have in mind for the meeting?
The Connecticut Democrat said before departing for Mexico:
"The United States and Mexico share much more than a common border. We share a history, and more importantly, we share a future. I look forward to a weekend of robust discussion of how our two nations can continue to work together for the common good of our citizens, our nations, and our region."
The biggest issue on the table at this year’s Interparliamentary was the proposed "Plan Merida", a controversial aid program to help Mexico fight drug cartels, which is still pending in the U.S. Congress. Both the Senate and House versions included various accountability measures making part of the aid conditional on a "certification" of corruption and human rights issues. This is the objectionable part to Mexico—because it’s seen as meddling in Mexican affairs. They want the aid with no strings attached!
At the opening of the Interparliamentary, Ruth Zavaleta, Mexican Speaker of the House, declared that
"For the initiative to be successful our rights must be respected and any intentions to intervene in affairs that concern only Mexicans must be put aside". (Mexican Lawmaker Rejects Conditions on Drug Aid, Mark Walsh, AP ,San Diego Union-Tribune, June 7, 2008]
I think it’s just great that Speaker Zavaleta is so concerned about Mexican sovereignty! I wish our own leaders were equally concerned about U.S. sovereignty.
As it turns out, most of them weren’t, when it comes to Mexican meddling in U.S. immigration policy.
After hearing from Mexican legislators on the Merida proposal, Dodd said that
"We heard from everyone here the common message that this language has got to be changed. Our friends in Mexico needed to vent and explain how this issue was not handled well. Anything that smacks of certification is a nonstarter." [U.S. Lawmakers to Review Mexico Aid Terms, Mark Walsh, Washington Post, June 8, 2008
Just a few days later, back in Washington, D.C., the U.S. House approved legislation that still included human rights certification for Mexican law enforcement authorities. However, Senator Dodd, who had been in Mexico, said that the certification part was "highly offensive" to Mexico, and he spoke of the "big concerns, huge concerns" about certification.
According to Dodd, "I don’t have the details, but we’re going to have something that is no certification". The senator suggested that when the Senate approves the measure, the certification would be modified to become "guidelines that we all agree on "—but not requirements. [U.S. House Approves Human Rights Rules for Mexico Anti-Drug Aid, By Nicholas Johnston, Bloomberg, June 10th, 2008]
Whatever you think of the Merida Initiative, it’s pretty obvious that the Interparliamentary Meeting is influencing U.S. legislation.
By the way, while I’m on the subject, the Mexican media has reported that Leslie Bassett, a U.S. diplomat in Mexico, has proposed the integration of the Merida Initiative with the notorious SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership). [Proponen Incorporar Iniciativa Mérida al ASPAN, El Universal, June 9, 2008
Then, of course, there’s immigration. That’s a perennial topic at the Interparliamentary.
And it’s a real study in contrast. When they discuss the Merida Initiative, Mexican officials are indignant, condemning the prospect of Gringos Meddling in Mexico—even if, as in the proposed initiative, America is footing the bill!
But they regard immigration as a “bilateral” issue, requiring a bilateral solution.
That’s how the Mexicans see it—and for the most part, our own lawmakers seem to accept that perspective.
In her opening speech—the same one in which she decried the possibility of American meddling in Mexico!—Speaker Zavaleta launched into a rant about how badly Mexicans are treated in the U.S.:
“She reminded them that every day Mexicans confront discrimination and police abuse ‘when they attempt to cross legally or illegally to U.S. territory, seeking better opportunities in their lives’.. human rights should be defended on both sides of the border. She asked that Mexicans not be viewed as a danger but that the true risk to that country is the aggression and xenophobia.” [Legisladores de México y EU proponen ‘nuevo’ Plan Mérida. Siglo, June 8th, 2008]
Yeah, well, what would you expect the Mexican Speaker of the House to say?
I’m more concerned about what our own Congresscritters had to say in Monterrey. And what they said was covered more fully in the Mexican media than in our own.
In fact, a Mexican article on the Interparliamentary quoted various of our own legislators holding forth on the subject. [Se Cancela el Optimismo de Legisladores Nacionales por un Pacto Migratorio con EU, by Roberto Garduno, La Jornada, June 7, 2008]
Let’s start with their fearless leader, Senator Dodd. Just so you know where he’s coming from, the immigration watchdog group Americans for Better Immigration gives Dodd a career grade of D- on immigration issues, and a recent (2005-2008) evaluation of F.
First off, Dodd apologized for Congress’s not having passed amnesty
" I am terribly disappointed that the Senate could not arrive at a conclusion a year ago to have a law for foreigners. The realities are associated with millions of undocumented persons who live in the United States. They live in the shadows, I would add. Clearly, the workers that have violated our laws have to face our sanctions. But we cannot deport 12 million people. We should not do that. I support a new path to citizenship that supports the dignity of these families."
In other words, Dodd was in Mexico, apologizing that we didn’t pass amnesty, and promising not to deport illegal aliens
Great.
Another distinguished American lawmaker in Monterrey was California’s Zoe Lofgren. Americans for Better Immigration gives her an F- in career grade and a D- in recent grade. Here’s what the Jornada article cited above reported Congresswoman Lofgren telling the assembled binational dignitaries:
"Zoe Lofgren…referred to the urgency of taking care of family unity and immigrant rights, because nobody stops to recognize that, due to migratory policy and the walls, that Mexicans seek the routes through the most isolated areas. Therefore, more Mexicans have died on the border than Americans have died in the war in Iraq."
So how is what Zoe says different from what Mexican politicians say? Whose side is she on?
Also at Monterrey was Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva, who described an American political climate that was "contaminated" with “anti-immigrant” sentiment.
Well, what do you expect? Grijalva has an F- from ABI (both career and recent grades), he opposes secure voter ID, and is a MEChA alumnus.
Well, how about the Republicans who went to the Interparliamentary?
Republican Jerry Weller, a Congressman from Illinois, was one. Weller has a career grade of B and a recent grade of B+ from ABI.
Weller, referring to amnesty for illegal aliens, told the group that "the average American taxpayer doesn’t sympathize with initiatives that permit the legalization or regularization of Mexican migrants".
OK, that’s a step in the right direction. But wait until you hear what he said later…
California Congressman Brian Bilbray was also in Monterrey. Bilbray has a career grade of A and recent grade of A- from ABI. Not only that, but Bilbray has replaced Tom Tancredo as chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus.
So what did Bilbray have to say to the Mexicans? Here’s what the same Jornada article said:
"Brian Bilbray, California Republican, of Australian descent, maintained that the Congress of his country has the right to defend legality. Whoever hires illegals is illegal, whoever arrives without papers to the U.S. is illegal, and therefore, Congress goes for legal migration and that’s why you can’t hire without papers. "
OK, that’s ok, as far as it goes. But why on earth did Bilbray say this, in private, to a Mexican reporter:
"Bilbray confirmed that if a comprehensive immigration reform is not passed within one year, then the establishment of a binational cooperation group can be established to take up the issue."
And that very day, at the suggestion of the Mexican delegation and with the full approval of the Americans (including Bilbray), the assembled dignitaries agreed to set up a "binational working group to discuss immigration reform."
In other words, it’s yet another vehicle to facilitate Mexican meddling in U.S. immigration and nationality policy.
Thanks a lot, guys.
And not only did Congressman Bilbray (chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, remember) approve the working group, he also told the assembled Interparliamentary that nothing was going to get accomplished in immigration this (election) year, and reasoned that
"There was a consensus that there was not going to be, within the period of one year, a total reform of immigration law or that the issue of amnesty was going to move forward. Therefore this period permits us to think about the possibility of establishing this binational cooperative group to take up the matter in a bilateral manner and to look at the subject of illegal immigration. Basically, it would have the power to accommodate all the labor force that would come to the United States in a legal manner, totally separate from the ones who would be the subject of punishments or sanctions for the illegal immigrations. We would be thinking of a legal program of guest workers. " [Crearán commission para discutir migración, (They will Create a Commission to Discuss Migration) Texas en Linea (No date)
So why is the chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus in Mexico promoting a guest worker program?
According to Americans for Better Immigration, this is Bilbray’s’ weak point anyway. On the issue of importation of foreign workers, ABI gives Bilbray a grade of C-, and a recent (2005-2008) grade of F-!
So his actions in Mexico fit right in with his record.
By the way, if you go to Representative Bilbray’s website, it contains only a brief mention of his Mexico visit. It never mentions his guest worker promotions and binational working group.
I also get the impression from recent statements from Bilbray that he only seems interested in stopping illegal immigration, and not in radically reducing legal immigration—although this is just as necessary.
As for fellow GOP Congressman Jerry Weller, he told the Mexicans that
"…we have arrived at an understanding to form a bilateral working group in order to achieve an agreement".
Excuse me, but aren't U.S. immigration policies to be decided upon by American lawmakers, not in conjunction with foreign lawmakers?
Isn’t it time to put an end to these U.S.-Mexico Interparliamentary Group Meetings?
When they encourage Brian Bilbray, chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, to pander to Mexicans on immigration, they have glaringly outlived any usefulness they may once have had.
Besides, both American and Mexican lawmakers have plenty of work to keep them busy. For starters, Mexican legislators might be thinking about how to reform PEMEX, Mexico’s oil monopoly.
It’s not that I’m against American lawmakers learning more about Mexico. In fact, if they want to travel to Mexico, I invite them to visit me in Mexico. I’ll explain to them what’s going on. Or at least, I invite them to read my VDARE.COM articles.
But traveling to Mexico for two days, and being bamboozled by Mexican legislators into surrendering on immigration is not what our lawmakers ought to be doing.
Memo to Brian Bilbray: You were elected by your congressional district—not by the Mexican Congress!
http://www.vdare.com/awall/080617_memo.htm
American citizen Allan Wall ( email him) resides in Mexico, with a legal permit issued him by the Mexican government. Allan recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his FRONTPAGEMAG.COM articles are archived here his "Dispatches from Iraq" are archived here his website is here.