Friday, January 30, 2009

‘God in heaven, Hitler on earth’ And Other Arab World Peculiarities

January 30, 2009
From an article by Thomas Schmidinger
translated from the German:
…In Syria Hitler got so popular that you could hear the call “bala misyu bala mister, fi s-sama’Allah al-’ard Hitler” (…God in heaven, Hitler on earth).
Sami al-Gundi, one of the founding leaders of the Syrian Ba’th-Party described the athmosphere of the thirties like that:
“We were all racists, we admired National Socialism, read its books and the sources of its ideas. [...] Who lived in Damascus at that time can understand the inclination of the Arab people towards Nazism, because it was the power who could become the pioneer of our Arab cause. And who is defeated loves the victorious…”
The irony of Arab world obsession with Nazism (and their projection on Israel) is not lost on most of the civilized world. All the frenzied Arab outrage at the Israeli incursion into Gaza and attempts to make Israel the villain are absurd. There is little mention of the thousands of rockets fired into Israel prior to the Hamas ‘truce’ or the decades long and incessant racism, bigotry and calls to genocide.
It matters not one bit that Hamas came to power by way of free election, anymore than it mattered that Adolph Hitler made his way to power by way of free elections. Had the civilized world taken action and eliminated Hitler and his coterie of evil, 50 million people would be alive today.
President Obama must take care not to come across as an American TV commercial and nothing more. His message cannot be trite or play into the hands of those who would manipulate our nation or freedom. He cannot be drawn int0 negotiating with the deepest dysfunctions of the Arab world, the mantra of deceit repeated over and over:
Negotiate with Hamas, Hizbollah and Iran, that is good American foreign policy…negotiate with Hamas, Hizbollah and Iran, that is good American foreign policy… negotiate with Hamas, Hizbollah and Iran, that is good American foreign policy…
Negotiating with Hamas or Iran is not like negotiating with Australia. The reality that Hamas and Iran are sponsors of terror and even worse, they glorify terror. They will not see the light, even if we stopped ‘humiliating’ them and started ‘respecting’ them.
Prior to WWII, Hitler broke the Treaty of Versailles, rearmed Germany to the extreme, beat the drums of war and put that nation on a war footing. The Europeans, loathe to fight another war recalling the horrors of WWI, did everything they could to avoid another conflagration. Europe turned a blind eye after Hitler waltzed into Czechoslovakia and took the Sudetenland. They believed him when he said ‘that was all he wanted, to correct past injustices suffered by the German ethnic minority.’
Chamberlain, the gold medal champion of European denial and psychopathy, went to Berlin and met with ‘civilized’ Hitler to much newsreel fanfare. He returned home to an adoring crowd, waving a piece of paper ’signed by Herr Hitler.’ There was to be no war, Chamberlain assured a nervous nation and continent. In fact, he soothed European fears and declared, ‘There will be peace in our time.’
European reticence to deal with Adolph Hitler and the Nazi party firmly and definitively was to cost the world fifty million lives.
Neville Chamberlain bent over backwards to appease Adolph Hitler. He was idolized by the left in the UK and the Nazi sympathizers before the war. Despite his ‘good intentions’ and ‘well meaning,’ the former British Prime Minister today is today reviled and thought of as a naive fool. Chamberlain proved that people cannot be talked out of evil. Once the ‘hearts and minds’ have accepted evil, the only way to rid them of that evil is by making it impossible for them to impose that evil on others.
Both the Iranian and Palestinian regimes have sponsored publication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and have made antisemitism a cornerstone of their respective societies, manifested in media, education and religious instruction.
Like the Nazis before them, the Iranian and Palestinian regimes will never be considered as equals by us as as long as hate dominates their political agenda, culture and society. Unlike Neville Chamberlain before him, President Obama must make clear that appeasement and dressing apes up in tuxedos is a useless endeavor.
Mr Obama would do well to take a long, hard look at those who propose to dance with him.

Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years -- the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world -- America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved -- and resulted in -- the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.
The two Balkan interventions -- as well as the failed 1992-93 Somalia intervention to feed starving African Muslims (43 Americans were killed) -- were humanitarian exercises of the highest order, there being no significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. In these 20 years, this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on Earth. Why are we apologizing?
Outreach, Yes. Apology, No.
We've Never Been Islam's Enemy

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, January 30, 2009
Every new president flatters himself that he, kinder and gentler, is beginning the world anew. Yet, when Barack Obama in his inaugural address reached out to Muslims by saying "to the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," his formulation was needlessly defensive and apologetic.
Is it "new" to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn't just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, insisting on the need to "restore" the "same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."
Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years -- the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world -- America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved -- and resulted in -- the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.
The two Balkan interventions -- as well as the failed 1992-93 Somalia intervention to feed starving African Muslims (43 Americans were killed) -- were humanitarian exercises of the highest order, there being no significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. In these 20 years, this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on Earth. Why are we apologizing?
And what of that happy U.S.-Muslim relationship that Obama imagines existed "as recently as 20 or 30 years ago" that he has now come to restore? Thirty years ago, 1979, saw the greatest U.S.-Muslim rupture in our 233-year history: Iran's radical Islamic revolution, the seizure of the U.S. Embassy, the 14 months of America held hostage.
Which came just a few years after the Arab oil embargo that sent the United States into a long and punishing recession. Which, in turn, was preceded by the kidnapping and cold-blooded execution by Arab terrorists of the U.S. ambassador in Sudan and his chargé d'affaires.
This is to say nothing of the Marine barracks massacre of 1983, and the innumerable attacks on U.S. embassies and installations around the world during what Obama now characterizes as the halcyon days of U.S.-Islamic relations.
Look. If Barack Obama wants to say, as he said to al-Arabiya, I have Muslim roots, Muslim family members, have lived in a Muslim country -- implying a special affinity that uniquely positions him to establish good relations -- that's fine. But it is both false and deeply injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized.
As in Obama's grand admonition: "We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name." Have "we" been doing that, smearing Islam because of a small minority? George W. Bush went to the Islamic Center in Washington six days after the Sept. 11 attacks, when the fires of Ground Zero were still smoldering, to declare "Islam is peace," to extend fellowship and friendship to Muslims, to insist that Americans treat them with respect and generosity of spirit.
And America listened. In these seven years since Sept. 11 -- seven years during which thousands of Muslims rioted all over the world (resulting in the death of more than 100) to avenge a bunch of cartoons -- there's not been a single anti-Muslim riot in the United States to avenge the massacre of 3,000 innocents. On the contrary. In its aftermath, we elected our first Muslim member of Congress and our first president of Muslim parentage.
"My job," says Obama, "is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives." That's his job? Do the American people think otherwise? Does he think he is bravely breaking new ground? George Bush, Condoleezza Rice and countless other leaders offered myriad expressions of that same universalist sentiment.
Every president has the right to portray himself as ushering in a new era of this or that. Obama wants to pursue new ties with Muslim nations, drawing on his own identity and associations. Good. But when his self-inflation as redeemer of U.S.-Muslim relations leads him to suggest that pre-Obama America was disrespectful or insensitive or uncaring of Muslims, he is engaging not just in fiction but in gratuitous disparagement of the country he is now privileged to lead.
Iran has already responded to the Obama overture. In perfect tune with Obama's defensiveness, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that better relations might be possible -- after America apologized for 60 years of crimes against Iran. Note the 60 years. The mullahs are as mystified by Obama's pre-1979 (or 1989) good old days as I am.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

I will NOT pledge allegiance to the Antichrist!

"The President feels that the military has been too indoctrinated by the old harbingers of hate: nationalism, racism, and classism. By removing an oath to the American society, the soldiers are less likely to commit atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib."
This is brainwashing. This is scary ............HOME SCHOOL YOUR KIDS. Build home schooling networks! If you need a professor on new media, call me :)
I equate this with Hamas schooling, only subtler. And this is just what we hear about. Yesterday a parent (closet conservative) in a very upscale private school told me that on the day of the inauguration her young child came home from school with a huge Obama HOPE poster, a gift to the class from her teacher.
News Blaze (hat tip Ragnar)
When asked why, the boy said that during the Pledge of Allegiance the teacher put up a large image of Obama next to the flag.
Thinking that the boy might be exaggerating, the man asked his son if he was sure, and suggested that by "large" he might mean an 8x10 photo of the president. The boy apparently said "No, it is a large picture of Obama and when we are done, the teacher turns off the image."
The same thing was not done for President Bush last year.
After investigating this morning, the other parent reported that what the boy said was true.
At least three of the five classrooms have an overhead projector and as the children stand to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the teacher turns on the classroom overhead and a full body image of Obama, with six U.S. flags behind him, comes up about 4 feet away from the flag that hangs on the wall. The screen is apparently around five feet by six feet.
In the image, President Obama appears to be staring straight out with no facial expression, just a serious look. All of the kids in each class faced the President, instead of the flag that hangs in the corner.
Local parents are up in arms over this situation. Teachers clearly do not realize the gravity of what they are doing.
Update: The parents spoke to the Vice-Principal this afternoon. He said he would take care of it. I will check with them tomorrow and update this story.
Some are reporting that this following story is false.
They do not reveal their sources on this, however:
Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution
Conservative News and Reporting "News for the Rest of Us" Michele Chang
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is extremely frustrated with orders that the White House is contemplating. According to sources at the Pentagon, including all branches of the armed forces, the Obama Administration may break with a centuries-old tradition.
A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states that the Obama Administration wants to have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the President, and no longer to the Constitution.
"The oath to the Constitution is as old as the document itself." the spokesman said, "At no time in American history, not even in the Civil War, did the oath change or the subject of the oath differ. It has always been to the Constitution."
The back-and-forth between the White House and the Defense Department was expected as President George W. Bush left office. President Obama has already signed orders to close Guantanamo and to pull combat troops from Iraq. But, this, say many at the Defense Department, goes to far.
"Technically, we can't talk about it before it becomes official policy." the spokesman continued. "However, the Defense Department, including the Secretary, will not take this laying down. Expect a fight from the bureaucracy and the brass."
Sources at the White House had a different point of view. In a circular distributed by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the rationale for the change was made more clear.
"The President feels that the military has been too indoctrinated by the old harbingers of hate: nationalism, racism, and classism. By removing an oath to the American society, the soldiers are less likely to commit atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib."
"We expect a lot of flak over this," the classified memo continues. "But those that would be most against it are those looking either for attention or control."
The time frame for the changes are unknown. However, it is more likely that the changes will be made around the July 4th holiday, in order to dampen any potential backlash. The difference in the oath will actually only be slight. The main differences will be the new phrasing. It is expected that the oath to the Constitution will be entirely phased out within two years.
This story is almost impossible to believe. Any Atlas military folks know more?

Has the "Antichrist" been negotiating a truce with al-Qaeda?

Report: Barack Obama's Al Qaida initiative began months before his election
Disturbing and dangerous:
Barack Obama was working with Arab intermediaries to establish an unofficial dialogue with Al Qaida long before his election as the 44th U.S. president, according to a report in the upcoming weekly edition of
Al Qaida has offered what has been described as a truce in exchange for a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan, according to the report.
Commentary at The Strata-Sphere:
It seems Obama wants to be the history's next Neville Chamberlain, whose myopic focus on peace at all costs led to the deaths of tens of millions in war and atrocities. There is a point were the price of 'peace' is too much to humanly bear. We cannot always look away and wish for fantasy realities where everyone holds hands and loves each other.
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama was working with Arab intermediaries to establish an unofficial dialogue with Al Qaida long before his election as the 44th U.S. president, according to a report in the upcoming weekly edition of
Al Qaida has offered what has been described as a truce in exchange for a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan, according to the report.
Obama has deemed the U.S. reconciliation with the Muslim world, including Iran, as his main foreign policy goal, sources quoted in the report said. The president has been aided by several Persian Gulf Arab Muslims with ties to Al Qaida's leadership in Pakistan, they said.
On his first day in office, Obama ordered the shutdown of the U.S. Navy prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which where 245 suspected Al Qaida members are detained.

The Stealth Jihad - Robert Spencer

Posted by
Robert Spencer on The Stealth Jihad (video) Pam Geller over at Atlas Shrugs
calls this video a must watch, one of the most impassioned, brilliant speeches Robert Spencer has ever made. After watching it, I'm sure you'll agree:

20 or 30 Years Ago?

Max Boot - 01.28.2009 - 9:35 AM
“America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task.”
So said our new president in his interview Tuesday with Al Arabiya, the Arabic-language satellite news channel. At first the words washed over me. Then I did some simple math. Let’s see… 20 or 30 years ago… that would be 1989 or 1979.
What was happening in relations between America and the Muslim world back then? Not relying on memory alone, I consulted Bernard Grun’s reference book, The Timetables of History.
It turns out that in 1989 U.S. fighters shot down two Libyan jets over the Gulf of Sidra. The last Soviet troops left Afghanistan, creating a vacuum that would eventually be filled by the Taliban. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for Salman Rushdie’s death for “blasphemy.” Hundreds died in Lebanon’s long-running civil war while Hezbollah militants were torturing to death U.S. Marine Colonel William “Rich” Higgins, who had been kidnapped the previous year while serving as a UN peacekeeper in Lebanon.
And 1979? That was an even darker year-in many ways a turning point for the worse in the Middle East. That was, after all, the year that the shah of Iran was overthrown. He was replaced by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who launched a war against the West that is still unfolding. One of the first actions of this long struggle was the seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran and all of its personnel as hostages. The same year saw the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which led to the growth of the mujahideen, some of whom would later morph into Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This was also the year that Islamic militants temporarily seized control of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, an event that drove the Saudi royal family to become ever more fundamentalist.
In other news in 1979, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the former prime minister of Pakistan, was hanged by General Zia al-Hak, inaugurating a long period when Pakistan would be under the effective control of the army in alliance with Islamic militants. That year mobs also attacked U.S. embassies throughout the Muslim world from Kabul and Islamabad to Tripoli. The one bright spot in 1979 was the signing of the Camp David Accord between the US, Egypt, and Israel, which did not, unfortunately, auger a “new” Middle East as many optimists hoped.
So this is the sort of “partnership” between the U.S. and the Middle East that President Obama would like to see? If his predecessor had suggested any such thing he would by now be a subject of ridicule for late-night comedians and daytime talk show hosts, and rightly so.
This is actually a revealing slip. To wit, it reveals two things: First, Obama’s profound ignorance about most aspects of foreign policy, including the recent history of the Middle East. A second, and related point, is his tendency to blame the ills of the region on the previous administration-something that is only possible if you started following the Middle East around 2001 and have little idea of what came before. It is then all too easy to claim, as Obama did on the campaign trail, that it was George W. Bush’s “disengagement” from the peace process and his “disastrous” war with Iraq that messed up the Middle East. Only someone with a longer view would realize how profoundly messed up the region was long before Bush came into office.
Even if we go back before the current era of religious extremism that began in earnest in 1979 we find evidence that from the American perspective the Middle East was hardly a happy place. Think of the OPEC oil embargo that began in 1973, the numerous wars between Israel and the Arabs, Eisenhower’s landing of marines in Lebanon in 1958, the Suez Crisis of 1956, the overthrow of Iran’s prime minister in 1953, and so on.
To the extent that we had any stability in the region it was purchased at the expense of alliances with distasteful regimes like those of the Shah of Iran and the Saudi royal family, once considered the “twin pillars” of American policy in the Middle East. Obama is dreaming if he thinks there was a wonderful “partnership” with Arab or Muslim regimes that he can “restore.”
UPDATE: In the comments section, “Elen” writes: “I wonder if Columbia/Harvard education is overrated or Obama is simply an idiot. I think the answer is both.” I think the answer is neither. From everything I have seen, Obama is a smart man who received a good education at Columbia and Harvard. The problem is that he spent his entire career in domestic policy and politics. He has little knowledge or background in national security affairs—probably about the same amount as anyone who was kind of paying attention in college more than twenty years ago but hasn’t paid much attention since. My guess is that when it comes to foreign policy he knows only marginally more than Sarah Palin—another smart person who simply didn’t have to bone up on this subject before running for national office. You can see the difference when Obama is talking—he is crisp and confident on domestic issues, halting and uncertain on foreign issues. I only hope for all of our sakes that he is a fast learner.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Six Ways To Ruin America,

And How We're Moving Down That Road
By Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin
Published: Tuesday, January 27, 2009

The book How to Ruin the United States of America by Ben Stein and Phil DeMuth is right on target and I’d only suggest one change. The title of the book should be How We Are Ruining the United States of America, as that is exactly what is happening. The authors make the case that six things would ruin the United States, as we know it:
1. Exile God from public life.
2. Teach Americans contempt for America.
3. Debase American culture.
4. Weaken the United States military.
5. Be a country without borders.
6. Practice voodoo economics.
That’s exactly what we’re doing and that’s exactly why we better reverse course immediately, as we’re deep into this process...

Islamic Terrorists Forming Cells In America

Hezbollah Expected To Be A Major Threat By 2014
By David Bedein, Middle East Correspondent
Published: Thursday, January 22, 2009
Jerusalem — Hezbollah could be one of the first security challenges faced by the new Obama administration. An official government report concludes the Iranian-backed Islamic terror group has been forming sleeper cells throughout the United States that could become operational.
The report estimates Hezbollah could become a much more potent national security threat by 2014. The group was responsible for the 1983 Beirut Marine Barracks bombing, which killed 241 U.S. Marines and 58 French servicemen.
“The threat of terrorism and the threat of extremist ideologies has not abated,” former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said prior to leaving office yesterday. “This threat has not evaporated, and we can’t turn the page on it.”

“Unwarranted Self-Abasement”
By Bruce Thornton Monday, January 26, 2009
Only a toxic self-loathing could put the views of such people ahead of our own security and belief in the justice of our cause. This same pathology explains why we take seriously charges of imperialistic aggression coming from practitioners of a faith that ignited one of the most aggressive and destructive imperial expansions in history. It explains the suicidal double-standard whereby Muslim attacks on Jews and Christians, or Muslim desecration of Jewish and Christian holy places, are ignored in the West, at the same time we wring our hands and apologize over innocuous cartoons whose publication expresses our cherished right to free speech. Behind this lunacy lies the notion that we have it coming, that we are guilty, that our motives are impure, that we are the arch-demons behind all global misery––when by any objective reading of history America has been, and still is, the greatest force for good in history.
How much worse is our condition today, when this “self-abasement” has now hardened into banal clichés repeated in popular culture, school curricula, and the received wisdom of badly educated pundits. And we see its effects in the promises of the new Democratic regime that is eager, under the cover of “vigorous diplomacy,” to subject American interests to the strictures of a “vague internationalism,” which in reality is merely the camouflage other nations use to pursue their interests at the expense of our own. Yet this approach, whose failure is institutionalized in the U.N., will not deliver the promised boons. On the contrary, to the jihadists fired with faith in the righteousness of their own cause and beliefs, this eagerness to shoulder the blame for their dysfunctions, this desire to exchange flabby words for vigorous deeds will simply convince them that for all our wealth and power, we don’t really believe in our professed values and so are ripe for destruction.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Australia to Islamic Sharia Law: Get Out of Our Country !

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia
Posted by ZZ Bachman...
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation’s mosques:
‘IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture.
Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians’.
Finally a world leader who calls it like he sees it. Prime Minister John Howard of Australia. America, Europe and the rest of the world should take a page out of your book!
John Howard directs his words below to those who would embrace sharia law radical Islam and Islamofacism within his country, Australia under the cover of “religion”.
BRAVO John Howard…
Prime Minister John Howard of Australia:
‘This (Australian) culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom’. ‘We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!’
‘Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it o n the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.’
‘We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.’
‘This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, ‘THE RIGHT TO LEAVE’.’
‘If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.’
Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, American citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths.

William Ewart Gladstone (1809–1898) was Prime Minister of Great Britain four times: 1868–74, 1880–85, 1886 and 1892–94. He called the Qur'an an "accursed book" and once held it up during a session of Parliament, declaring: "So long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world."
Times have changed a great deal. Now the votaries of the book he saw as such an impediment to peace have triumphed: an Islamic reading room is being set up at the library Gladstone founded near his home in North Wales. In thisGladstone's great grandson Christopher Parish and Professor Richard Aldous, head of history at University College Dublin, tie themselves into knots trying to come up with a reason why Gladstone would have approved of this reading room. Gladstone, you see, was a man of his time, but he actually made favorable comments about Muhammad in the margins of a biography of the founder of Islam, and his remarks weren't as extreme as those of some of his contemporaries...
It doesn't add up. The text of the Qur'an has not changed from the late 19th century to the early 21st. What has changed is the prevailing attitude toward the book. Now it has become a manifestation of bigotry and hatred to see in the Islamic holy book anything but peace and tolerance. But the text of the book remains the same. If it was an impediment to peace in Gladstone's day, it is now. If it is an uplifting exhortation to peace and tolerance now, then it was in Gladstone's day as well.
Yesterday Geert Wilders said: "I view Islam not as a religion, but as a dangerous, totalitarian ideology - equal to communism and fascism. Aren't I allowed to say so?"
No, he isn't allowed to say so. If he had been born two hundred years ago, he might have become Prime Minister of the Netherlands. Instead, he is a hunted man. Likewise Gladstone, were he miraculously transported to the House of Commons in 2009, would be excoriated for "hate speech" if he dared to repeat his view of the Qur'an today.
But the Qur'an remains the same. Eventually, Europe and America are going to deal with the implications of that fact, one way or another.

Top Saudi threatens U.S. over Israel

"... upon the promptings of Iran, Saudi Arabia will "lead a jihad, or holy war, against Israel."

Consider yourselves warned, infidels

"If the U.S. wants to continue playing a leadership role in the Middle East and keep its strategic alliances intact -- especially its 'special relationship' with Saudi Arabia -- it will have to drastically revise its policies vis-a-vis Israel and Palestine." He even suggests a risk that, upon the promptings of Iran, Saudi Arabia will "lead a jihad, or holy war, against Israel."
Good ol' Prince Turki al-Faisal. Only a little over a year ago did I see this now saber-rattling sheikh at the U.S. Library of Congress; of course, then he was treated -- as are all deep-pocketed Saudis -- with much pomp and grandeur.
"Saudi prince says U.S. ties at risk over Mideast,"
from Reuters, January 22:
LONDON (Reuters) - A member of Saudi Arabia's royal family warned U.S. President Barack Obama Friday the Middle East peace process and U.S.-Saudi ties were at risk unless Washington changed tack on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel had come close to "killing the prospect of peace" with its offensive in Gaza, Prince Turki al-Faisal wrote in an article published on the Financial Times's website.
"Unless the new U.S. administration takes forceful steps to prevent any further suffering and slaughter of Palestinians, the peace process, the U.S.-Saudi relationship and the stability of the region are at risk," said Turki, a former Saudi intelligence chief and former ambassador to the United States and Britain.[...]
Former U.S. President George W. Bush's administration had left a "sickening legacy" in the Middle East, Turki wrote, singling out the Iraq war.
The Bush administration had also contributed to the "slaughter of innocents" in Gaza, said Turki, who currently holds no official government position in the world's top crude oil exporter.
"If the U.S. wants to continue playing a leadership role in the Middle East and keep its strategic alliances intact -- especially its 'special relationship' with Saudi Arabia -- it will have to drastically revise its policies vis-a-vis Israel and Palestine," Turki wrote. He said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had written to Saudi King Abdullah last week urging Saudi Arabia to lead a "jihad," or holy war, against Israel.
This call for jihad would, if pursued, create "unprecedented chaos and bloodshed" in the region, said Turki.
"So far, the kingdom has resisted these calls, but every day this restraint becomes more difficult to maintain," he said.
Turki urged Obama to condemn what he called "Israel's atrocities" against the Palestinians...

Fortuyn, van Gogh, Ali had been stopped; now it's Wilders’ turn.

Bruce Bawer
Bruce Bawer is the author of While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within. He blogs at
Submission in the Netherlands
The trial of Geert Wilders represents another blow against Dutch freedom.
22 January 2009
“The Freedom Party (PVV),” read yesterday’s press release, “is shocked by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s decision to prosecute Geert Wilders for his statements and opinions. Geert Wilders considers this ruling an all-out assault on freedom of speech.”
The appalling decision to try Wilders, the Freedom Party’s head and the Dutch Parliament’s only internationally famous member, for “incitement to hatred and discrimination” against Islam is indeed an assault on free speech. But no one who has followed events in the Netherlands over the last decade can have been terribly surprised by it. Far from coming out of the blue, this is the predictable next step in a long, shameful process of accommodating Islam—and of increasingly aggressive attempts to silence Islam’s critics—on the part of the Dutch establishment.


Barack Obama has certain traits which make him "genetically and mentally superior to the average person." - M.I.T.
Many Americans, even Conservatives, bandy about the term "democracy" when referring to our nation's form of government as outlined by the founders. Some compromise with the Left by calling our system a "democratic-republic".
The Founding Fathers envisioned this nation as a "republic", untainted by the inherent failings of all other forms of government. Is it infallible? No. A republic must be held in high regard by its citizenry or it will decay, much like we see happening today.
Parents, I think, would do well to show their children this video whenever they reach the age that they have some comprehension of the importance of governing and whom we choose to govern its citizens. Discussions about it will surely follow, perhaps throughout their lifetime.
Government is the epitome of waste, fraud, abuse and corruption
The Coming Civil War!
By Ron Ewart Monday, January 26, 2009
If you are a hard-working, responsible, self-reliant and successful American, how do you like billions of your taxes paying for bank, business and ne’er-do-well homebuyer bailouts, homebuyers that were encouraged by government to buy homes they couldn’t afford? How do you like your government using trillions of your tax dollars for ill advised stimulus packages that won’t work and aren’t working?
How do you like paying for education, health care, housing and safety-net benefits for illegal aliens that are streaming into America by the millions? How do you like our open border policy and the lack of enforcement of existing laws that have become the magnet for those millions to come here in the first place? And how do you like the fact that politicians in both parties purposely allow these things to happen, for the sole purpose of increasing their base of future voters? To make matters worse, under the current regime, (socialist administration) amnesty for illegals is coming our way very soon, no matter how most Americans will object. After all, these politicians know what is best for us, don’t they?
A short list of the people, organizations and things responsible for the unravelling of our country.
Not-so-promising recap of Obama's first week in office:
Oh, and most of his senior staff was served with subpoenas.
Iranian arms ship intercepted by US warship has sealed secret holds
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
January 25, 2009, 9:15 PM (GMT+02:00)

Iranian freighter for smuggling arms to Hamas
The Iranian ship boarded by a US Navy Coast Guard team on the Red Sea last week before it could smuggle arms to Hamas is now disclosed by DEBKAfile's military sources to have tried to trick the search team by enclosing its rocket cargo in secret compartments behind layers of steel. Furthermore, our sources reveal, the US has not yet found a harbor in the region for carrying out a thorough search.
To break the Iranian ship's holds open and expose the rockets destined for Hamas, the facilities of a sizeable port are needed.
The option of towing it to a Persian Gulf port for an intensive search was rejected because the Gulf emirates hosting US bases were almost certain to shy away from involvement in the affair. Moreover, Tehran would be close enough to mount a naval commando operation to scuttle the ship before it was searched.
Our military sources estimate that eventually the US government may decide to let the Iranian arms ship sail through the Suez Canal out to the Mediterranean for lack of other options...
Racism of the Congressional Black Caucus
President's spokesman cites 'membership policies' as explanation
"... there has been an unofficial congressional white caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join the 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color
. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives..."

Wonderful: Iran Likely to Have a Nuke This Year
"... Third World thinks (whites/north) have always oppressed it and -
- must therefore fall at its feet now. This is very serious."
Obama chooses Arab network for first TV interview
He's the Antichrist-Imposter-In-Chief
NJ: Unemployed Immigrants Move into Caves

"By Allah, imprisonment only increased our persistence in our principles for which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for."

Guantanamo’s manipulators leading the new Jihad
By Walid Phares
These are the words loudly uttered by an al-Qaeda cadre who was detained in GITMO for a number of years and released in 2007 back to the region. This statement comes at a time the detention center has been ordered to be shut down within a year. This episode provides evidence that Jihadism as an ideology does not respond to the political culture of democracy nor are the indoctrinated Jihadists impacted by the moral and legal debate within what they see as the sphere of the infidels. The Guantanamo legal and ethical drama will continue to be discussed in the United Sates and the West, but for now let's look at the outpouring harsh facts...