Friday, February 29, 2008
If you've come here to read some heart-rending, tear-jerking tales from combat zones, this ain't the place.
It can get you and your men killed. But then, if you did what your sense of a military man told you was right, you would be going against the "Rules of Engagement" (ROE).
U.S. NAVY SEALS IN AFGHANISTAN
In June 2005, a group of US Navy Seals were operating in Afghanistan against the Taliban, attempting to rescue other Americans, when they similarly were detected by three shepherds, one a child. They allowed the shepherds to go free. They alerted the Taliban. All but one of the Americans were killed.
...The four Seals zigzagged all night and through the morning until they reached a wooded slope. An Afghan man wearing a turban suddenly appeared, then a farmer and a teenage boy. Luttrell gave a PowerBar to the boy while the Seals debated whether the Afghans would live or die.
If the Seals killed the unarmed civilians, they would violate military rules of engagement; if they let them go, they risked alerting the Taliban. According to Luttrell, one Seal voted to kill them, one voted to spare them and one abstained. It was up to Luttrell.
Part of his calculus was practical. "I didn't want to go to jail." Ultimately, the core of his decision was moral. "A frogman has two personalities. The military guy in me wanted to kill them," he recalled. And yet: "They just seemed like -- people. I'm not a murderer."
Luttrell, by his account, voted to let the Afghans go. "Not a day goes by that I don't think about that decision," he said. "Not a second goes by."
At 1:20 p.m., about an hour after the Seals released the Afghans, dozens of Taliban members overwhelmed them. The civilians he had spared, Luttrell believed, had betrayed them. At the end of a two-hour firefight, only he remained alive...
Americans and Israelis are comrades in arms fighting Islamofascist terror, and sometimes also suffer from the same misplaced "compassion."
FOR the reason why warriors hesitate to do what they are supposed to:
click on Answer to Compassion in Combat
Death by Rules of Engagement
The Rules of Engagement . . . Are Too Stringent
What Worries Us Most about the Islamic's Jihad
BUT BE SURE TO READ ON BELOW . . . HOW AN ENTIRE RELIEF COLUMN WAS FACED WITH A DILEMMA . . . AND HOW THEY REACTED . . . AND WHAT HAPPENED
Comrades in Arms and Misplaced 'Compassion'
by Steven Plaut
A few days ago it was the 60th anniversary of the massacre of the "Lamed Heh" or the 35 Jewish fighters attempting to relieve the besieged Gush Etzion settlements in January of 1948. Several items appeared recently in the Hebrew press, and my own article on the event appeared in the Jewish Press.
'Iin January 1948, Gush Etzion was surrounded by Arab militias. Jerusalem itself was also besieged and would soon be cut off and starved. An Israeli army did not yet exist; instead, a number of ragtag and poorly equipped Jewish militias attempted to defend the Jewish areas against the attackers. In cases where the Jewish militias failed, captured civilians were generally massacred by the Arabs. Many of the murdered Jews were Holocaust survivors.
'The Jerusalem militias sent out a company of 38 young men, half of them students from Hebrew University, to relieve the besieged Gush Etzion villages. It shows the desperation of the Israeli Jews at the time that a company of 38 people was considered a major reinforcement. The fighters carried heavy packs of food and ammunition, and so proceeded slowly. On the way to Gush Etzion, one militiaman fractured his ankle and was taken back to Jerusalem by two others, leaving the company with 35 fighters.
'They marched by night, led by two experienced scouts. But before reaching their goal, they were discovered by an elderly Arab shepherd. (A British version of events later had them detected by two Arab women shepherds.) The militiamen grabbed the shepherd, but were then faced with a moral dilemma. Some proposed shooting him on the spot, because, they said, if he were released he would immediately alert the Arab militias in the vicinity, who would attack the relief company. War is war, they argued, and the lives of hundreds of people depended on the success of their operation.
'Others among the Jewish militiamen objected. We cannot just kill him in cold blood, they said. Our military operation must be ethically pure. And we can't even tie him up and leave him in a cave - he might die there slowly, or he might escape and alert the Arabs. The shepherd (or shepherds in the alternative version) swore on all that was holy that if released, he would not breathe a word. In the end, the Jewish militiamen decided to release the shepherd. The shepherd immediately ran to the nearest village housing the Arab militias and alerted them to the presence of the Jews. The Arabs attacked the outmanned and outgunned Jews. Every single Jewish militiaman was massacred. Their bodies were horribly mutilated. Later, the Arabs demanded money from the British in return for the corpses.
'Even worse, the Gush Etzion villages were never relieved or reinforced. Without reinforcements, those villages eventually fell to the onslaught of the Arab marauders and the regular Jordanian army (the Arab Legion). When Kfar Etzion, the largest of the villages, fell, virtually the entire Jewish civilian population was massacred, 250 people in all. Only three Jews survived.'
FOR the reason why warriors hesitate to do what they are supposed to, see
Death by Rules of Engagement
The Rules of Engagement . . . Are Too Stringent
What Worries Us Most about the Islamic's Jihad
from Jewish World Review
President Bush's trip to Africa and promise of increased foreign aid will do little or nothing to solve the ongoing tragedy in most places on the south-of-Sahara African continent. Kenya is on the brink of a civil war. Over 1,000 people have been killed and another 300,000 made homeless. Rebels have invaded Chad. In the Darfur region of the Sudan, millions of people have been displaced in a genocidal war. Ethiopia and Eritrea threaten war again. Somalian warlords are in a pitched battle. Zimbabwe, once an independent, thriving jewel on the continent, now ruled by a tyrant, is on the brink of disaster, experiencing a 66,000 percent rate of inflation, expected to be over 100,000 percent by year's end. To put that inflation in perspective, the government has recently started printing 10 million Zimbabwe dollar notes. A hamburger sells for 15 million Zimbabwe dollars.
The recent African carnage is by no means new. During a 100-day period in 1994, an estimated 800,000 Rwandans, mostly Tutsis, were killed. There were an estimated 100,000 to 500,000 Ugandans murdered under the brutal rule of Idi Amin. Liberia, Ivory Coast and the Congo have been racked by war, and slavery exists to this day in Mauritania and Sudan. Added to this carnage is gross corruption, AIDS, famine and repression.
African leaders, and many people on the left, blame Africa's problems on the evils of colonialism. They sometimes blame the violence on the borders colonialists created that ignored ethnicity. Many African nations have been independent for four decades. If colonial borders were a major problem, how come they haven't changed them? And, by the way, colonialism cannot explain Third World poverty. Some of today's richest countries are former colonies, such as: United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. Some of today's poorest countries were never colonies, such as: Ethiopia, Liberia, Tibet, Nepal and Bhutan. The colonialism argument is simply a cover up for African dictators.
The worst thing the West can do to Africa is to give more foreign aid. For the most part, foreign aid is government to government. As such, it provides the financial resources that enable Africa's grossly corrupt and incompetent regimes to buy military equipment, pay off cronies and continue to oppress their people. It also provides resources for the leaders to live lavishly and set up "retirement" accounts in foreign banks.
Africa is the world's most natural-resources rich continent. It has 50 percent of the world's gold, most of the world's diamonds and chromium, 90 percent of the cobalt, 40 percent of the world's potential hydroelectric power, 65 percent of the manganese, and millions of acres of untilled farmland, as well as other natural resources. Before independence, every African country was self-sufficient in food production; today, many depend on imports and others stand at the brink of famine.
The only people who can solve the problems of Africa are Africans themselves. It is only they who can change their leaders, end corruption and bring about transparency in government and end the African wars. Only they can stop the continent's massive brain drain. This was brought home to me, a number of years ago, at a dinner I was invited to in honor of a new Nigerian ambassador to the United States. During his speech, he admonished the Nigerian professionals in attendance to come home to help the country develop. The Nigerians seated at my table, and nearby tables, fell into quiet laughter.
Most of what Africa needs, the West cannot give: rule of law, private property rights, fewer economic restrictions, independent judiciary and limited government. The one important thing we can do to help is to lower our trade barriers.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION by Leslie White
From Kenya: Agreement between Barack Obama's kinsman's movement and the Muslim Leaders Forum
See the foregoing Afrocentricity!
What is it? Looking to Africa for the answers!
Here is what Obama's church finds so appealing about being black and looking towards Africa:
[edited to emphasize Afrocentricity]
This is Barack Obama's church.
Trinity United Church of Christ
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.
Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.
The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:
1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.
2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.
3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.
Moslems have been allowed to get a foothold in the United states through uncontrolled, Saudi-greased immigration. We gave them a finger (not the finger we should have given them though) and they took our arm. Now they are well on their way to eating our whole body. Blame G. W. Bush with his Saudi-sucking ways, the State Department that has been and still is being bought by these same Masters of the Oil, or a blind, all-religions-deserve-the-same-respect American population, whatever, the only way the damage can be reversed is by watering the Tree of Liberty (and not with water either).
The Islamic infiltrators and saboteurs of our Constitution have manged to scare the beejezus out of our academic institution--from our Universities down to our public schools. They have done so cleverly by using our "democracy," our "freedom for all religions," our desire for "the same rights for all," against us.
They have used our "freedom for all religions" to build their mosques, blighting our landscape, and insulting our ears with their "call to prayers."
Now that same youth that was and is being educated in our Moslem-fearing colleges and universities has been given a Messiah to lead them deeper and deeper into the morass of sharia. The attractive, oratorical candidate for President: the Muslim-tainted Barack Obama. The "yearning-to-be-free-of-Bush," "tax-the-rich," and "give us everything we need for free" crowd follows--as of course do the African-Americans who see the new Messiah (actually a Pied Piper) as their chance finally to rise to the top of the heap.
Where is Obama-the-Pied-Piper trying to lead us? Look at his recent past associations: Louis Farrakhan of the "Nation of Islam," his Afrocentric church with its "blacks-first-always" pastor, and his closeness with his Moslem African (Kenyan) relatives and associates.
As to Obama's "Muslim-ness," see Obama and Islam: The Third Rail in American Politics at Atlas Shrugs .
Yes, the "grand design," the Greater jihad is in full swing. What can we do? What we must*.
MOSLEM DEMANDS ARE TURNING THE UNITED STATES INTO AN ISLAMIC STATE
from Jihad Watch
. . . [t]he MSA [Muslim Students Association], the chief proponent of the growing Muslim accommodations movement in the United States, was listed as a “friend” of the Muslim Brotherhood in the infamous 1992 memorandum which spoke of the “grand Jihad” aimed at “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” The victory of Allah’s religion over other religions is a Qur’anic imperative: “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah” (8:39), and it is an inherently supremacist imperative, in which non-Muslims pay a special tax from which Muslims are exempt, the jizya, “with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (9:29).
Segregation Not Integration
from Jihad Watch
And just as they were deemed unequal in 1954 [U.S. Civil Rights movement] because they abetted cultural attitudes that exalted one group as superior to the other, so also today: the demands of Muslim groups for separate facilities are in the service of a supremacist ideology that emanates from the Qur’anic assertions that Muslims are the “best of people” (3:110) while unbelievers are the “vilest of created beings” (98:6). Unbelievers are unclean (9:28) – which leads to the conclusion, reasonable to the pious, that Muslims should be chary of contact with them. Every Western capitulation made to demands for Muslim accommodation only feeds these supremacist notions, and works directly against the actual goals of the civil rights movement, which were equal justice and equal rights for all.
the demands of Muslim groups for separate facilities are in the service of a supremacist ideology that emanates from the Qur’anic assertions that Muslims are the “best of people” (3:110) while unbelievers are the “vilest of created beings” (98:6). Unbelievers are unclean (9:28) – which leads to the conclusion, reasonable to the pious, that Muslims should be chary of contact with them. Every Western capitulation made to demands for Muslim accommodation only feeds these supremacist notions, and works directly against the actual goals of the civil rights movement, which were equal justice and equal rights for all.
It’s ironic that such calls for equal consideration would be made in service of an agenda that is so interested in being separate: the calls for separate eating and exercise facilities are a strange discordant note in a movement that claims for itself the mantle of the American civil rights movements. By the MSA’s lights, the Muslim Rosa Parks would insist on sitting in a separate place on the bus, and Muslim students would demand the right not to have to eat at infidel lunch counters.
*What Must Be Done:
adapted from Fitzgerald: 100 things Europe can do to protect itself
“The poll, carried out across 21 countries, found “widespread anti-immigration sentiment”, but warned Europe’s Muslim population will treble in the next 17 years." -- from this news article
"Will treble?" Is this simply a given? There is nothing Europeans can do about this to protect their own legacy, their own art, science, legal and political institutions, their own physical security? Nothing?
[THE FOLLOWING POINTS APPLY TO WHAT MUST BE DONE IN THE UNITED STATES TO KEEP US FROM GOING UNDER AND BECOMING DHIMMIS UNDER ISLAMIC DOMINATION]
Many things can be done. By god, I could list a hundred:
1. Halt Muslim migration. If you seek its justification, circumspice.
2. Deport all Muslim non-citizens. They have no divine right to remain.
3. Make naturalization tests much stiffer, requiring knowledge of the history and culture of whatever European nation is giving the test. A loyalty oath to the nation-state should be required, one which makes express the foreswearing of all other loyalties, and that includes a phrase about perjury being grounds for the stripping of citizenship so obtained.
Make sure the oath is written so as to expressly exclude a higher loyalty offered to Islam or to fellow members of the Umma throughout the world.
4. Put much more effort and money into enforcing the laws that exist (or if those laws are not strong enough, make them stronger) so that those who fraudulently receive benefits, and who have been violating the law (say, on polygamy), or who refuse to work (and receive unemployment benefits) though able-bodied, are subject not only to being permanently deprived of all such benefits provided by the Infidel state (free health care, free education, free or greatly-subsidized housing) but that the property such people may have accumulated is seized by the state. There have been too many cases of very large sums being accumulated by Muslims who officially have been on the dole. This problem is not confined to one European country, but can be found everywhere.
5. Make conviction for violence or threats of violence that are prompted by a refusal to accept freedom of speech as understood in the West to be grounds for immediate deportation of non-citizens and of deportation, after a hearing (before special courts, with judges versed in Islamic ideology), of those who managed to acquire citizenship in countries for which they do not feel, and cannot possibly feel, any real loyalty.
6. Interdict, by seizure (with no return), any sums that are sent from abroad by Muslim governments or groups to pay for mosques and madrasas within the lands of Western Europe. Make it very difficult for such buildings to be erected, and use the opposition of local communities, and the zoning laws, to prevent more such buildings from going up.
7. Make sure that the race-relations industry is not roped into defending what has nothing to do with "racism" but with a clear and distinct set of ideas, inculcated by Islam. To wit: the duty of Jihad to remove all barriers to the spread, and then dominance, of Islam, and the view of the universe as being divided in two, between Believers and Infidels, with the former required to see themselves as in a permanent state of war (though not always and everywhere in a state of open warfare -- not if the Infidels are too strong) with Infidels.
8. Do everything to encourage, in and out of schools, the study of the real Islam, and everything to discourage, to expose and to mock, the presentations of Islam by the sly apologists, whether the apologist is a sweetly-smiling hijabbed Muslimah prepared to explain the "real Islam" at some interfaith-racket Outreach to Infidels at some Mosque Open Night, or at the local library or meeting-hall.
9. Make sure that members of the political and media elites are vigilantly observed by those whom they presume to instruct and protect, to see if they themselves understand Islam sufficiently. Do not let them continue to get away with ignoring this subject, acting as if "of course" Islam is "moderate" or to pretend that real, detailed knowledge, both of what is inculcated in the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and what the 1350-year history of Muslim conquest and subjugation of every kind of Infidel, is somehow unnecessary for their own functions and duties, a waste of time, an irrelevancy. It is not.
10. This one I leave to you.
11-100. And these too.
from Jihad Watch
How to stop Islamization
Even More Drastic Times Call for Even More Drastic Measures
especially the last third of the post: "And now here is what YOU can do."
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Senator Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin stand during the national anthem.
Barack Hussein Obama (that's his real name*)......REFUSED NOT ONLY TO PUT HIS HAND ON HIS HEART DURING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, BUT REFUSED TO SAY THE PLEDGE
.....how can a man like that expect to be our next Commander-in-Chief
Barack H. Obama does not approve of the United states as it exists--his wife does not approve of the United states as it has existed for some 200-odd years--and wants CHANGE
But what kind of CHANGE does the junior senator from Illinois want to impose on us, the citizens of these United States?
Any Revolution emanating from the Left--with a leadership such as Obama--Afrocentrically oriented, would be determined to turn the the society upside down--that is to let the bottom classes rise to the top and make what are now the upper classes subservient to them.
The "disposessed" rise to the top--are in control--via a benevolent (to them) dictator.
A Revolution that emanates from the Left, would most likely end in a Socialist dictatorship that could easily slip into the grasp of the Islamics and end with these latter triumphant.
--from REVOLUTION . . .
*Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Harry S Truman
Dwight David Eisenhower
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Lyndon Baines Johnson
Richard Milhouse Nixon
Gerald R(udolph) Ford
Jimmy (James Earl) Carter (Jr.)
Ronald (Wilson) Reagan
George Walker Bush
William Jefferson Clinton
and pray, why
Barack Obama ?
Why not Barack Hussein Obama?
Is the candidate trying to make something less obvious to us?
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
WHAT IS ISLAM?
To quote Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch:
What would have happened, had we all -- the United States, Israel, the countries of Western Europe -- known enough about what is in the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and understood that Islam is not only, or mainly, a "religion" as we use that world, but a Total System, a Politics-and-a-Religion-and-a-Social-Code, a Total System whose workings-out, in history, can be seen over 1350 years, in the conquest, and subsequent subjugation, of all manner of non-Muslims.
What would have happened, had we all....only known?
Posted by: Hugh at February 26, 2008 9:02 AM
more, much more, click on the date above to read the entire comment by the incomparable Hugh Fitzgerald
Comments to the main post at
The entire post at http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020102.php
We are indebted for the photo of the koran to Sheik Yer'Mami's Winds of Jihad
Monday, February 25, 2008
If--or when--a civil uprising should ever come to these United States again, from whence will it originate? Civil unrest--revolution--usually originates in the minds of intellectuals. Civil unrest must have an ideology behind it--ideas--and these spawn in the fertile minds of the intellectuals.
People who are --who must be--concerned with staying alive, concentrate on their work, leaving little space for idle cogitating. The mind of the intellectual, is constantly beset by feverish activity to solve the problems of existence he/she sees around him/herself.
Intellectuals are commonly thought to belong to the progressive part of the public--the Left. But would it be Leftist intellectuals that strike the spark that lights the flame of liberty?
REVOLUTION FROM THE LEFT
Sara Robinson in her article When Change Is Not Enough: Seven Steps to Revolution appears to believe so. Revolution, if it were to come, would come from the Liberals--led by such as Obama. Obama? Liberals? But aren't they for gun control? For "multiculturalism," the opening that our enemies, determined on taking over the United States for Islam, are using to subvert our laws and establish Islamic law--sharia--to replace the Constitution and make it irrelevant?
Any Revolution emanating from the Left--with a leadership such as Obama--Afrocentrically oriented, would be determined to turn the the society upside down--that is to let the bottom classes rise to the top and make what are now the upper classes subservient to them.
Yes, we have these types of Revolutions today, Hugo Chavez's in Venezuela was such a one. Not entirely bloodless, but nothing like a civil war and he has the country in the grip of a Socialist regime--just as Castro has done with Cuba.
The "disposessed" rise to the top--are in control--via a benevolent (to them) dictator.
A Revolution that emanates from the Left, would most likely end in a Socialist dictatorship that could easily slip into the grasp of the Islamics and end with these latter triumphant.
REVOLUTION FROM THE RIGHT
We have an ever-increasing polarization in the United States. There are those that are open to the Islamics taking over (the Left) and those who are determined that they will not (the Right). Who will win?
The late George Mason said:
I think that the jihadis will feel so emboldened that they will bring their destructiveness to our homeland. I also think that will be their undoing because I think Mr. and Mrs. Average American will clean them out of America.
What really concerns me, however, is that this may well precipitate another civil war within America. That war will pit those of the Left (the anti-Americans) against those of the Right (the pro-Americans). Wars may be necessary occasionally, but they are never good. Even the best have a real Pyrrhic victory quality to them. Recovering from a civil war would be as horrible as having one. George Mason http://sixthcolumn.typepad.com/sixth_column/
How will an "alliance' between marxists and moslems end? See MARXISTS, MUSLIMS AND THE BETRAYAL OF THE WORKING CLASS AND SUPPRESSION OF ITS WOMEN
More on civil war in America by George Mason:
A New Civil War Approaches
It should frighten the living hell out of you to realize that, in America, right now, you are living in a cultural milieu horribly similar to that of the Weimar Republic, which made the ascendancy of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis inevitable. If this does not frighten you, then ask yourself whether you can afford to remain ignorant any longer.*
* Leslie White says re the Weimar Republic, remember the following:
History is not a recipe book; past events are never replicated in the present in quite the same way. Historical events are infinitely variable and their interpretations are a constantly shifting process. There are no certainties to be found in the past.--Gerda Lerner at WHY MOSLEMS CANNOT LEARN ANYTHING FROM HISTORY ________________________________________
America’s culture today comes from its fifth column, made up of America’s Left and its more recent allies, the jihadists. This fifth column intends to bring down America. If you do not understand these groups and processes, you will live to see America’s collapse and its conversion to a totalitarian state, quite possibly even an Islamic one.
Fortunately, there is a cure.
In this article, I emphasize the book, Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America (by Leonard Peikoff; Stein and Day; New York; 1982; ISBN 0-451-62210-3). The author is a professional philosopher with a gift that enables him to speak and write so that intelligent people, not formally trained in philosophy, can understand him and apply what he says directly to their lives.
This truly great book spells out what happened to Germany and above all, WHY it happened. It also spells out how and WHY America has been following Germany’s path and grows dangerously close to the immediate pre-Hitler period of the Weimar Republic. It is these “whys” that make this book uniquely and extremely valuable, and it is the quality of its ideas and their presentation that separates it from all other books which have unsuccessfully tried to account for the reasons for the rise of Nazism.
The current Democrat Party of the USA, straight out of Ominous Parallels, has bedded and wedded the new totalitarians, the ones described so well by David Horowitz recently in Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left (Regnery; New York; 2004; ISBN 0-89526-076-X). [On this website, I have recently reviewed the Horowitz book. BOTH BOOKS COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER WELL.]
It Can Be Stopped, Reversed, Even Cured
There is a permanent cure.
Getting to the correction of our drift as American Weimar into American Nazism, Leonard Peikoff states:
“What fundamental truths did the Nazis and the American collectivists and all their sources in the history of philosophy struggle to evade and annihilate? The answer is contained in two concepts, with everything they include, lead to, and presuppose: reason and egoism. These two, properly understood and accepted, are the immovable barrier to any attempt to establish totalitarian rule.
“Reason destroys fear; egoism destroys guilt. More precisely: reason does not permit man to feel metaphysically helpless; egoism does not permit man to accept unearned guilt or to regard himself as a sacrificial animal.” (302)
All of these virulent socialists have reemerged from the collapse of the old left and old communism to form what Mr. Horowitz properly calls the “neocommunists,” or “neocomms.” The neocomms, however, have devolved from their pining for the new world order of old communism to raw nihilism—destruction of everything. Their goal is to destroy America and everything it stands for, and now they have new partners.
The new partners are the Islamic jihadists, who want exactly the same thing: The destruction of America and all it stands for. This is the hardcore FIFTH COLUMN, with many strap-hangers along for the ride. This is the UNHOLY ALLIANCE David Horowitz presents. And, hold your hats, the Unholy Alliance is WINNING. If we don’t get off our derrieres, we are going to be herded into a totalitarian state worse than any of those in the 20th century, and we will be bowing to Mecca five times a day.
The Unholy Alliance members are organized, and they are speaking with one voice, from one sheet of paper, as the expression goes. We Americans are not organized, nor are we speaking from the same sheet of paper. We are divided, in part by the effect of our own ignorance, direct effects philosopher John Dewey unleashed on American education (from K-12 and through all of the teachers colleges, and into the university system), and the total takeover of academia and all media by neocomms. In short, we are facing a principled and consistent leftist alliance combating US, an under-principled and very inconsistent America and West. If we do not become fully principled, and very consistent in their application, we will lose to this new Fifth Column.
Unholy Alliance rips the scab off the neocomm-jihadist fusion and exposes it to the light of truth in a short, easy to digest, and potent book. You cannot read this book and stick your head in the sand again. You cannot read this book and try to find middle ground or otherwise compromise with your destroyers. You can read this book and get up fighting mad and ready to fight effectively for America.
David Horowitz grew up in a household with American communist parents, and he became a communist. In the 1960s, he became one of the neocommunists and remained one into the 1970s until he got a blinding flash of reason and realized the logical consequences of his allegiance and behavior. Because of his past, however, he knows these people in and out. He can tell the tales better than anyone else around. When David speaks, we should listen.
American intellectuals embraced communism and the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s with a blind adulation that makes me want to vomit. World War II killed communism as a movement, and Stalin’s excesses grossed out even the communists and comsymps or fellow travelers. Communism after WWII ceased as a movement. Subsequently, the failures of socialism around the world became obvious even to the left, and it died also as a movement but not as a force still exerting influence by default. The death of old communism left many ideologically homeless. These homeless did not blame the failed ideologies at all. As Ed Asner said on the radio, they said that the practitioners had failed, not the ideology—the ideology had not been practiced correctly, they firmly believed and believe. This is a major thought disorder neocomms have in common, and they cannot be persuaded from it by reason any more than a schizophrenic can be reasoned out of schizophrenia.
These ideologically homeless coalesced into the New Left, or neocommunists. They retained their love for totalitarian (“utopian”) ideas and their hatred for America and capitalism. Their practice became “creative destruction,” a concept stolen from capitalism and perverted to mean “nihilism.” They hate the present and live in the future. They want to destroy the present world. They hate reality—the world as it IS. They actually believe that they have to destroy America to make it well, which is warmed over Marxism. Believe me, there is nothing original with these people. Their primary goal is NIHILISM, destruction for the sake of destruction, sweetened with some pie-in-the-sky future fantasizing about eventually finding their utopia of no needs, no wants, no differences, no poverty, no wealth, no disruptive progress, and just static ecstasy— like Islam’s Paradise. For now, they want nihilism, hating the good for being good, like Islam.
Neocomms began populating academia in the 1970s, becoming a major influence in academia in the 1980s. By the turn of the 1990s they had taken over the academic fountainhead. It was they who launched “political correctness” and “multiculturalism.” It was they who played the race and gender cards in every contest, no matter how inappropriate. It has been they who took over the minds of the "humanities" graduates, journalists, and politicians. They have successfully bullied the morally uncertain, who now bend obsequiously to political correctness, to get their way. That is why we have this epistemological, moral, and political relativism mess today.
Neocomms really believe that they had been given a green light during the tenure of the Clinton administration, when they felt their kind had come into their own, in and out of office. They proliferated during this period, inserting themselves into every nook and cranny in America that they could. (A Kerry presidency would have utterly revitalized them, and they would have had carte blanche to damage us terribly during his presidency). They took over the Democrat Party and began converting it to what it appears to be today which looks more day by day like America’s Nazi party, replete with Brown Shirts and Brown Skirts, even involving a number of rank and file Democrats who became “Kristallnachters” during the 2004 election season, and even after the election. They have sought and crave power wherever it could and can be begged, bought, or stolen. Like jihadists, they need raw physical power to survive.
Meanwhile, in 1979, Khomeini in Iran launched the jihadism we face today, financed by Iranian oil, aided and abetted by the Sunni Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia, with the consent and funding of the Saudi regime. Islamic nihilism burst onto the world.
Since 11 September 2001, the neocomms and the jihadists in America fused to achieve the same symbiotic end. The two are almost indistinguishable in content, rhetoric, and behavior. As a result, we have a ferociously dangerous FIFTH COLUMN in America and throughout the West. We have organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, National Lawyers Guild, and Center for Constitutional Rights, ANSWER, Not In My Name, Code Pink, AFCSME and other unions, and many others, linking with the United Nations, Council for American-Islamic Relations, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim Students Association, Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and many others. Some of these names are from the book, and others I have added because of their obvious neocomm-jihadist orientation. Joining them are strap-hanger Fifth Columnist comsymps in the Democrat Party such as Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and the Democrat Party dumpling, Michael Moore, as well as almost half the U. S. Senate. The bulk of American journalism—print and broadcast--vibrates in sympathy and support, and almost all of American education at all levels dances to the neocomms-jihadist tunes. This is not “conspiracy theorizing.” It is fact, and Horowitz proves the case.
Their plan is first to paralyze America with legal and moral-appearing means. Then they will move in to kill the paralyzed beast of America.
Mr. Horowitz makes the case and names the names. He threatens this fifth column so much that they have launched a campaign to discredit him and this book. Just that behavior alone should make you run out and buy the book.
The final chapter concerns secessionism. To the neocomms-jihadists, the goal is to destroy patriotism so that the citizens can secede from the ideas of and the physical existence of America. Read it for yourself. Mr. Horowitz quotes these people liberally here, and throughout the book, because they mince no words about their ideas and intents.
We who love individual freedom, capitalism, and the Constitution of the United States have a clear obligation to defend our values. We start by erasing ignorance and sharpening our awareness. While doing this, we become activists. We start pushing back--in the press, on the air, and in every way we can.
We fight back with the correct intellectual ammunition. Our ideas are better, and we must make them highly visible and dominant. This book is a valuable piece of that intellectual ammunition. Never forget that they are winning, NOT BECAUSE THEIR IDEAS ARE BETTER, but because they are being consistent. Our ideas are better, and with consistent application of reason, we will win.
David Horowitz is the President of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and editor of Frontpagemag.com, an on-line magazine, which receives over 4.5 million page views a month. He has spoken at more than 200 colleges and universities, and has appeared on Nightline, Crossfire, Today, Good Morning America, C-SPAN, CNBC, Fox News Channel and CBS’s This Morning, and gives hundreds of interviews yearly on radio and television. He has authored numerous books and has started organizations to restore free speech to academia and to correct the drift of the Democrat Party to the aggressive socialist left.
Now that the Leftist anti-Americans have been raked over the coals, let's tackle the jihadists and what they face in the United States.
This what a Texan has to say about the Islamic jihadists' future fate in America:
"They[Europeans. ed] try to integrate with Muslims, they are accepting terrorism and bowing down to the sheiks." Yep, they are trying to intergrate WITH the Muslims, instead of the other way around. You know, the time honored way, where the immigrants intergrate WITH the inhabitants of the country that they migrate TO. Another clue: "You are the same flesh and blood they are - today's Germans are no more and no less capable of genocide than you or I." Yea, we all are from the same blood, but as you know the human race as a whole is a murderous, barbaric bunch. It always has been. Its not any different today, its the same blood. The culture in different areas of the world dictate how thick the membrane is between the barbarian and the civilized person. Or how he reacts to danger. Does he call the police, or does he pick up a gun and confront the danger? Even here in these somewhat United States, the culture differences are easy to spot. If you have been around this Republic or have put some study into it, you will know that Americans as a whole are made up of many cultures, but because of their "Americanization" (is that a word?) they are not like your average [e]uropean (old or new). When you cross over into the south and southwest of this Republic, you have no trouble seeing that these people are really friendly. But if you study people, like some do, you might pick up on something else. "These" people are survivors, the membrane that seperates them from the barbarians is thin, thinner than in other parts of this Republic and much thinner than some parts of the world. So, yes, some Americans are more capable of genocide than other Americans and Germans. Where I live, the most important thing is survival of the family, our children and our women. Nothing is higher than that except God. Our country comes right after our family and way before our lives. Yep, we are willig to die for our country and for our families, but we don't intend to. We intend to make the Islamics die for their Allah. They seem to want to get there so fast, we will be glad to send them.
Papa Ray, West Texas, USA
how will a Revolution in the US affect internal Islamics
and US foreign policy as concerns the Islamic world?
This is not an Islamic weapon.
About the kukhri or better Khukuri, the weapon of Nepal's Gurkhas (pictured above),
KAPHAR HUNNU BHANDA MARNO RAMRO
"IT IS BETTER TO DIE THAN TO BE A COWARD"
The last thing an enemy of the Gurkhas hears is,
the gurkhas' war cry
"THE GURKHAS ARE UPON YOU!"
Right below, I am repeating the story of what happened to Moslems in Nepal when their ideological compatriots killed a group of Nepalese workers in Iraq. It is the old "do unto others as they have done unto you,"
A correspondent from India wrote:
"Let me point out another recent [written in 2005] incident
As you know muslims in Iraq have been kidnapping and beheading foreigners
About 3 months ago, they beheaded 12 Nepalese hindus
In response, muslims in Nepal got a 'Gujurat^type reprisal'
( about 30000 Nepalese muslims got ethnic cleansed by Nepalese hindu mobs )
and no more Nepalese have been kidnapped in Iraq
Whereas they non-stop behead western hostages"
^^Godhra Train Burning
Foregoing Nepal anecdote and Gujarat and Godhra notes from DRASTIC TIMES CALL FOR DRASTIC MEASURES
TALES OF THE KUKHURI
Originally Posted by Mr Hat
(I think. Let me know if you can't find it. lw)
OK, each time the kukhri is drawn it must be fed blood, right??? If theres no one around or they escaped or something they need to drawn blood, so they slice their own skin just a little to keep the tradition going.
Not true, its an urban legend which the media likes to include whenever they write something about the Gurkas.
Posted by Leslie White
Drawn from personal experience:
Yes, but unless some care is exerted when unsheathing this weapon, it is "fed some of your blood" without you realizing that your thumb has been neatly sliced open. I suppose you can then go around saying that as you had unsheathed the weapon and had not met an enemy from whom to draw blood, you had to follow an old Gurkha practice--to explain why your thumb is copiously bleeding.
Some of the 9/11 hijackers, in fact, received aid and counsel from one of the largest mosques in the Washington, D.C., area. Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center is one of the mosques indentified by undercover investigators as a hive of terrorist activity and other extremism.
It was founded and is currently run by leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. Imams there preach what is called "jihad qital," which means physical jihad, and incite violence and hatred against the U.S.
Dar al-Hijrah [Islamic Center's] ultimate goal, investigators say, is to turn the U.S. into an Islamic state governed by sharia law.
HOWEVER . . .
In the war against an expanding radical Islam . . . We have three choices: convert, submit or die. But there's a fourth choice and that's to fight.
What'll it be for you? You do have a choice.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
. . . of Islam
What are you willing to do if it appears that Islam will conquer our nation?
Will you support with your earnings the idolent Moslems lolling about the streets, raping your wives, daughters, and girlfriends at will? Will you willingly pay the tax required of the non-believer? Or will you just as soon convert to Islam, to save yourself humiliation and the tax?
Will you "brave the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" or do the as yet unthinkable? It has been done before, in history. You would not be the first nor the last to think, to ponder, "Would I rather live as a slave or feed the Tree of Liberty with the blood of the enemy?
Right now, we still have a Bill of Rights, and its second amendment, to keep the government from forcing its will upon the people.
Remember though, once the Constitution has been subverted and replaced by shariah as the highest law of the land its protections and guarantees are gone, whatever you do to reclaim your country will no longer be in danger of being branded as sedition or treason.
Do not accept the Moslem as your superior. Do not accept Islamic demands with bowed heads. There is that foreign element amongst us (Islam and its adherents). Do not take it into your bosom.
There might be treason at the top, but do not throw up your hands and say that there is nothing that can be done.
As long as there are those with the will to do what must be done, we will not bow to the invisible idol worshipped by our enemy.
Edited and amended from a Post by: unicorns62000 January 5, 2008 1:56 AM
THERE IS A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN THE OFFING:
Be careful for whom you vote--those who promise a drastic change may take us further into that dark night that is poised to swallow us.
CHANGE - 'the sought-after solution to all our problems," what is it? Placating the Moslems, diplomatic overtures to try and mollify those who want only to destroy us. You can take the boy out of Islam, but can you ever take Islam competely out of the boy?
*Anything less than ALL THE WAY is asking for disaster (defeat).
Do not expect anything but defeatism from . . .
The Useless Bastards of the 60s
Pacifists, "lovers of all cultures, religions, and ideologies," cowards at heart who want more than anything "peace at any price."
As to our sworn enemies . . .
Kill them before they kill us
THE GREEKS, WHO KNEW SOMETHING ABOUT WARFARE, HAD THEIR GOD OF WAR--ARES--WITH TWO SONS
DEMOS AND PHOBOS--"TERROR" AND "FEAR"
We, who have become so disgustingly (what we believe to be) "civilized" that we appear to have forgotten the basics of waging war to win--by letting our all the stops.
Δειμος (Ancient Greek)
Means "terror" in Greek. This was one of the sons of the Greek god Ares.
Φοβος (Ancient Greek)
Pronounced: FO-bos (English)
Means "fear" in Greek. This was one of the sons of Ares in Greek mythology.
Both of these techniques of warfare--terror and fear--were employed by our side during World War II--using terror to bring fear into the hearts of the enemies' populations, e.g. Dresden and its "Firestorm" and the atomic explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Racial and "religious'"(ideological) hatred played no part in the decision to use these two techniques to defeat the enemy. They were used to assure the survival of OUR side.
We must use these twin boys of Ares against our most determined enemy. He is determined to destroy us. We MUST destroy him first.
No matter how much they squeal "Islamophobia!" or "race" crime! Remember the enemy is neither a race nor one ethnicity. The enemy is an ideology. This ideology consists of killing or enslaving all those who do not BELIEVE in it. It is an ideology of evil. Destroying it--utterly--can be done with a clear conscience.
Now, an ideology is not something that float about the ether. It resides in the minds of men (and women). To destroy the ideology, we must destroy the men (and women) in whose minds the ideology resides.
Here's where the squeamish start shying away from what must be done.
If you have a child (or more), whom would you rather see die: your child or the enemy? It is a decision that you will have to make. Your children or theirs? Your women or theirs?
You must decide. Do it or die.
Also look at
What are we heading towards?
American laws will protect us.
Democrats and Leftist will support us.
The UN will legitimize us.
CAIR and MAB will incubate us.
The ACLU will support us.
Western Universities will educate us.
Mosques in the West will shelter us.
OPEC will finance us.
Moderate Muslims will fertilize us.
Hollywood will love us.
We will use your welfare system to sustain us.
We must never forget their strategy.
But . . . isn't there anything that we can do about this?
Yes there is
"Even More Drastic Times Call for Even More Drastic Measures"
By Steven Laib
What America truly needs is not a sycophantic public following a cult leader on a path of foolishness.
America as been fortunate in avoiding political cults of personality. The closest that we have come to it may have been the 4 terms that Franklin Roosevelt was elected to. We should note also that FDR was a special case. He was first elected during the Great Depression and continued into World War II. This form of crisis situation has been unusual, and while one might disagree with the way that President Roosevelt handled some aspects of them, he certainly understood the gravity of the situation and the need for America to take action to preserve itself. This is exactly the opposite of what we see with current Democrat presidential front-runner, Barack Obama.
Simply stated, and as a significant number of critics, both liberal and conservative have pointed out, Senator Obama is an empty suit; a candidate who talks in endless platitudes, but says nothing of substance, except that he wants to enact a myriad of tax and spend programs at home, while ignoring the true nature of its enemies abroad and emasculating the military.
Perhaps he believes that the foreign dictators are foolish enough to fall for his charm. If elected, he will quickly learn that they will be more than willing to say anything, and then do exactly the opposite if it suits their interest at the time. As Neville Chamberlain sold out Europe to Nazi Germany, Senator Obama is willing to sell out the United States anyone and everyone who has an axe to grind and is willing to say the right things in public, regardless of their true intentions.
Sean Hannity has talked a lot about two focus groups that were asked if they could identify any of Obama’s accomplishments. Both came up with essentially nothing, which speaks volumes; the man really has done nothing, except promote his own political career as rapidly as can. Now, the fact that he can speak charismatically is really all that he is running on. People like what he says, regardless of whether it has any substance. I remember having a similar reaction to Jimmy Carter many years ago. I was a teenager when I told my, now departed, Mother that he said a lot of things that sounded nice, but there was nothing that I could identify specifically as practical or realistic. Obama is now doing the same thing. He talks about “hope” but it is a blind hope; faith that he has all the answers and that electing him to office will somehow solve all of America ’s problems. To make matters worse, his campaign is taking on a messianic attitude. This may well speak of an even greater underlying danger.
Michael Medved recently asked of his audience why people are supporting this candidate. He received all of the usual empty answers about hope, unity and the like. In the end, there really was nothing of substance that anyone could identify. I have an answer; it is not one I like, but I believe that it is the truth; that Senator Obama is the candidate of the intellectually bankrupt. It is no wonder to me that so many young people are swooning over this charlatan.
He is all show and no substance, like so much of modern entertainment. He is the MTV candidate. He is the candidate of people who love special effects and don't care about the plot. Politically they are oblivious to the consequences of electing someone who is as gullible as they are. He is their drug that will make all problems go away, but like with a drug, the problems don’t really go away and after effects are terrible. Enacting the Obama domestic policies would result in a quick trip to national bankruptcy. His foreign policies would create a weak, vacillating nation that will not defend itself because talking to an implacable enemy is always better than eliminating him. He has no realistic method for dealing with our national energy needs. In short, he is running on hot air, and despite his contentions to the contrary, empty words. He does not have the depth to create words of real substance and so he must rely on others to do his thinking for him.
Anyone who is willing to blindly trust an inexperienced, charismatic figure in our present situation is operating off of emotion, rather than intelligence and rational thought. This is precisely what a charismatic leader wants. It was the same with the people who followed the religious cult figures during the 1970’s. In the worst example, they let Rev. Jim Jones do their thinking and ended up dead from cyanide laced Kool-aid. Fortunately, the damage Jim Jones caused was limited to a relatively small number of people. Electing a President of the United States has far reaching consequences, and can make the difference between a nation that survives or dies.
Barack Obama is counting on a non-thinking, poorly educated public to sweep him into office. He is counting on people having decided that there is no longer any real threat from Islamo-fascists. He is also counting on no one understanding that a high tax, big government; super-regulatory state is a recipe for economic disaster. It seems that the vast number of his followers fit this model to a T. They don’t care about anything except the nebulous mantras of “hope” and unspecified “change.” As Dennis Prager likes to point out, change doesn’t mean anything unless it states what you are going to change from, how you are going to change it, and what you expect the end result to be. No one I’ve heard from seems to know exactly what kind of change is proposed or expected, except that he will magically unify the nation and make our challenges disappear. Change for change’s sake appears to be the fashion this year. Real, specific, identifiable changes, calculated to preserve American existence for the future are not high on any candidate’s list, unless you believe that John McCain will suddenly reach in a totally new direction and allow Michael Savage to formulate his policy direction in the same manner that he allowed Ted Kennedy to do.
What America truly needs is not a sycophantic public following a cult leader on a path of foolishness. What they need is to believe in themselves; to believe that they can lead themselves and take control of their own lives. They need to educate themselves to take charge of their own futures and avoid the empty promises of political con artists of any and all stripes. They need to be able to separate the true statesmen from those offering platitudes in the interest of self aggrandizement. And, if Americans need a messianic figure, then let it be the one they find in their church, rather than a self appointed demagogue who offers nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
Steven D. Laib is a semi-retired attorney living in Cypress , Texas , just northwest of Houston . He is a member of the California State Bar, and United States Supreme Court Bar.
The Cult of Obama
By Steven Laib Intellectual Conservative ^
February 20, 2008 Steven Laib
Posted on 02/20/2008 7:18:08 PM PST by K-oneTexas
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Why talk about Obama at an anti-jihad site such as this? Because we really don't know the essence of this man. we know him as a loud-mouthed, preacher-like speaker-an orator--"full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
As Obama gets closer to the Presidency of the United States--dangerously close--we anti-jihadists owe it to ourselves to examine what effects an Obama Presidency would have on our country versus the jihadist that are dead set on taking it over.
Obama does not share the heritage of African-Americans--that is the descendants of slaves. His African side is connected to Kenya, his mother was a free-wheeling hippie married twice to Moslem men.--one African black (Barack O's father) and one Indonesian.
Does Obama (Barack) see himself as American first and African-American second? Born in Hawai, he is an American citizen . American citizen, however, does not mean that he feels American--as anyone who presumes to become President of the United States should and must.
Obama has trashed "patriotism" as a political statement rather than the natural feeling of a person for the country that protects and affords them a living and opportunity to rise in the social as well as political order--to the highest levels--to become part of the power elite--as exemplified by his case. Obama refuses to salute our flag nor does he appreciate the United States symbolized by that flag, in defense of which thousands have given their lives and limbs and health so that he--Barack Obama--can compete for the highest office of the county he does not honor as it stands and has stood for some 230 years. (Obama himself has never served in the armed forces of the United States.)
Instead of gravitating towards being "American"--Obama has chosen to be African in his orientation--black first, American second. This is an understandable position for a black person who does not feel to be part of the mainstream of American life. It is not befitting a person who lusts to be the President of all of the people of the United States.
Obama has shown his Afrocentricity by the selection of his Christian church. It is a black-, African-oriented church that sets black people above other Americans.
Then, there is Obama's wife. she exhibits the same black-first, American last attitude as her husband. Fitting for the mate of an Africa-firster such as her husband but not of a First Lady of the United States--of all Americans.
The complex reasons for Barack Obama's racial conundrum--not to speak of his Moslem heritage and education--which make him unfit to be President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of America's military might are postulated in the following article.
Trapped between two worlds
Sen. Barack Obama, the only major black candidate in the 2008 presidential race, has spent much of his life anguishing over his mixed-race heritage and self-described “racial obsessions.”
Descended from a white American mother and black Kenyan father, the Illinois Democrat once wrote: “He was black as pitch, my mother white as milk.”
In his first memoir, “Dreams from My Father,” Obama observed that when people discover his mixed-race heritage, they make assumptions about “the mixed blood, the divided soul, the ghostly image of the tragic mulatto trapped between two worlds.”
Indeed, Obama acknowledges feeling tormented for much of his life by “the constant, crippling fear that I didn't belong somehow, that unless I dodged and hid and pretended to be something I wasn't, I would forever remain an outsider, with the rest of the world, black and white, always standing in judgment.”
Obama's views on race are certain to be an issue in the upcoming presidential campaign, according to Princeton University professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell, who specializes in African-American politics.
“There’s no question that race and all the permutations that it’s going to take for Obama are going to be central issues,” she predicted.
Although Obama was raised by his mother, he identified more closely with the race of his father, who left the family when Obama was 2.
“I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites,” he wrote.
Yet, even through high school, he continued to vacillate between the twin strands of his racial identity.
“I learned to slip back and forth between my black and white worlds,” he wrote in “Dreams.”
“One of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved — such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time.”
Although Obama spent various portions of his youth living with his white maternal grandfather and Indonesian stepfather, he vowed that he would “never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.”
Obama wrote that in high school, he and a black friend would sometimes speak disparagingly “about white folks this or white folks that, and I would suddenly remember my mother's smile, and the words that I spoke would seem awkward and false.”
As a result, he concluded that “certain whites could be excluded from the general category of our distrust.”
Donna Brazile, who managed former Vice President Al Gore’s presidential campaign in 2000, said Obama's feelings of distrust toward most whites and doubts about himself are fairly typical for black Americans.
“He was a young man trying to discover, trying to accept, trying to come to grips with his background,” she explained. “In the process, he had to really make some statements that are hurtful, maybe. But I think they're more insightful than anything.”
During college, Obama disapproved of what he called other “half-breeds” who gravitated toward whites instead of blacks. And yet after college, he once fell in love with a white woman, only to push her away when he concluded he would have to assimilate into her world, not the other way around. He later married a black woman.
Such candid racial revelations abound in “Dreams,” which was first published in 1995, when Obama was 34 and not yet in politics. By the time he ran for his Senate seat in 2004, he observed of that first memoir: “Certain passages have proven to be inconvenient politically.”
Thus, in his second memoir, “The Audacity of Hope,” which was published last year, Obama adopted a more conciliatory, even upbeat tone when discussing race. Noting his multiracial family, he wrote in the new book: “I’ve never had the option of restricting my loyalties on the basis of race, or measuring my worth on the basis of tribe.”
This appears to contradict certain passages in his first memoir, including a description of black student life at Occidental College in Los Angeles.
“There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs,” he wrote. “It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.”
He added: “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.”
Obama said he and other blacks were careful not to second-guess their own racial identity in front of whites.
“To admit our doubt and confusion to whites, to open up our psyches to general examination by those who had caused so much of the damage in the first place, seemed ludicrous, itself an expression of self-hatred,” he wrote.
After his sophomore year, Obama transferred to Columbia University. Later, looking back on his years in New York City, he recalled: “I had grown accustomed, everywhere, to suspicions between the races.”
His pessimism about race relations seemed to pervade his worldview.
“The emotion between the races could never be pure,” he laments in “Dreams.” “Even love was tarnished by the desire to find in the other some element that was missing in ourselves. Whether we sought out our demons or salvation, the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart.”
After graduating from college, Obama eventually went to Chicago to interview for a job as a community organizer. His racial attitudes came into play as he sized up the man who would become his boss.
“There was something about him that made me wary,” Obama wrote. “A little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.”
Harris-Lacewell said such expressions of distrust toward whites will not hurt Obama in the Democratic presidential primaries, which are dominated by liberal voters.
“To win the Democratic nomination, he's got to get a part of the progressive, anti-war, white folks,” she said. “And those white folks tend to be suspicious of any black person who wouldn’t be suspicious of white people.”
Such liberals would have little basis for suspicion after reading some of Obama’s conclusions about the white race, which he once described as “that ghostly figure that haunted black dreams.”
“That hate hadn't gone away,” he wrote, blaming “white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives.”
Obama’s racial suspicions were not always limited to whites. For example, after making his first visit to Kenya, he wrote of being disappointed to learn that his paternal grandfather had been a servant to rich whites.
He wrote in “Dreams” that the revelation caused “ugly words to flash across my mind. Uncle Tom. Collaborator. House nigger.”
Such blunt and provocative observations about race are largely absent from Obama’s second memoir.
“I have witnessed a profound shift in race relations in my lifetime,” he wrote in “Audacity.” “I insist that things have gotten better.”
An adolescent confrontation
Barack Obama recalls punching out the “first boy” who “called me a coon” in seventh grade.
“I gave him a bloody nose,” Obama wrote in his first memoir, “Dreams from My Father.”
“Why’dya do that?” the boy said through “tears of surprise,” according to Obama.
It was not the first time young Obama would be subjected to racial slurs. He recalled an assistant basketball coach in high school referring to a group of black men as “niggers.”
“I told him — with a fury that surprised even me — to shut up,” Obama wrote.
“There are black people, and there are niggers,” the coach explained, according to Obama. “Those guys were niggers.”
Obama answered with contempt.
“'There are white folks and then there are ignorant motherf---ers like you,’ I had finally told the coach before walking off the court,” he wrote.
More from Bill Sammon's series:
The 5 most important things you need to know about...
Can a past of Islam change the path to president?
'Trapped between two worlds'
'The Obama position on the war'
Perception vs. reality
The power of positive press
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
excerpted from Koenraad Elst's "Anwar Shaikh – . . . A Tribute"
The one silver lining to the dark cloud of Islamic terrorism is that it alerts non-Muslim societies to the specificity of the problems which Islam poses. Westerners often feel guilty of xenophobia, “fear of what is strange or foreign”, when they criticize Islam. But the problem of Islam is not one of strangeness or foreign origin, as will readily become clear when you compare it with Buddhism. In Western culture, Buddhism is even stranger than Islam, which shares certain common roots with Christianity, yet people find Tibetans in their native dress colorful rather than threatening. There are no Buddhist gangs attacking peaceful citizens, nor are there Buddhist associations making separatist political demands such as the right to observe a separate law system. Buddhism may be strange, but informed people will agree that it is an enrichment to our society. Islam is less strange, yet its enriching contributions are unclear while its nuisance value is all too palpable. The stark reality of Islamic terrorism blows away the fog of doubt and timidity hitherto surrounding the painful question of how to evaluate Islam.
1820-1862 El Hadj Umar Tal in Senegal gets his childhood education in madrassa, goes on a pilgrimage to Mecca in 1820, then becomes the Caliph of the Tijaniyya brotherhood, and mounts a jihad that conquers both black unbelievers and other small Islamic states in the neighborhood. 70,000 die in just three of his battles. But in 1862 he finally creates an empire--the Toucouleur Caliphate??--that includes Guinea and Senegal
You draw the parallel (if there is any or if you can see any)
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
A MOSLEM KOSOVO
". . . . the Islamic world . . . find[s] itself aligned, yet again, with America in promoting Islam and fighting Christianity . . . . "
Serbia deprived of what was once its heartland. Nazis stuffed that Serb province with Albanians during World War II to counteract the anti-Nazi Serbs. Moslems--see the Bosnian SS troops--were on the side of the Nazis. The two ideologies are parallel in their racial supremacism and rabid Jew-hatred.
Kosovo: A New Day of Infamy for a New Century
by Srdja Trifkovic
The grotesque charade in Pristina on Sunday, February 17, crowned a decade and a half of U.S. policy in the former Yugoslavia that has been mendacious and iniquitous in equal measure. By encouraging its Albanian clients go ahead with the unilateral proclamation of independence written at the Department of State, the U.S. administration has made a massive leap into the unknown. That leap is potentially on par with Austria’s July 1914 ultimatum to Serbia. The fruits will be equally bitter. While their exact size and taste are hard to predict right now, that in the fullness of time America will come to regret the criminal folly of her current leaders is certain. Their Balkan policy is worse than a crime: It is a mistake.
Having devoted seven News & Views columns to Kosovo over the past year I have little to add to the sordid story of Western deceit, allied with Albanian barbarity, that has culminated in the spectacle in Pristina. Suffice to say that Belgrade vs. Washington, in this particular instance, is the clearest-cut case of “white hats vs. black hats” in today’s world affairs.
Some prominent Americans with no cultural or personal axes to grind are trying, even at this late stage, to check the insanity. Writing in the usually interventionist Wall Street Journal on February 9, Ruth Wedgwood, one of America’s foremost legal scholars, thus warned of the “dangerous precedent to tear apart the territory of a member state of the United Nations”—a move that may cause an unnecessary crisis when America is overengaged elsewhere. “Kosovo’s best (and perhaps only) chance to join Europe’s economy is to ride in as a part of Serbia,” she says, but it is more likely to join the Organization of the Islamic Conference instead. In addition, Wedgwood warns, Kosovo’s proclamation may well destabilize the Old Continent, from Bosnia and Macedonia to Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
NOT IN THE AMERICAN INTEREST—“An imposed settlement of the Kosovo question and seeking to partition Serbia’s sovereign territory without its consent is not in the interest of the United States.” While my friends and I have expressed this view many a time, it was recently stated with greater prominence by John R. Bolton, Peter W. Rodman and Lawrence Eagleburger. Writing in the Washington Times, the three heavyweights called for urgent re-examination of U.S. policy on Kosovo and urged the Bush administration to make it clear that, pending the results of such re-examination, it would withhold recognition of any independence declaration:
Current U.S. policy relies on the unconvincing claim that Kosovo is “unique” and would set no precedent for other troublespots… [E]thnic and religious minorities in other countries already are signaling their intention to follow a Kosovo example. This includes sizeable Albanian communities in adjoining areas of southern Serbia, Montenegro, and especially Macedonia, as well as the Serbian portion of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Recognition … would set a precedent with far-reaching and unpredictable consequences for many other regions of the world. The Kosovo model already has been cited by supporters of the Basque separatist movement in Spain and the Turkish-controlled area of northern Cyprus. Neither the Security Council nor any other international body has the power or authority to impose a change of any country’s borders.
The trio further warned that the current U.S. policy is marked by a dismissive attitude toward Russia’s objections: The United States should not prompt an unnecessary crisis in U.S.-Russia relations, lest Russia withdraws her support on issues such as Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear intentions. Such cooperation would be undercut by American action calculated to neutralize Moscow’s legitimate concerns regarding Kosovo. On an issue of minor importance to the U.S., they ask, “is this a useful expenditure of significant political capital with Russia?”
Bolton, Rodman and Eagleburger predict that a self-proclaimed “independent state” of Kosovo will be “a dysfunctional one and a ward of the international community for the indefinite future.” It is plagued by rampant corruption and organized crime and a nonviable economy, they point out. Its law enforcement, integrity of the courts, protection of persons and property, and other prerequisites for statehood are “practically nonexistent.” Unilateral declaration of independence recognized by some countries and rejected by many others would only make matters worse by turning Kosovo into yet another “frozen conflict.”
The authors conclude by predicting that, “faced with a choice between Western partnership and defense of their sovereign territory and constitution,” Serbia would opt for the latter and inevitably move closer to Russia as its only protector.
“WHO LOST SERBIA?”—That Serbia is lost to the West is now certain. President Boris Tadic’s narrow victory (51 percent) in the second round of the presidential election in Serbia on February 3 was entirely due to his claim that, as an enthusiastically pro-Western reformist, he could obtain less brutal treatment for Serbia from Brussels and Washington than his “ultra-nationalist” opponent.
In Washington Tadic’s victory was hastily interpreted as a sure sign that the Serbs are throwing in the towel, and that, therefore, the scenario for independence should go ahead. (Had Tomislav Nikolic of the Serbian Radical Party won, they would have said that the scenario should be applied post haste because Serbia is irredeemably nationalist and should be taught a lesson.)
Far from indicating Serbia’s readiness to “accept the inevitable” and sling into the vivisection kennel, however, Tadic’s victory was the last chance for the U.S. and the EU to stop the trainwreck. The anger against the U.S. and the EU will translate into the well-deserved electoral demise for Tadic’s Democratic Party (Demokratska stranka, DS) at the next parliamentary election. That election is now imminent in the next few months.
Serbia’s mood was evident in Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica’s somber speech to the nation, broadcast immediately after the proclamation in Pristina. He said that the “unilateral declaration of the fake state of Kosovo represents the final act of a policy initiated in 1999 with NATO aggression.” He accused the United States of a “merciless violation of international order”:
America humiliated and forced Europe Union to discard its basic principles. Europe bowed before America, and it will be held responsible for all the consequences that will arise from Kosovo’s independence.
It is difficult to make forecasts about Belgrade’s forthcoming responses—not least because they are treated as closely guarded secrets—but the following sequence of events is, in my opinion, at least less unlikely than any other:
The inherent schizophrenia splitting the ruling coalition in Serbia will be subjected to intolerable strains in the next few weeks, primarily over the issue of how to respond to the forthcoming acts of recognition by the United States and leading EU countries. Kostunica favors weighty moves, while Tadic and his ministers will insist on empty gestures—e.g. withdrawing ambassadors from Western capitals—that fall far short of breaking diplomatic relations.
The resulting election will mark the long-overdue demise of the DS, with its worn out Euro-rhetoric that has yielded zero dividends over the past eight years. The winners will be the Radicals (SRS) and Kostunica’s Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS). They will either form a long-overdue coalition, or else Kostunica will try to form a national unity government in which the Radicals will be represented (and from which Tadic and his DS will stay away because their “friends” in Brussels and Washington would never allow them to be in the same room with Nikolic).
The entity proclaimed in Pristina will be recognized by the United States, by most of the Islamic world—which will find itself aligned, yet again, with America in promoting Islam and fighting Christianity in the Balkans—and by about a half of the European Union’s 27 members. Washington will claim to have the “international community” behind it, but in order to do so many small and weak countries, from Haiti to Tonga to Vanuatu, will be bribed, cajoled, or bullied into recognition.
“KosovA” will NOT be recognized by Russia, China, India, Brazil, Indonesia (the most populous Muslim country), by most of black Africa, and by at least half-dozen EU member-countries. The non-recognizing countries’ population will exceed by two-to-one that of the Willing. The “international community” will be finally seen for what it is: an empty slogan, an invention of Washingtonian hegemonists and Euro-globalists devoid of substance or authority.
Kosovo will linger on for a few years, as an expensive albatross costing American and “willing” taxpayers a few billion a year. It will continue developing, not as a functional economy but as a black hole of criminality and Jihad terrorism. The ever-rising and constantly unfulfilled expectations of its unemployable multitudes will eventually turn—Frankenstein’s monster-like—against the entity’s creator. There will be many Ft. Dixes to come, at Camp Bondsteel and at home.
The precedent of Kosovo will destabilize many countries with restive and separatist-minded minorities, including America’s friends in Turkey (Kurds), Pakistan (Pashtuns), and above all in the ever-dysfunctional Dayton-Bosnia, with no dividend of any kind in the Islamic world as a whole for the United States on the account of its championing the Muslim cause in the Balkans.
The U.S.-led Kosovo policy in the end will prove to be a blessing in disguise for Serbia. Only by NOT joining the European Union will she preserve her identity, her traditions, and her faith. Only by NOT joining the U.S.-hegemonized system of military alliances will she avoid having her youths put in harm’s way for nothing, in some arid, hostile faraway lands. Only by forging an ever-tighter political, economic, and eventually military alliance with Russia will Serbia avoid the clutches of a postmodern “American” empire devoid of a single redeeming feature.
God sometimes acts in mysterious ways, and on this 21st Century Day of Infamy, February 17, we should ask for His mercy and thank Him for his blessings. Kosovo had remained Serbian during those five long centuries of Ottoman darkness, to be liberated in 1912. It is no less Serbian now, the ugly farce in Pristina notwithstanding. It will be tangibly Serbian again when the current experiment in Benevolent Global Hegemony collapses and when the very names of Messrs. Bush, McCain and Clinton are deservedly consigned to the dustheap of history.
From Serge Trifcovic's
Kosovo as a Symbol of Anti-Postmodernism
Reference sent to us by DP111 (at Islamic Danger)
[This post appeared previously as http://islamicdangerfu.blogspot.com/2007/12/from-serge-trifcovics-kosovo-as-symbol.html and prior to that as http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/12/from-serge-trifcovics-kosovo-as-symbol.html]
Let us look instead at the manifestations of the Western elite class’s pathology in their own countries, or—to be more precise—in the countries over which they rule but to which they no longer feel any natural bond of kinship and obligation.
The present technological, cultural and financial strength of Europe is a façade that conceals an underlying moral and demographic weakness.
Europe’s demographic self-annihilation is a phenomenon of world-historical proportions.
Europe is losing the ability to define and defend itself, to the benefit of unassimilable multitudes filled with contempt for the host-society. One consequence is that active Jihadist networks now exist in every country west of the former Iron Curtain.
The capital of the European elite class is Brussels, the headquarters of the European Union, which has decreed that member countries of the European Union no longer make the law on their immigration policies.
A century ago Europe’s ruling classes shared social commonalities that could be observed in Monte Carlo, Carlsbad, or Paris, depending on the season. Their lingua franca was French. Englishmen, Russians, or Austrians shared the same outlook and sense of propriety, but they nevertheless remained rooted in their national traditions. Today’s "United Europe" is light years away from that a century ago. It does not create social and civilizational commonalities, except on the basis of wholesale denial of old inherited values and "traditional" culture. It creates cultural similarity that has morphed into dreary sameness of anti-discriminationism.
An ideological commitment to neoliberal globalization has turned multiculturalism and open-ended Muslim immigration into two inviolable Euro-dogmas. They are pursued independently of any electoral test.
Even if the Serbs are robbed of Kosovo, Islam will not thank the West. There will be no synthesis, no civilizational cross-fertilization, between Europe and Islam. It’s kto-kogo. As things stand now the outcome appears almost fatally preordained. The tradition of a peasantry ruled by its "betters" has been turned on its head: in Europe most nations want to defend themselves—even the ultra-tolerant Dutch have seen the light after Theo van Gogh’s murder—but cannot do so because they are hamstrung by a ruling class composed of guilt-ridden self-haters and appeasers.
For those reasons too, Serbia must not give up Kosovo. By giving it up it would encourage the spirit that seeks the death of Europe and its surrender to the global totalitarianism of Muhammad’s successors.
These are excerpts of some cogent points made by Mr. Serge Trifcovic
Kosovo as a Symbol of Anti-Postmodernism
You must read the whole thing at Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture
to gain a deeper understanding about whose gain will be Europe's loss.
NOTE: If you cannot access the above posts, please be patient, I will transfer them to a viable blog as soon as I can. Leslie White
Kosovo is important because that is where the war of multiculturalism started, and where the final outcome will be decided.
Recent Kosovo posts
FROM JIHAD WATCH
Fitzgerald: Independent Kosovo
Among major world powers, both Russia and China are opposed to an independent Kosovo. Even within Europe there are nations that oppose this independence -- Spain -- and others where many are uneasy. It would have been politically possible for the American government to have thought a bit more about the implications, the consequences, of having another Muslim state -- the product of centuries of Ottoman rule . . .
Thousands of Kosovars chant "KLA! KLA!"
From "Kosovo Declares Independence From Serbia: Braces for a Bitter Showdown," by Nabi Qena and William J. Kole for the Associated Press: In the capital, Pristina, the mood was jubilant. Thousands of ethnic Albanians braved subfreezing temperatures to ride on...
Posted by Robert on February 18, 2008 12:33 PM
Free Kosovo will be a door for Islamic jihadists
John Bolton says what we have been saying here all along. "Free Kosovo a Door for Islamic Radicals," from Javno (thanks to larwyn): Independent Kosovo will endanger the stability in the Balkans once again, estimated the American ambassador at the...
Posted by Robert on February 18, 2008 6:39 AM
"Pre-independence euphoria" in Kosovo
Cyprus is the European Union's lone holdout in supporting independence for Kosovo. Gee, why is that? Could it be their common history with Serbia with respect to having its territory eaten away for the sake of Muslim interests? "Pre-independence euphoria...
Posted on December 10, 2007 7:37 PM
Debate on U.S. Kosovo Policy Brewing in Washington
One of the supreme ironies of the "Global War on Terror" has been the consistency with which the US has pursued pro-jihadist foreign and military policies since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Not even the spectacular carnage of...
Posted on November 5, 2007 8:44 PM
Jihad and Kosovo: What Are They Thinking in Washington?
Short answer: not much. At an April 17, 2007, hearing on Kosovo, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D-CA) called upon “jihadists of all color and hue” to see Kosovo as “yet another example [sic: presumably a reference to...
Posted by Robert on October 22, 2007 5:56 AM
Fitzgerald: Every government official, every FBI agent, every DHS bureaucrat should have Raymond Ibrahim's book
It soon became clear why these particular documents had not been directed to the West. They were theological treatises, revolving around what Islam commands Muslims to do vis-à-vis non-Muslims. The documents rarely made mention of all those things —...
Posted on September 30, 2007 6:49 AM
Hiding Genocide in Kosovo
Old habits die hard: A yellow cross fixed by German NATO to the door of a Serbian house to show that Christians live there NEW -- available now from The American Council for Kosovo: Hiding Genocide in Kosovo: A...
Posted by Robert on July 24, 2007 7:43 AM
Jihad Watch censorship update
The Washington Times, Bruce Thornton, and K-Lo at The Corner have written in support of Jihad Watch during this attempt to silence us, as have many others, including Jawa Report, Vigilant Freedom, Foehammer, Tongue Tied, Endiana, Winds of Jihad and...
Posted by Robert on July 13, 2007 7:59 AM
"Already, a body of impartial evidence strongly suggests an inexplicably steady policy of accommodation by the United States to Islamist demands"
In "Kosovo conundrum" in the Washington Times (thanks to all who sent this in), Michael Djordjevich of the Studenica Foundation discusses U.S. aid for the Kosovo jihad: ...Kosovo is unfinished business, left over from the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia in...
Posted by Robert on June 29, 2007 10:25 AM
Bush condemns radical Muslims in visit to mosque
"It is these radicals who are Islam's true enemy." Fair enough. Certainly the jihadists have never hesitated to target Muslims whom they didn't deem sufficiently Islamic. Just think for a moment, however, about what we do not see: we don't...
Posted by Robert on June 27, 2007 1:26 PM
FROM DHIMMI WATCH
John McCain armed Kosovo Islamic terrorists
Of course, helping the KLA was all the rage at one time, with the usual short-sightedness and Fantasy-Based Analysis that generally prevails in Washington. We can only hope that if McCain is elected (and I still rather suspect that the...
Posted by Robert on February 15, 2008 8:47 AM
Fjordman: The European Union and the Islamization of Europe
Here's the latest from the noted European essayist Fjordman: Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch recently suggested a number of things Europeans can do to halt Islamization. The proposals were good, but I think we should focus on the most important...
Posted by Robert on February 9, 2008 7:03 AM
Kosovo: Throwing the jihadists a bone
Throwing the jihadists a bone in the form of the Serbian province of Kosovo still dominates official thinking (if one can call it that) in Washington. Counter Walid Phares: Will the US also please the Wahhabis by forcing India to...
Posted by Robert on December 13, 2007 11:48 AM
Fjordman: Why We Should Oppose an Independent Kosovo
The Euroessayist Fjordman explains why an independent Kosovo will help no one except the global jihadists. Hans Rustad runs Document.no, the largest independent weblog in my country. A recent post there contained criticism of me, and I have already answered...
Posted by Robert on December 4, 2007 2:43 PM
Islam and the nation-state
If the light bulb has yet to go on in Washington that U.S. sponsorship of Muslim-only jihad states is a bad idea -- whether in "Palestine" or Kosovo -- it certainly is on in Jerusalem. Writing in the Jerusalem Post,...
Posted by Robert on November 15, 2007 10:18 PM
"U.S. Kosovo Policy Is Bad for Israel"
From Israel's prestigious Begin-Sadat Center, Bar Ilan University: The more you pull the thread to appease the jihadists, the more the sweater unravels. Hand them Kosovo today, the more pressure builds to chop up Israel too. "Strong American support for...
Posted by Robert on November 8, 2007 12:01 AM
Kosovar students defy headscarf ban
And so it begins. By Nebi Qena for Associated Press (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist): SRBICA, Serbia - Three students were suspended from school in Kosovo this week for wearing Muslim headscarves, reflecting a debate that is echoing across Europe...
Posted by Robert on September 23, 2007 6:48 AM
U.N. troops accused of abetting genocide
Surprise, surprise. From WorldNetDaily.com (thanks to all who sent this in): WASHINGTON – United Nations forces moved into Kosovo in 1999 to "stop genocide." But, according to a blistering new report from the American Council for Kosovo, U.N. troops have...
Posted by Robert on August 31, 2007 7:38 AM
Gorin: The Farce of Our Kosovo Mission
At FrontPage is Julia Gorin's response to an absolutely incredible effort (evidently successful) to muzzle a U.S. soldier in Kosovo who has been trying to blow the whistle on the jihad violence directed against Serbian Christians. On top of it,...
Posted by Robert on August 8, 2007 5:46 AM
Bush Policies Promote Global Jihad
Cliff Kincaid tells the sobering truth at AIM: Conservative thinker and strategist Paul Weyrich sees a Republican political disaster in 2008 because of Iraq. "I believe that the Democrats, most likely with Senator Hillary R. Clinton (D-NY) as the nominee,...
Posted by Robert on July 31, 2007 2:24 PM
Fitzgerald: We don't need to be friendly with Muslim countries
“The US really needs to be friendly to Muslim countries,” he [Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar] told retired Malaysian diplomats. “This is not a good development as they have just appointed a special envoy to OIC.” Malaysia heads the 57-nation...
Posted on July 10, 2007 10:07 AM
Fitzgerald: Nonsense and lies, and those who fall for them
This statement issued by some Muslim groups, in order to protect Islam from scrutiny and to prolong the unwariness of Infidels, is a farrago of nonsense and lies. My favorite is this: "The unity of our society must be maintained...
Posted on July 7, 2007 8:48 AM