Infidel Bloggers Alliance

Once Again... Obama Batters US Allies & Uplifts Foes In Latest World Tour

2009-07-14T04:14:00.001+01:00

From Gateway:

U.S. President Barack Obama greets Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi during a dinner at the G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy on Thursday, July 9, 2009. (AP)

We're beginning to see a definite pattern of behavior here...
Barack Obama continued to batter US allies and uplift foes on his latest world tour.
The president had no problem criticizing the fledgling democracy in Ghana for things he would never dare say to an Arab regime.
Anne Bayefsky reported at Forbes, via Gabriel Malor:

Speaking in Ghana on Saturday President Obama lectured Africans on local repression, corruption, brutality, good governance and accountability. The startling contrast to his June speech in Cairo was revealing. Stroking Muslim and Arab nations has become the hallmark of Obama's foreign policy.

In Egypt, he chose not to utter the words "terrorism" or "genocide." In Egypt, there was nothing "brutal" he could conjure up, no "corruption" and no "repression".

In Ghana, with a 70% Christian population, he mentioned "good governance" seven times and added direct calls upon his audience to "make change from the bottom up." He praised "people taking control of their destiny" and pressed "young people" to "hold your leaders accountable."

He made no such calls for action by the people of Arab states--despite the fact that not a single Arab country is "free," according to the latest Freedom House global survey.

Meanwhile, Liz Cheney poked Obama at The Wall Street Journal for endorsing the Russian fantasy version of Cold War history:

Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: "The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."

The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not "competition in astrophysics and athletics." It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet "sphere of influence" was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.

It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push "reset" -- or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.

Is there any loony Far Left talking point this student of history does not embrace?

Of course, the president spoke out in support of the Leftist Honduran thug Zelaya while he was in Europe, too.
We can't forget that.

FACEBOOK CRACKDOWN ON ANTI TERROR GROUPS UPDATED: FACEBOOK REFUSING TO REMOVE GROUPS THAT DENY THE HOLOCAUST, AIDS THE SPREAD OF HATE

2009-07-14T04:05:00.003+01:00

From Atlas Shrugs:

It seems there has been an edict declared from on high. Recently there has been an FB crackdown, an upsurge in deletions and suspensions on facebook, all anti-terror related. Here's one of many anecdotal stories, this from Elaine, "I had photos of the Iranian dissidents on my FB page whom I support, for obvious reasons. I had links to various articles about radical Islam, these items have been removed. A friend informed me she tried to forward my link for American Congress forTruth, the organization founded by Brigitte Gabriel, which gets the word out about radical Islam, and my friend was "blocked" from the content. I am being censored!! There is a story here. Bret, I had tried to e mail you last week when you requested story ideas, and tried to forward you a link about the Saudi Academy proposed expansion in Fairfax, I could not send you the link, that was blocked, too."

This Facebook message mirrors other notes I have received in recent days. It all points to a shut down of grass roots efforts by good folks to organize and pull our country back from the brink.

Obama has been a free speech opponent since taking office. The "fairness doctrine", small media councils, staged press conferences and town hall meetings teeming with un-indicted co-conspirators CAIR and ISNA. He is squelching free expression. Now Facebook is the frontier.

Obama is no stranger to Facebook. He's right tight with Chris Hughes, the 24 year old billionaire and founder of Facebook -- which has over 175 million members. He was an essential part of putting President Barack Obama in the White House. Obama has continued to use the internet to push his trillion dollar budget through congress.

Just recently, President Barack Obama used the internet and connected with online supporters and nonsupporters of his economic policies. Over 77,000 Americans online responded to the internet forum about economic policies and political issues

How did Chris Hughes help President Barack Obama to win the election? Chris Hughes used Web 2.0 social networking to connect millions of Americans to President Barack Obama to get him elected to the presidency. Chris Hughes 2.0 technology connected over 150 million users worldwide during the presidential election campaign of 2008.

Chris Hughes created the comprehensive website, MyBarackObama.com to reach the grassroots of the American poliotican movement through the use of internet telecommunications.

Chris Hughes offered site usage of the MYBO accounts and helped to host community election events. These activities contributed significantly to the presidential election win of Barack Obama. The site also helped voters to find local polling booths in their community in which to vote.

Although the election is over, MYBO is still active. President Obama looks through MyBO website and urges supporters to stay engaged in efforts to bring positive political change to the nation. Chris Hughes plans to continue the MYBO website and may even permanently leave FaceBook to become part of the presidential web team.

Obama 's tentacles are all over Facebook. He gets what he wants, and we are under attack on Facebook. Benyamin B is a co-founder and co-President of the Anti-Terrorism Coalition (ATC) and the director of Project Expose - the code name for the ATC's Database of Terrorist Websites and eGroups (ATCD) and the effort behind it (December 2003 - August 2005). He has been involved in the fight against terrorism and collectivism since 2002. He has written this exclusive piece for Atlas on the massive wave of censorship.

Facebook Launches Massive Attacks Against Anti-Terrorists By Benyamin B.

Last week, three anti-terrorism organizations were targeted in a massive crackdown by Facebook. The organizations - The Anti-Terrorism Coalition (ATC), Facebook-based American Infidel (AI) and Facebook-based Infidel Forces (IF) - were involved in taking over Islamic terrorist, pro-terrorist and other hateful groups operating on the popular networking site.

IF, which was formed in 2008, had originally been created to counter Facebook's bias against anti-terrorist, patriotic and other freedom-loving groups and individuals. While countless terrorist, pro-terrorist and other hateful groups and users have been allowed to operate freely on Facebook, friendly users and groups have constantly been banned and shut down, respectively. Thus, the creators of IF decided to both "level the playing field" and combat cyber terrorists, at the same time.

By then, Facebook's blatant bias toward hostile groups and against allied groups was beyond obvious. David Appletree, the leader of the Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF), was (and still is) getting banned frequently for his group's actions against hostile groups. The JIDF had been involved in taking over hostile groups and getting others banned, by having massive numbers of its users report them to Facebook. In one instance, David Appletree was banned for being an administrator of a group that was taken over by Islamic hackers, while no action was taken against the hackers.

Facebook's favoritism of the very same people "who would kill all of its male employees and put all of its female employees in burqas" has also made it to the news on numerous occasions. In one instance, after Islamic hackers took over a massive pro-Israel group, Facebook banned the group's creator - a 14 or 15 year old American Jew by the name of Todd Snider. While this story was picked up by the anti-terrorism community, especially by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, the David Horowitz Freedom Center (and Frontpage Magazine) and some others; it was largely ignored by the mainstream media.

There's much more. Go read the whole thing.

Go Liz Go!!!

2009-07-14T03:09:00.000+01:00

Via the Washington Times:

EXCLUSIVE:

The daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that running for political office is on her horizon.

"It's something I very well may do," said Elizabeth "Liz" Cheney, a lawyer and State Department appointee who has worked on two Republican presidential campaigns.

Ms. Cheney, 44, has emerged as one of the strongest defenders of the effectiveness and legality of Bush-Cheney policies on enhanced interrogation methods. More recently, she and her father have become two of the most outspoken critics of President Obama's position on terrorism and other national security issues, which has led Republicans to consider her a strong candidate for national political office. (Read entire article and hear audio clip)

WASHINGTON - JUNE 1: Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, listens as her father speaks at the Gerald R. Ford Foundation's annual Journalism Awards on June 1, 2009 in Washington, DC. Vice President Cheney strongly defended the Bush administration's record on national security. (Daylife-Getty Images)

Cheney, unlike the pusillanimous Democrats, would conduct the War on Terror in the proper fashion:

LIZ CHENEY: "Well, in my view, you know, I think they don't understand that it's a war. And you know, they sort of, some of them have started to adopt the language of acknowledging it's a war because they understand the American people know it's a war.

But fundamentally, deep down, I think they really are uncomfortable with the notion that we have to capture and kill al-Qaeda, that we have to get information, that we can't win the war without intelligence, that if you just ask terrorists nicely and read them the Miranda rights they're not going to give you intelligence.

They're uncomfortable with those notions, they'd rather treat this as law enforcement, they'd rather run these guys through the American court system and so I think this is in part an effort to discredit all of those programs that were very effective precisely because they did recognize that we were at war. But I think, you know, we've been down this path before and the American people have an awful lot of common sense about this: they know it's a war.

And I do think the Democrats are entering very dangerous territory here of reminding everybody once again why the Republicans do a better job of defending the nation."

No Signed Paper Can hold the iron, it must come from men

2009-07-14T01:45:00.002+01:00

"I came here to die with you. Or to live with you. Dying ain't so hard for men like you and me, it's livin' that's hard, when all you've ever cared about has been butchered or raped. Governments don't live together people live together. With governments you don't always get a fair word or a fair fight. Well I've come here to give ya either one, or get either one from ya"

FBI, CIA FUND GALA ISLAMIC FESTIVAL

2009-07-13T23:58:00.007+01:00

Dhimmitude in Dearborn!

Christian Rights Suppressed!

Jews Stay Home

Paul L. Williams, Ph.D.

thelastcrusade.org

Obama’s America: Jews and Christians stay out!

Welcome to Obama’s America, where Islam represents the favored religion and a vital political force.

The transformed land of liberty was very much on view at the 14^th Annual Arab International Festival in Dearborn, Michigan from June 19 to 21. Most readers, in this day of two-bit journalism and bughouse blogs, might dismiss the following account as phantasmagorical, save for the fact that friends of the Last Crusade has managed to capture the gala event on video. Click, watch, and scream.

The event was sponsored not only by the Ford Motor Company (we thought they were bankrupt) and the American Arab Chamber of Commerce but also (get this) by the FBI, the CIA and various representatives of the U.S. Military.

The 250,000 people who attended the event munched on rolled pita sandwiches, shawarma, tabouli, hummus and baklava. The men, in many cases, wore throbs and ghutras; the women were draped in black burqas, or western jeans, accented with veils.

The ribbon cutting, which got the festival underway, was conducted by State Senator Irma Clarke Coleman, Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano, and Dearborn Mayor Jack O’Reilly.

Note the Arabic encryption on the Government Issue T-Shirts

Representatives from the all branches of the U.S. Military – - Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force Armed forces – - promised American citizenship to every Mid-Eastern immigrant willing to enlist – - as long as they were Muslims – - Christians and Jews were excluded from the offer. G.I. Issued uniforms were emblazoned with Arabic script in case prospective recruits could not understand terms such as “United States Army”.

The FBI, not to be undone, set up a booth to recruit Muslim agents, and the CIA conducted raffles in order to entice young Islamists to enter the cloistered world of U.S. intelligence.

http://www.americanarab.com

The FBI, not to be undone, set up a booth to recruit Muslim agents, and the CIA conducted raffles in order to entice young Islamists to enter the cloistered world of U.S. intelligence.

The few Christians, who dared to venture forth on Warren Street to attend the festive gathering, were prohibited by law from distributing religious tracts and materials.

The order, which prohibited religious freedom to the Christians, came from U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmonds.

While there never has been a disruption of the public peace by Christians during the annual event, the Dearborn police kept vigilant watch for any Baptist or Pentecostal intrepid enough to violate the ruling to suppress their religious freedom.

No such stout-hearted soul appeared with tract, rosary, or Bible in hand, except an inspired group of young Arab Christians and ex-Muslims. Rick Warren’s disciples and the Joel Osteen militia were conspicuously absent as innocent Christians were set upon with violence and threats.

Serving their Islamic masters, the Dearborn Police defied their oath of office to protect the violent 5^th columnists and joined in the violent intimidation of the Christians.

No native-born American Christian had the guts to stand with the victims of Islamic Jihad in Dearbornistan.

“Never again” has never sounded so meaningless.

Of course, the Muslims were not prohibited from distributing their tracts (mostly to the African Americans in attendance) and selling Islamic books and materials.

Fay Beydoun of the American Arab Chamber of Commerce in Dearborn told the Detroit News there was “no problem” with the Christians being at the event, “but we do have to think about the safety of everyone.”

The ruling by Judge Edmonds caused Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, to quip: “It’s ironic that while Americans are applauding the free speech exercised by hundreds of thousands of Muslims on the streets of Iran, the city of Dearborn is restricting free speech rights Christians are attempting to exercise on the city’s public sidewalks.”

But why complain?

Christians by the hundreds, representing major local and national mainline denominations were more than pleased to fly into Dearborn, to act as dutiful dhimmis by cleaning the streets, attending to the Muslim children, and maintaining the Porta-Potties.

READ THE REST

2009-07-13T23:58:00.003+01:00

h/t Michael Travis

Get Real Hip Hop for peace in the Middle East

A Tale of Two 31-Year Old Mothers

2009-07-13T23:32:00.003+01:00

The repercussions for all of Germany following the murder of a 31-year old Muslim woman from Egypt by a passport-German from Russia in a German courtroom are remarkable and dramatic and remarkably dramatic. All honour killings and other crimes within the Muslim counter-culture, all killings, mutilations and beatings-up of Germans by our Muslim "culture enrichers" are, as far as they got any attention at all, forgotten. They were "isolated cases" anway, whereas for this, really isolated, case all Germans are held responsible, a crime committed by a man who wasn't even socialised within the evil "islamophobic" German culture.

Indeed, the media echo is stunning. A quick Google-search just for the name of the victim reveals amazing results. "Martyr", "headscarf" and "pregnant" are the feeds that mainly catch the eye. Of course, the German results are almost identical, with the German equivalents of "hate crime" and "racism" thrown in.

All of Germany is wallowing orgasmically, like swine wallow in dirt, in their own moral squalor. They love that.

And moral squalor it is indeed, just not in the way they see it.

The secretaries of both, the Central Council of Jews, convertite Stephan Kramer, and the Central Council Muslims in Germany, Aiman Mazyek, had the mutual enemy quickly identified and visited the widower together to express their sincere hypocrisy.

The French Figaro, so Gudrun Eussner informs me, quotes in today's print issue on page 7 the same Aiman Mazyek who states that "total (sic!) religious freedom" must be defended, part of which is the wearing of the headscarf:..."liberté réligieuse totale, dont fait partie le port du voile."

Has anybody still any doubt that we in the West are in a total (sic!) and global war with Islam?

Even such experts on human rights like Mahmud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution (SCCR) chimed in, the latter issuing a statement saying the murder of Marwa al-Sherbini in Germany demonstrated the West’s disrespect to human rights.

And nobody laughed.

The most revealing aspect was, however, that even such an obscene extravaganza of German self-hatred and submission wasn't enough for the trailblazing whips (or rather: "whippettes") of dhimmitude. Andrea Dernbach, who has proven her ethical depth and moral prowess already by a justification of sex with children to clear Islam of the suspicion of homophobia, asked under the header "Germany's new hatred": "Why does the death of a woman wearing a headscarf – who wasn’t the victim of a so-called “honour killing” – spark so little interest in Germany?"

So far, so bad, but lately we seem even to export that specific brand of Islam-adoring journalettes, maybe because whatever Germans do, they do thoroughly. And indeed, under the even more incredible header "A murder that Germany ignored" a woman with a German-sounding name whines (in the Al Guardian, no less!) about what must be, I don't have any other explanation, the figment of an oestrogen-addled brain, and doesn't even shy away from repeating an outlandish, preposterous accusation from the Muslim media:

They [the German media] could have asked – as an Egyptian did – why Marwa's husband, while he was trying to help his wife, was shot and wounded by a policeman in the courtroom. Because he was not blond-haired?

I am not a prolific letter-to-the-editor-writer, but this time I couldn't help myself:

Your name suggests that you can read German. So you either have an agenda or you are out of your mind. The German media is, since that crime happened, in an orgiastic, self-hating frenzy. "Germans! She died for your sins!" And you are SERIOUSLY selling the above drivel to an unsuspecting Guardian readership? The day the countless ethnic Germans who are beaten to a pulp or killed by our Muslim culture enrichers get at least a fifth of the media attention this case got and it still getting, I will stop worrying what makes people like you tick.

Elsewhere, in Iran, the 31-year-old mother of two, Mohabat Mahmodi, will be executed within the next couple of days, because she killed her rapist in self-defense.*

And nobody cares. They are all too busy being outraged by German islamophobia.

*Information from an email by Mina Ahadi, exile-Iranian and secretary of the Central Council of Ex-Muslims in Germany.

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.

2009-07-13T23:30:00.000+01:00

Got me a new theme song :)

(hey Pasto -- ya want in on this one?)

Billy Currington

People Are Crazy

Billy Currington More CMT Music More CMT Music Videos

Check What's Going On At YOUR Local Level

2009-07-13T22:18:00.000+01:00

Item from Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.):

Virginia: Holocaust Denier Likely to be Elected to Board of Reston — Running Unopposed in Reston Citizens Association, Sparks Write-In Campaign

— Ken Meyercord running unopposed for at-large seat on the board to “Reston Citizens Association, a quasi-governmental body that sets the agenda for the community of 60,000″

— Ken Meyercord has a “a long history of writing about what he says are ‘myths’ of the Holocaust, including a piece called ‘(Holo-) History is Bunk.’”

— Ken Meyercord “dismisses as Allied propaganda the assertion that Nazi Germany embarked on a mission to annihilate European Jews, a plan known as the Final Solution.”

— “He also denies that Nazis used gas chambers to murder Jews, saying gas chambers did not exist, and expresses skepticism that the number of Holocaust victims reached 6 million”

— “Meyercord said his views of history changed after living in the Middle East. After attending Dartmouth, he obtained a master’s degree at American University in Beirut, where he also met his wife, who is Palestinian, and became more sympathetic the Arab view of the conflict with Israel.”

— “His other writings include a piece comparing Israel’s treatment of Gaza to the Nazis’ handling of the Warsaw Ghetto; an apocalyptic fantasy in which an invasion of the United States is an allusion to the war in Iraq”

If candidates such as this one are out and about here in Northern Virginia, there are likely out and about where you are, too.

And Now, A Word From the Friendly Muslim Brothers of Al Ikhwan!

2009-07-13T22:17:00.000+01:00

CLICK ME OR I WILL NOT BE YOUR FRIEND!

The Muslim Brotherhood's Statement on U.S. Military Withdrawal from Iraqi Cities

July 9, 2009 CAIRO, Egypt - The Muslim Brotherhood, like other citizens of the Arab and Islamic nations, is witnessing scenes of the U.S. occupation forces pulling out of Iraqi cities.

There is no doubt that these scenes have raised a lot of concerns and grief over what happened to Iraq during the six-year crisis which affected this country by the occupation in which much blood had been spilled, causing victims and devastating results including hundreds of thousands of deaths all over Iraq, and the loss of Iraq"s human and material resources,

Corruption prevailed amid weak political processes and the establishing of a pro-US regime unable to manage the country's affairs.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraq's noble men and women were arrested and placed inside the government and occupation jails. Millions of Iraqi people have been displaced inside and outside their country.

This is the outcome of the gloomy years of the U.S. occupation of Iraq under the pretext of spreading freedom and democracy in the Arab and Muslim worlds. After all, the occupation impudently declares… "We were wrong"... Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction, nor did it have meaningful ties to al-Qaida!

The former U.S. President George W. Bush had explicitly announced days before he left his office: "Our information was false," and when asked to apologize, he smiled and abstained.

The British government is now opening an investigation with the former government which was headed by Tony Blair to find out how and why Iraq was invaded amidst false information promoted by newspapers about Iraq"s possession of weapons of mass destruction!

Each day passes revealing a number of facts and proving beyond doubt, the invalidity of the allegations of the U.S-Western coalition justified by the invasion of Iraq. They did not apologize for their shameful crimes against humanity.

The Muslim Brotherhood regarded the withdrawal as a mere deployment of the occupation forces assuming that the independence of Iraq will only be accomplished by the withdrawal of the last soldier of the foreign occupation from the Arab Muslim country.

The Muslim Brotherhood calls for the people of Iraq to completely document the magnitude of the devastation caused by the occupation without prejudice as well as recording the numbers of dead, wounded and displaced by the destruction of the United States war machine. This documentation must materially be evaluated on all the countries that participated in the aggression demanded by the international forums and should be registered as a right of Iraqis not a grant or gift.

The Muslim Brotherhood also demands the prosecution of Bush and his administration and all those who contributed in war crimes and genocide committed against humanity and against Iraqi people before international tribunals.

The Muslim Brotherhood calls on Iraqis to uphold with the national unity, stating they should regard Iraqi blood as a red line that cannot be crossed, while maintaining fre noble resistance against the occupation and the continuation in adhering to the political struggle against the injustices committed against the sons of Mesopotamia such as detention, torture and displacement. Iraqis can administer and take charge of their affairs rather than the mercenary troops interfering in Iraqi affairs (And Allah hath full power and control over His affairs; but most among mankind know it not).

~ Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo: 12th Rajab 1430 Hijri
Special thanks to: IkhwanWeb

Click Me Dhimmis!
I am Your Good Friend Hassan al-Banna!

Britain stops arms exports to Israel

2009-07-13T20:29:00.002+01:00

Not that it should really matter, because Israel shouldn't be relying too heavily on foreign aid from countries like the UK, but that's what the blighty just did because they don't like Israel's right to defend itself in the Gaza conflict:

Britain became the first country to halt arms exports to Israel in response to its Gaza offensive, rescinding five export licences for parts used on warships which were deployed in the conflict.

An Israeli official said that Britain had reviewed 182 licenses before deciding to revoke the five in connection with the Saar 4.5 class corvette. The British Embassy in Tel Aviv confirmed the move but said that it did not constitute an embargo on Israel.

"There are no security agreements between the UK and Israel," an embassy spokesman said. "UK policy remains to assess all export licences to Israel against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria.”

After the 23-day offensive six months ago, a number of MPs called on Gordon Brown to impose a complete arms embargo on Israel. A petition of more than 38,000 signatures calling for a ban was also posted on the Prime Minister’s website.

I've got a feeling that even if the Tories are elected to office next year, this may not change. But as I said, I don't think Israel should rely on Britain's arms services anyway, because the time has come to start developing weapons on their own.

If anything, this shows how the UK's anti-Israel hostility has really reached a new low.

More commentary on this from Melanie Phillips.

Liz Cheney on Obama

2009-07-13T19:53:00.003+01:00

h/t Ace of Spades

Wall Street Journal:

Obama Rewrites the Cold War
The President has a duty to stand up to the lies of our enemies.
By LIZ CHENEY

There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week.

Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: "The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."

The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not "competition in astrophysics and athletics." It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet "sphere of influence" was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.

It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push "reset" -- or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.

Mr. Obama's method for pushing reset around the world is becoming clearer with each foreign trip. He proclaims moral equivalence between the U.S. and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies.

The approach was evident in his speech in Moscow and in his speech in Cairo last month. In Cairo, he asserted there was some sort of equivalence between American support for the 1953 coup in Iran and the evil that the Iranian mullahs have done in the world since 1979. On an earlier trip to Mexico City, the president listened to an extended anti-American screed by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and then let the lies stand by responding only with, "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was 3 months old."

Asked at a NATO meeting in France in April whether he believed in American exceptionalism, the president said, "I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." In other words, not so much.

The Obama administration does seem to believe in another kind of exceptionalism -- Obama exceptionalism. "We have the best brand on Earth: the Obama brand," one Obama handler has said. What they don't seem to realize is that once you're president, your brand is America, and the American people expect you to defend us against lies, not embrace or ignore them. We also expect you to know your history.

Mr. Obama has become fond of saying, as he did in Russia again last week, that American nuclear disarmament will encourage the North Koreans and the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions. Does he really believe that the North Koreans and the Iranians are simply waiting for America to cut funds for missile defense and reduce our strategic nuclear stockpile before they halt their weapons programs?

The White House ought to take a lesson from President Harry Truman. In April, 1950, Truman signed National Security Council report 68 (NSC-68). One of the foundational documents of America's Cold War strategy, NSC-68 explains the danger of disarming America in the hope of appeasing our enemies. "No people in history," it reads, "have preserved their freedom who thought that by not being strong enough to protect themselves they might prove inoffensive to their enemies."

Perhaps Mr. Obama thinks he is making America inoffensive to our enemies. In reality, he is emboldening them and weakening us. America can be disarmed literally -- by cutting our weapons systems and our defensive capabilities -- as Mr. Obama has agreed to do. We can also be disarmed morally by a president who spreads false narratives about our history or who
accepts, even if by his silence, our enemies' lies about us.

Monday Nooner!

2009-07-13T17:00:00.002+01:00

Another Great Love Affair where woman saves man (yet again) (good Lord where would we guys be without the ladies?) from the personal demons that would destroy him.

Waylon Jennings and Jessi Colter

Storms Never Last

The New Tea Parties: An Overture to Reclaiming Our Lost Freedom

2009-07-13T16:05:00.000+01:00

Guest Commentary by Edward Cline:

This is an adaptation of an address I will make at the Richmond, Virginia Tea Party on July 25, 2009:

First, some background. On December 16, 1773, Bostonians and other locals roughly dressed as Mohawk Indians, boarded three American merchant vessels in the harbor, the Dartmouth, the Eleanor and the Beaver recently arrived from Britain with 342 chests of tea, and tossed the chests into the harbor. The tea nominally belonged to colonial American consignees, by appointment by the British East India Company (two of them sons of the royal governor, Thomas Hutchinson). The Tea Act of 1773 replaced the repealed Townshend Act duties on other commodities, and gave the East India Company a legal monopoly to hire other merchantmen to take the tea to North America.

The three-pence per pound tax remained on the tea. This tea would have been cheaper than the Dutch tea being smuggled into the colonies, even with the tax, which the colonial American consignees were obliged to pay. Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty put pressure on the consignees to not pay the tax and order the tea back to Britain. Hutchinson, however, persuaded the consignees to stand firm. (His salary was derived from import duties and other taxes.) The customs officer refused to allow the vessels to leave the harbor without paying the duty.

The impasse had to be resolved, one way or another. The Crown or the patriots would need to give in. The Crown’s position was the status quo, and inaction. So the Americans took action, the only action open to them if they were to remain loyal to their convictions: they destroyed the tea as a demonstration that they would not pay the tax or submit to arbitrary Crown authority.

Lord North, prime minister, after receiving news of the Boston Tea Party and the actions of Americans in New York and Philadelphia, was faced with a dilemma linked to that authority: Use it, or lose it. He chose to use it, against the advice of some of his subministers, but in timid concordance with the outrage expressed in Parliament. He endorsed the Coercive Acts; that is, he agreed that reason must be answered with force. Of what use was power, if it were not exercised?

Why did the Americans decide to trespass on the three vessels and destroy their tea cargos when not only would they not have to pay the tax, but have cheaper tea, even when its retail price would have reflected a small percentage of the tax? Was it a matter, as some historians claim, of the legal, taxed tea underselling the illegal, smuggled tea? Did the patriots act on emotion, or on principle? Did they know, as apparently Lord North did not, that such an action would set in motion a course of events that would lead to war and independence?

Because the consignees were American, and because none of the colonies was represented in Parliament, it was a matter of taxation without representation. However, it was more than a matter of political principle. It was the application of a moral principle. If the colonists sanctioned the tea tax by paying it, it would be an acknowledgement that the Crown had a right to tax them on any commodity or service. The tea was merely a symbol. It could just as well have been any other commodity formerly covered by the repealed Townshend duties: glass, nails, or paint. The colonists did not grant that sanction over their lives. If they recognized the Crown’s authority to tax them, the wisest among the colonists pointed out, that authority could just as well in time be extended over every particular of their lives.

The original Tea Party was a revolt against the power of government to regulate one’s life and dictate how it would be conducted and at what price. It was an affirmation by the colonists that they owned their own lives, and retained the right to delegate necessary political power to their elected representatives. It was an affirmation of the moral principle that no government had a right to dispose of or expropriate one’s property, and, by implication, one’s life. All political principles -- good or bad, pro-freedom, or socialist, or fascist -- are grounded on specific moral principles.

One ostensive difference between the original Tea Party and the Tea Parties of 2009 is that while the Americans who took part in the original Tea Party disguised themselves as Indians to prevent identification by the authorities, we, the new Sons of Liberty, do not disguise ourselves to protect our identities. We dare any authority to take action against us for exercising our First Amendment right to free speech, which includes criticizing our government and accusing it of behaving like George III and Parliament.

The Crown’s response to the Boston Tea Party was to legislate the Coercive or Intolerable Acts as punishment. Today, the current administration, in partnership with Congress, has passed, and continues to pass, a Medusa’s head of acts vastly more extortionate and repressive than the original Coercive Acts, and the Tea Parties have been a response to them.

It is time for Americans to understand that it is not merely a political fight they have on their hands, but a moral one. They must reject the moral code that asks them to live for the sake of other men -- what else could TARP, or the takeover of General Motors, or of the tobacco industry, or of the energy industry, of the insurance industry, or of the health care business mean, but for you to sacrifice your right to your life and your money and property for the sake of others -- and proudly, loudly proclaim the selfish virtue of individual rights, which has been the source of all the wealth and prosperity that we enjoy but which Obama and Congress seek to destroy through socialist redistribution.

Americans must understand that what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence applies no less today than it did in July of 1776. To paraphrase his eternal words: When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object -- which is complete control of the economy and our lives -- evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is our right to throw off such government -- or to vote its agents out of office, or to raise such a protest that they dare not act lest they set in motion a similar train of events.

To further paraphrase Jefferson’s words: A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the president of a free people. Our princely president has repeatedly demonstrated that he is unfit for the office.

Let us not treat this day, or any future Tea Party or any other kind of protest, as just another tea party. Let us solemnly regard it as a chance and a first step to finish the American Revolution, to protest the omnivorous and indiscriminate appetite of federal power to consume everything in its path, to assert the right to our lives and property and futures, to work on a course of action that will ultimately correct the errors present in the Constitution and repeal its freedom-destroying amendments. Americans must act to finish the American Revolution -- before Obama and Congress finish this country.

Crossposted at The Dougout

The Islamic Saudi Academy Seeks To Expand

2009-07-13T13:38:00.001+01:00

Photo Credit: the Washington Post
I frequently blog about the Islamic Saudi Academy, owned by the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia and situated in compound-like facilities in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Tonight, July 10, 2009 @ 6:00 PM, the school will go before the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, in the final step of approval for expansion of the school's Popes Head Road location.

Yesterday, the following arrived in an email to me:

The Fairfax County government recently sent invitations to a free dinner presentation on Islam as a religion of “peace and harmony” to county churches and to some who have testified against the Academy’s planned expansion in the past. County government personnel and resources were used to distribute the e-mailed invitations.

“The Fairfax County government has been compromised and the Saudis and their radical cohorts are getting their money's worth out of all of their political contributions,” said James Lafferty, chairman of the Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force. “Churches and synagogues here can’t even get the government to talk to them, let alone help them proselytize.

“Fairfax County government is already following the first rule of Shariah law – Islam is the state religion and the only religion. While brave American men and women are dying to defeat terrorists – spineless Fairfax County politicians turn a deaf ear to terrorism in its midst.”

The email also cited this essay at Townhall.com.

Dhimmiwits at the local-government level!

Considering that at the last hearing, the Zoning Board didn't want to hear anything whatsover about ISA's ideology, curriculum, and well-documented issues of the recent past, I predict that the Board of Supervisors will roll over once again and submit to the Wahhabist school, located a few scant miles from our nation's capital.

Some of us here in Northern Virginia are knocking ourselves out in what seems to be a futile attempt to stem the tide of Wahhabism. What we face is a leadership who refuses to face the facts. In fact, on one occasion, a member of that leadership, one Gerry Connolly who was Chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and has now been elected to the United States House of Representatives, referred to those testifying against the Islamic Saudi Academy as "slanderous bigots." Lovely, just lovely.

The Plans Of Cass Sunstein

2009-07-13T10:35:00.004+01:00

Based on his own words and statements of intent, Cass Sunstein, appointed to the shadowy post of White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, will likely have his eye on the Internet, particularly on us bloggers:

When it comes to the First Amendment, Team Obama believes in Global Chilling.

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a "chilling effect" on speech that might hurt someone's feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.

[...]

Sunstein questions the current libel standard - which requires proving "actual malice" against those who write about public figures, including celebrities. Mere "negligence" isn't libelous, but Sunstein wonders, "Is it so important to provide breathing space for damaging falsehoods about entertainers?" Celeb rags, get ready to hire more lawyers.

Sunstein also believes that - whether you're a blogger, The New York Times or a Web hosting service - you should be held responsible even for what your commenters say. Currently you're immune under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "Reasonable people," he says, "might object that this is not the right rule," though he admits that imposing liability for commenters on service providers would be "a considerable burden."

[...]

"As we have seen," Sunstein writes, having shown us no such thing, "falsehoods can undermine democracy itself." What Sunstein means by that sentence is pretty clear: He doesn't like so-called false rumors about his longtime University of Chicago friend and colleague, Barack Obama.

He alludes on page 3 (and on page 13, and 14, and 45, and 54 - the book is only 87 pages) to the supposedly insidious lie that "Barack Obama pals around with terrorists." Since Sunstein intends to impose his Big Chill on such talk, I'd better get this in while I can. The "rumor," i.e., "fact," about the palsy-walsiness of Obama and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers (Ayers referred to Obama as a "family friend" in a memoir) did not "undermine democracy," i.e., prevent Obama's election. The facts got out, voters weighed them and ruled that they weren't disqualifying.

Sunstein calls for a "notice and take down" law that would require bloggers and service providers to "take down falsehoods upon notice," even those made by commenters - but without apparent penalty.

Consider how well this nudge would work. You blog about Obama-Ayers. You get a letter claiming that your facts are wrong so you should remove your post. You refuse. If, after a court proceeding proves simply that you are wrong (but not that you committed libel, which when a public figure is the target is almost impossible), you lose, the penalty is . . . you must take down your post.

Such suppression of First Amendment rights would be challenged in courts of law, of course. However, the article points out the following disturbing reality:

How long would it take for a court to sort out the truth? Sasha and Malia will be running for president by then. Nobody will care anymore. But it will give politicians the ability to tie up their online critics in court....

If Suntein's proposals become reality, America as the beacon of freedom is finished!

Night Owls and Insomniacs Special

2009-07-13T06:43:00.001+01:00

Waylon Jennings and Neil Diamond

(no kiddin')

One Good Love

Globe Trotter Obama Smashes Presidential Records

2009-07-13T03:57:00.002+01:00

Takes alot of shoe leather -- and jet fuel (YO O -- What about Global Warming? Ya buying yer indulgences from Pope Albert?) -- to go on a world apology tour. Get everybody all touchy feely again.

Maybe Obama should have a boa. . .

(wonder if he & Mickey are members of the mile high club???)

Newsmax:

Globe Trotter Obama Smashes Presidential Records

Sunday, July 12, 2009 8:00 PM
By: David A. Patten

President Barack Obama loves to fly and it shows!

This past week, Obama wrapped up his latest foreign sojourn, returning from a whirlwind trip to Moscow, Rome and Accra, Ghana.

But critics and political strategists contend that Obama's foreign globetrotting will end up hurting him with the American electorate.

With just 175 days into his first term and in the midst of the worst economic crisis he says the nation has faced since the Great Depression, the new president is shattering all previous presidents' records for overseas travel at this early stage of a presidency.

Put simply, no U.S. president ever has traveled abroad so often, so early.

In the first 171 days of his presidency, Obama spent 22 days -- the equivalent of one full month of working days -- out of the country. That means 13 percent of Obama's time in office has been spent abroad.

During that period, the president has made 17 visits to other nations, dwarfing the number of overseas visits -- seven -- that former President George W. Bush had completed at the same point in his presidency. Former President Ronald Reagan, who also took office in tumultuous times, made two overseas visits at this point in his presidency.

At the current pace Obama would, after only four years in office, shatter the record for total travel abroad by any U.S. president -- even those who served two terms.

Incoming presidents typically maintain busy travel schedules during their first year in office, when the world jostles to see the new American leader up-close and personal.

But Obama's pace is unprecedented: At the current rate of travel, he would complete some 145 visits to other nations by the end of his four-year term.

That would easily eclipse the mark for most overseas trips by any president, including those who served two terms.

Pundits warn Obama's torrid accumulation of frequent flyer miles could have serious consequences politically, at a time when opinion polls indicate his popularity has begun to waiver.
“It’s hard to believe the president," former GOP presidential contender and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee tells Newsmax, "when he tells us his highest priority is to fix our economy at home and when he’s spent so much of his time and the taxpayers’ treasury traveling about the world to apologize for America, and to hang out with world leaders who are running from the very kind of high-tax, big government that he is running toward.”

Fox News analyst Dick Morris believes that Obama is leaving the country largely because he can't come to grips with the country's economic troubles.

"Obama is, essentially, a foreign policy president who finds himself beset with domestic economic problems that were never part of why he ran in the first place," Morris told Newsmax. "Iraq was always his chosen issue, not the economy."

In addition to the political cost, there is the financial one that has some fiscal watchdogs angry.
Demian Brady, a senior policy analyst with the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) in Alexandria, Va., notes: "Presidential trips involve a lot of advance work, are often accompanied by large entourages, and can be quite expensive."

Brady adds, "Although we are in an era of globalism, trips abroad involving the president should be chosen and planned carefully to ensure that costs to the taxpayer are minimized."

Brady co-authored a 2001 NTU study on presidential travel. He recently updated the NTU data of presidential travel, in part based on travel information gathered by Newsmax from public sources, including news reports and the State Department historian's online record of presidential travel.

The NTU data now include the second term of George W. Bush and the first 171 days of travel by President Obama.

Obama's foreign travel controversy is not the first time the issue has been raised as a partisan and effective jab.

During the 1992 presidential campaign challenger Bill Clinton took the George H.W. Bush to task for excessive foreign travel, suggesting he was focusing on international affairs at the expense of minding the domestic economy.

"It is time for us to have a president who cares more about Littleton, N.H., than about Liechtenstein; more about Manchester than Micronesia," Clinton said while on the campaign trail in New Hampshire in 1992.

Indeed, at the Democratic National Convention in New York that year, Democrats distributed T-shirts headlined "George Bush's Around the World Tour." Emblazoned thereon were all the countries the incumbent president had visited during his term in office.

Big Political Price

Obama should heed the lessons of that campaign, pundits say.

"Presidents absolutely love the foreign travel and being chief of state," Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, tells Newsmax. "They are treated like kings, walk the world stage, and have maximum maneuverability since the executive branch gets extra leeway from Congress on international relations."

Escaping D.C. chicanery can carry a big price tag in terms of political capital, however, Sabato says.

"Americans want a president’s focus to be domestic, especially during a time of economic crisis," Sabato says. "Instinctively, voters know that a president can easily get out of touch with their problems while hobnobbing around the world."

In Obama's case, Sabato hastens to add: "Of course, it’s a global recession. A president wouldn’t be doing his job if he didn’t coordinate with other leaders around the globe. These meetings and speeches are necessary since the United States is still the world’s most important country. But presidents have to seek a balance. They can’t ignore either domestic or foreign constituencies."

If Obama were re-elected and continued to travel at the same rate, he would visit other nations about 290 times before the wheels of Air Force One finally squeaked down for the last time. So Obama is currently on pace to obliterate any previous record for presidential travel abroad.

That fact opens up Obama to criticism from those who feel his energies would be better directed to minding the store at home.

Conservative direct-marketer and columnist Richard Viguerie, for example, says Obama's international focus reflects "his Chicago-style, socialist, one-world policies."

Adds Viguerie, "He realizes that he has a small window of opportunity, and he wants to maximize his impact on global policies, while globalizing American policies."

To date, much of Obama's travel has involved attendance at vital international summits: The G8 and G20 gatherings of world leaders, for example.

Dick Morris agrees with Viguerie's assessment.

"He is more comfortable abroad than he is in the United States," Morris thinks, “because he shares the global ideology, with its socialist tendencies, more than he does the attitudes of the American people."

Ultimately Morris says the positive buzz from the foreign trips and glitz will "backfire" with the American public.

"He is accomplishing nothing and has spurned world leaders everywhere he has gone. He gave Gordon Brown a set of DVDs and returned the bust of Churchill. He refused to have dinner with Sarkozy, and now he gave Putin a bare one hour and a half and refused to invite him to dinner, claiming that the evening should be occupied with 'family time.'"

Morris concludes: "It also isn't really good for his image for Michelle to wear $400 sneakers or walk around with a $6,000 purse while on foreign travels."

Air Obama

Obama's first trip outside the United States was a milk run to Canada on Feb. 19.

In mid-April, he visited with Mexican leaders and also attended the Summit of the Americans in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.

He has made two trips to the Middle East. The first was an April 6 meeting with Turkish leaders, followed by a surprise visit on April 7 to U.S. military personnel in Iraq. During that visit, Obama also met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Perhaps Obama's highest profile trip abroad was his speech to the world's Muslims in Cairo, Egypt, on June 4. In that address, Obama stated: "And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

With U.S. unemployment approaching 10 percent, the soundness of Obama's priorities will ultimately be determined by voters.

GOP stalwart Roger Stone suggests that while Obama might prefer to focus more on domestic concerns, the nuclear ambitions of rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea won't allow it.

"Obama recognizes that another attack on the United States will de-legitimize his 'let's talk' strategy, bear former Vice President Dick Cheney out, and leave the Obama presidency in tatters," Stone tells Newsmax. "He cannot afford to focus solely on the economy."

A list of the international frequent-flier miles that President Obama has tallied on his trips abroad so far:

Feb. 19 – Obama makes first trip abroad, meeting Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Ottawa.

March 31 – Obama arrives in London for the G20 meeting.

April 1 – He meets with high-profile international leaders.

April 2 – G20 summit begins.

April 3 – Obama visits with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and holds a town meeting with students. Obama attends a NATO meeting in Strasbourg, France.

April 4 – Obama meets German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and visits Kehl and Baden-Baden in West Germany.

April 5 – He meets with the Czech president in the Czech Republic.

April 6-7 – Obama visits with Turkish leaders in Istanbul and Ankara.

April 7 – Obama makes surprise visit to troops in Iraq, and meets with Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki.

April 16-17 – Obama visits Mexico to confer with Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

April 17-18 – Obama attends the 5th Summit of the Americas in Port of Spain, in the nation of Trinidad and Tobago.

June 3 – He visits with King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia.

June 4 – The president delivers his widely-covered speech in Cairo.

June 5 – Obama visits the German city of Dresden, then flies to Paris to visit with Sarkozy.

June 6 – Obama commemorates the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landing in Normandy.

June 7 – Obama leaves France at 7 a.m. E.T. to fly back to Andrews Air Force Base.

July 6 – The president and the first lady arrive in Moscow for a meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Obama and Medvedev announce the framework for a new nuclear-arms reduction treaty.

July 7 – Obama meets with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

July 8 – The president departs Moscow for Rome.

July 8-9 – President Obama meets with Italian leaders and attends G8 meetings.

July 10 – The Obamas visit with Pope Benedict XVI in the Vatican City, then fly to Accra, Ghana, located on the west coast of Africa.

Kim Jong Il Ill

2009-07-13T03:50:00.003+01:00

Y'know, ya never want to wish anyone the worst, but. . .

Fox News:

Report: North Korea's Kim Jong Il Has Pancreatic Cancer
Sunday , July 12, 2009

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has life-threatening pancreatic cancer, a news report said Monday, days after new images of him looking gaunt spurred speculation that his health might be worsening following a reported stroke last year.

The 67-year-old Kim was diagnosed with the cancer around the time he was felled by a stroke last summer, Seoul's YTN television reported, citing unidentified intelligence officials in South Korea and China.

The report cited the officials saying the disease is "threatening" Kim's life.

Pancreatic cancer is usually found in its final stage, and considering Kim's age, he is expected to live no more than five years, the report said.

South Korea's spy agency said it could not confirm the report.

Kim's health is a focus of intense media speculation due to concerns about instability and a power struggle if he were to die without naming a successor. His third and youngest son, Kim Jong Un, has widely been reported as being groomed as heir, but the regime has made no announcement to the outside world.

Monday's report came after Kim last week made a rare public appearance, in an annual memorial for his late father and North Korea's founder, Kim Il Sung.

Television footage showed him markedly thinner and with less hair — only the second state event he has attended in person since the reported stroke. He also limped slightly, and the sides of his tightlipped mouth looked imbalanced in what were believed to be the effects of a stroke.

The images touched off speculation that he could have other health problems.

South Korea's spy agency has long suspected that Kim has diabetes and heart disease.

Medical doctor and professor Min Yang-ki of Seoul's Hallym University Medical Center has said diabetes usually leads to weight loss. The neurologist also said Kim's limping appears to be a result of a stroke. However, he said, overall it appeared Kim has recovered from that reported illness.

Kim walked on his own into a Pyongyang auditorium for last week's memorial at a normal pace and bowed while standing during a moment of silence.

North Korea experts said the latest images of Kim show he is still fit enough to rule.

The totalitarian leader, whose rule is buttressed by an intense cult of personality, knew that the people of North Korea would pay great attention to the memorial, and his appearance there is a message that he is in charge, Yang Moo-jin, a professor at Seoul's University of North Korean Studies, said last week.

Kim Jong Il took over North Korea after his father died in 1994 of heart failure at age 82, though he did not take on his father's title of president. He runs the North from his post as chairman of the National Defense Commission.

In early April, he presided over a parliamentary meeting where he was re-elected as leader.

We'll Always Have Paris

2009-07-13T03:03:00.004+01:00

From Gates of Vienna:

Again Riots of Muslim Youth in France.

Again they set cars on fire. And again, they attack policemen and firemen.

By E.J. Bron

Because the 21-year-old delinquent Mohammed Benmouna hanged himself in his prison cell [last Monday, after hanging himself, he went into a coma, and died Wednesday in Saint-Étienne Hospital. He was under arrest for attempted extortion and in custody at the police office of Chambon-Feugerolles (Loire)], last night riots by Muslim youth returned for yet another night. During the third night in succession, it came to heavy riots in a suburb of the French city of Saint-Étienne, where these fellow citizens also set a shopping mall on fire in Firminy and many other small shops [see article below].

These youngsters are convinced that the police hanged Mohammed Benmouna in his cell. There is no evidence for that of course — even the prosecutor does not have any — but still the young fellow citizens put increasing pressure on the authorities to admit their “guilt”. Benmouna’s parents have announced that they will take legal action and demand a comprehensive investigation of the incident. [Actually, the father stirred up the anger by stating on French TV: “My son did not commit suicide; he was full of life. Did the police do it? […] I do not understand what happened.”] Even Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux said that it most probably was suicide. This all doesn’t matter to the troublemakers. Meanwhile, the unrest is now also spreading to other French cities [in particular: the Muslim zones — translator].

These youngsters are the children of Tunisian and North African immigrants, who are indeed included in the French state and are well taken care of, but have a deep contempt for the symbols of their new homeland and state authority. They are the young people from now more than 700 officially- designated “problem areas” [in majority Muslim — translator], in which the children of immigrants are trying to seize power and constantly challenge the French state authority.

President Sarkozy immediately after taking office introduced a return premium to the value of €8000, offered to Muslim families in France to leave for good. A few months later he also announced the cancellation of the state benefit to Muslims [jizya — translator] in France who are unwilling to integrate. That stirred up hatred among young Muslims in France.

Secondly, from NZZ Online:
- - - - - - - - -

Third Consecutive Night of Rioting in France

Rioters set cars and shops on fire

In a suburb of the French town of Saint-Étienne it came to riots for the third night. Ten cars and seven stores in a retail center in Firminy were set on fire, firefighters reported.

Police and firefighters were attacked by rioting youths with stones and rubbish. The police had to use tear gas, and six youths were arrested. Reports of injuries were not available.

The trigger for the riots in the city of Lyon was the death of the detained 21-year-old Mohammed Benmouna, who according to the authorities committed suicide in his prison cell. Many of the protesting youths, however, hold the police responsible. Benmouna’s parents initiated legal action and demanded a full investigation of the incident. On two previous nights it had come to serious riots, in which dozens of cars, garbage containers and abandoned buildings were set on fire.

VH adds:

Note: Data on the ZUS (Zones Urbaines Sensibles) are available in theofficial “Atlas of Sensitive Urban Areas in France”.

Translated into non-PC language: “Atlas of semi-autonomous Muslim occupied territories in France”.

2009-07-13T01:00:00.000+01:00

Ana Vidovic

Valses Venezolanos 2 y 3

Catholic Bashing from Newsweek

2009-07-13T00:57:00.003+01:00

Speaking as a usually lapsed Catholic I'm furious about this one.

I can't WAIT to see what the Editrix says. . .

The Depth of their syncophancy (???) knows no bounds.

Kathleen Townsend is a fucking idiot.

Newsweek

Without a Doubt
Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope does.

By Kathleen Kennedy Townsend Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jul 9, 2009

Tomorrow Pope Benedict XVI and President Barack Obama meet for the first time, an affair much anticipated and in some circles frowned upon by American Catholics in the wake of Obama's controversial Notre Dame commencement speech in May. Conservatives in the church denounced Obama's appearance as a nod by the premier Catholic university to a conciliatory politics that heralds the start of a slippery moral slope.

In truth, though, Obama's pragmatic approach to divisive policy (his notion that we should acknowledge the good faith underlying opposing viewpoints) and his social-justice agenda reflect the views of American Catholic laity much more closely than those vocal bishops and pro-life activists. When Obama meets the pope tomorrow, they'll politely disagree about reproductive freedoms and homosexuality, but Catholics back home won't care, because they know Obama's on their side. In fact, Obama's agenda is closer to their views than even the pope's.

It's fitting that Obama's visit comes just days after the publication of "Charity in Truth," a Vatican encyclical that declares unions, regulation of capitalism's excesses, and environmentalism to be ethical imperatives. The document gives moral credence to Obama's message and to progressive politics writ large.

Even more intriguing is the pope's support for political activism, which he refers to in the encyclical as "the institutional path … of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbor directly." As a member of a family that preached that politics is an honorable profession, I see that he is opening the church to roles that for too long have been neglected. Here Obama (the community organizer from Chicago) could teach the pope a lot about politics—and what a Catholic approach to politics could entail. They agree, too, on poverty and Middle East peace. So far so good on papal-presidential concordance.

But there they part ways. Politics requires the ability to listen to different points of view, to step into others' shoes. Obama might call it empathy. While the pope preaches love, listening to the other has been a particular stumbling block for the Catholic hierarchy (as it is for many in power). The hierarchy ignores women's equality and gays' cry for justice because to heed them would require that it admit error and acknowledge that the self-satisfied edifice constructed around sex and gender has been grievously wrong. Before he became John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla had a telling all-or-nothing formulation: "If it should be decided that contraception is not an evil in itself then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit is on the side of the Protestant Churches."

That attitude has resulted in some heinous decisions. Most famously, in the lead up to the encyclical "Humanae Vitae" in 1968, an advisory body of theologians and laity empaneled by the pope advised that the church should reverse its position on birth control and concede that the issue should be a question for morality and for science. But authority—not truth, not love—prevailed: Pope Paul VI, listening to the advice of Wojtyla, disagreed with the majority of these advisers, who had voted 69 to 10 for change, fretting that to change this position would weaken his authority.

In the same vein, American bishops in the 1970s struggled to produce a paper that would address the concerns of women. After nine years of effort, they gave up. Why? According to Bishop P. Francis Murphy, bishops see themselves as "teachers, not learners: truth can not emerge through consultation." Pope Benedict, having lived in the safety and security of the Vatican for much of his professional life, is part of this culture that silences dissent. (His last job was as the enforcer of doctrine.)

In 1979, Sister Theresa Kane, the head of the Sisters of Mercy and the president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, greeted Pope John Paul II on his first visit to the United States by proposing that the Church provide "for the possibility of women as persons being included in all ministries of our Church," including the priesthood. This was greeted with revulsion at the Vatican, which insists that the only people who can represent God in the priestly role are those with male sex organs.

Yet polls bear out that American Catholics do not want to be told by the Vatican how to think. Despite the rhetoric of love and truth, the Vatican shows disdain (if not disgust) toward gays. But 54 percent of American Catholics find gay relationships to be morally acceptable, according to a 2009 Gallup poll. Meanwhile, against all scientific evidence and protestations from clergy on the ground, the pope claims that condoms aggravate the spread of AIDS. Seventy-nine percent of American Catholics disagree, according to a 2007 poll by Catholics for Choice.

When Sen. John Kerry, a pro-choice Catholic, ran for president in 2004, several bishops decided to deny him communion. A poll done at the time by Time magazine showed that 73 percent of American Catholics disagreed with that decision, and 83 percent said the bishops' move wouldn't change their vote. In fact, more than two thirds said the church shouldn't try to influence the way Catholics vote at all or tell candidates—even Catholic ones—what stance to take.

For Obama, respectful disagreement and a willingness to recognize differences was the animating spirit of the presidential campaign, and it was central to his Notre Dame speech. That is the kind of politics many Catholics practice. They're tired of watching the church grasp frantically for control at the expense of truth and love. In America last November, it showed: 54 percent of Catholics voted for Obama.

Notre Dame awarded the president an honorary degree because it saw the need to highlight the best of Catholic teaching as applied to politics: the ability to open the eyes of those who would prefer to keep them closed, and to open the hearts of those who would prefer not to know the pain that their actions cause. The pope has a lot to learn about Catholic politics in America. Barack Obama can teach him.

BRUNO INTERVIEWS AYMAN ABU AITA terrorist with the Al Asqa Martyrs Brigade

2009-07-12T23:54:00.001+01:00

From Weasel Zippers:

Wisdom From Elie Wiesel

2009-07-12T22:54:00.001+01:00

I stumbled across the words below in a comment to this post at Jihad Watch, a post with over 100 comments and worth your time. Anyway, here are Wiesel's words:

"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."
Elie Wiesel

Quite an appropriate comment to leave to the aforementioned post at Jihad Watch, which analyzes Newsweek's recent article "Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong: Analyzing the forecasts of an emerging 'Eurabia,' hostile to America and western values." That particular article in Newsweek is all about how we don't need to fear the jihad and shari'a law. Shari'a law isn't mentioned, of course.

Read the entire article at Newsweek. It shows what we here at IBA up against. It's easier to pretend that Islamification is only a figment of infidels' and right wingers' imaginations than to deal with the problem: an ideology which is the antithesis of Western civilization.

2009-07-12T22:48:00.003+01:00

YO PASTORIUS! YO INFIDELS!

What say this one's for those who know us best but humor us anyway?

:)