The convener of the Global Day of Prayer London has delivered a tough call to Christians in the UK to wake up and take an uncompromising stand for their faith.
More than 10,000 Christians in London prayed in each of the capital's 33 boroughs as part of the Global Day of Prayer held across 219 countries on Pentecost Sunday.
Speaking at the Newham prayer meeting in East London, Pastor Jonathan Oloyede said that it was time for Christians to pray and act. He warned in particular of the threat posed by ungodly legislation being passed by Parliament and plans to build a so-called mega mosque at the site of the London Olympics.
"I used to be a Muslim. The Muslims don't just want to build a mosque. They want to take over. If you want to roll over and play dead while the legacy of your forefathers is thrown in the dust and you can't stand up and say enough is enough then you are not fit to be a Christian," he said.
Pastor Oloyede said Christians in the UK needed to "stop trying to be nice and cute" in the face of threats to their faith and the wellbeing of the nation.
"All that stuff about not offending anyone is nonsense. I used to try to be nice to everyone but God said to me: You cannot be my messenger by being nice to everybody. So are you going to just play nice or are you going to be a
follower of Christ?" he said.
He stressed that he was not asking Christians to be violent or unkind but rather to be bold and "true to the calling you have as a citizen of the Kingdom". Pastor Oloyede went on to urge Christians to be true believers by living out their faith.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
FDR's D-Day Speech & Prayer
Hat Tip: Flopping Aces
British IBA contributor, Ray Boyd, is, rightly, concerned with the America-centric remembrance of the D-Day Operation. He passed along this important information:
The facts are that there were 48,000 US troops participating in D-Day. The British troops numbered 52,000. Canadian troops numbered 14,000 on that day.
British sailors were responsible for the seaborne operation, the Royal Navy the only allied seaforce. Even the US landing craft were manned by British sailors.
The floating harbours, undersea fuel pipeline and other logistical operations were designed built and installed by British personnel.
Whilst the French would liked to have excluded Britain from yesterday's events in Normandy we must remember the facts, not the fiction - British forces predomindated in numbers in the D-day landings AND will not be written out of history.
Evan Thomas: "Obama...Is Sort Of God"
BHO Likened To Martin Luther King, Jr.
Around the time of BHO's coronation?
Today, the following appeared in the print edition of the Washington Post:
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. sought to bridge the great divides of his age by challenging the dominant paradigm and lifting up a new framework. King was clear: This isn't a black vs. white world but a "live together as brothers or perish together as fools" world.So, we, all of us, now have a JOB, that of building bridges with Moslems?
In Cairo, President Obama made his most King-like speech. Obama came to Cairo to bridge one of the great divides of our age -- between the United States and the Muslim world. And he drew from the same vision, grace and courage that King did.
He spoke of his admiration for Muslim civilization and its role across the ages in nurturing learning and progress, peace and pluralism. These are the same values that America has sought to advance. The stereotypes that Islam is only violent or that America seeks only empire are inaccurate and counterproductive. So is the focus only on the history of conflict. We have to begin our relationship on a different paradigm -- the history of cooperation and the power of our common principles. . . .
Years ago, King spoke of interracial bridges, and a generation built them.
Today, Obama's job is to speak of building interfaith bridges of service. It is our job to build them.
-- Eboo Patel, executive director, Interfaith Youth Core
Chicago-based Interfaith Youth Core provided a link to the following video at New Muslim Cool:
According to New Muslim Cool:
NATIONAL BROADCAST PREMIERE - P.O.V. ON PBS - JUNE 23More information HERE.
NEW MUSLIM COOL takes viewers on Puerto Rican American rapper Hamza Perez's ride through the streets, projects and jail cells of urban America, following his spiritual journey to some surprising places - where we can all see ourselves reflected in a world that never stops changing.
Apparently the film is going to receive several special screenings throughout the United States. Also included are ways to get involved with disseminating the film.
On the list of "Community Engagement Partners" are the Pluralism Project at Harvard University and Latino Public Broadcasting.
Making the United States into Dar al Islam? See this recent post by Revere Rides Again, here at IBA.
The Greatest Generation
The ‘Greatest Generation’ that gave so much, to so many, is becoming so few.
What made this generation so great?
Was it the service and the self-sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of this generation to free the world from fascist tyranny?
Or was it the un-selfish generosity of rebuilding the world after its defeat while making no demands of homage from those who followed and prospered economically, politically, and culturally because of this generation’s sacrifices?
Or perhaps it was the strength steeled during the Depression Years that forged responsible adults and not whimpering victims?
Or was it the courage to face and defeat a second global tyranny in the form of communism by not bending to the perennial appeasers that were ever present throughout the lives of this generation?
Or perhaps it was the loyalty shown to not just his country but his commitment to marriage and instilling a set of values in children that who in turn cares for those in crisis and need?
All these and more made this generation one of greatness.
The values of self-respect, personal responsibility and the delight in the celebration of the rituals of life are hallmarks of a great generation.
We will not soon see a generation like this pass this way again.
A Few Words From the Supreme Commander
One such real man was General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Unlike the creatures who now run America (and have for quite some time), Eisenhower did not think saboteurs and assassins in time of war merited lawyers, computers or constitutional rights. On 28 March 1945 Ike gave a press conference in Paris. Here is an interesting exchange:
Question: Do you attach any importance to the civilians attacking American troops in the Third Army Sector?
Answer: I can tell you what I have told all my Army Commanders, for which I take full responsibility, that resistance of that kind will be dealt with sternly and on the spot. I will not tolerate civilians, people out of uniform bearing arms, firing on our troops. *
In our current, degenerate time the Panderer-in-Chief not only tolerates American soldiers being murdered on American soil by agents of the global Jihad, he also clearly couldn't care less about it.
* Harry C. Butcher, My Three Years with Eisenhower (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1946), 784.
Crossposted at The Dougout
UK: Christian Pastor Tells Brits To Stand Up To Islam
From Christian Today:
65 Years Ago Today
Pipers had traditionally led Scottish troops into battle, but the death toll in World War I was so high that the practice was banned by the British high command. However, Lord Lovat asked Bill Millin, then 21, to ignore instructions and to pipe the Commandos ashore at Sword Beach. Wearing his kilt and armed only with his bagpipes, Bill marched up and down the shore playing "Hielan' Laddie" and "The Road to the Isles" as his comrades fell around him. German snipers later attested, they did not target Millin because they believed him to be mad.
The action was portrayed in the 1962 film "The Longest Day". The actor playing Millin was Pipe Major Leslie de Laspee, the official piper to Her Majesty The Queen Mother in 1961.
Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.
Feminism, culturism and group rights
Kymlicka argues that we should protect liberal non-western minority cultures inside the West. Kymlicka supports Sharia law. Astoundingly, for an academic, Okin, notes that no other cultures are as liberal to women as the West. From women’s vantage point, every granting of indigenous rights is a slap in the face of feminism. Okin notes the slippery slope from valuing cultures in education to granting group rights. And she successfully argues the culturist point that Kymlicka and multiculturalists underestimate diversity and the West’s uniqueness.
Kymlicka wants traditional cultures to be able to have separate cultural laws and autonomy within the West. He would, however, still allow violations of individual liberties to still be taken to State courts. This is how he proposes to square western rights with illiberal cultures’ practices. Okin counters that Kymlicka underestimates the division between the private and the public. A culture indeed may not discriminate against a woman’s ability to vote, but much of her oppression takes place in the private sphere. A Muslim girl being pressured to leave 10th grade in order to marry her cousin may not have the wherewithal to go to the majority cultures’ court. If we note that not all rights are public, we understand that public law may not protect the individual rights of women in illiberal subcultures. This will be doubly true if we grant the diverse cultures group rights protections.
Within the debate we hear about girls torn between the demeaning and limiting messages they get at home and the feminist messages at school. Okin implies, but does not state, that feminist teaching could be a great wedge by which to attack multiculturalism. But she wants to use feminism to undermine all cultural restrictions, western and non-western alike. She argues that we need a universal sisterhood to attack multiculturalism. Kymlicka argues for cultural rights due to the uses the psychological benefits of having a “rich and secure cultural structure, with special language and history.” Neither he nor Okin consider using the advanced condition of women in the West as a source of common identity and meaning. This would be the culturist strategy.
Culturism does not advocate basing our actions on the universal ideal of humans liberated from their context in the way that Okin does. She decries Orthodox Jews for typecasting boys and girls. But having studied Jewish history will increase these youths ability to communicate with other westerners. Some subcultures are more compatible with western culture than others. And, more importantly, we live in a particular western culture that has been cultivated for well over two thousand years. We should not strive to release people from our own cultural limits and guidance in the name of universal ideals. The desire to go universal leads to the alienation in the West that feeds multiculturalism. Feminists should not attack the West for having had cultural ideals, they should celebrate feminist history as western and western history as feminist.
Okin has done a great job in attacking the fallacies of multiculturalism and highlighting a how feminist the West is. But her desire to protect refugees of gender discrimination undermines our sovereignty. It fails to recognize how real cultural diversity is. Her idea of universal sisterhood fails to take the viability of illiberal cultures seriously. It also overestimates our viability. If people in other nations want to become more feminist, I welcome it. But in the meantime, we can better protect feminism by celebrating and protecting the West than by undermining our pride and culture by arguing for universal sisterhoods’ war on all cultural structures. But, besides having taken a universalist stance that erodes our group pride and sovereignty, Okin has done a great service by pointing out that multiculturalism can be bad for feminism.
Why talking is sometimes pointless or not... 'the Speech'
I have a very different view.
Sometimes the idea that talking set off a series of expectations about results that fires off it's own mandatory process in which the end becomes not only possible, but a demanding and nagging target.
What was the actual purpose of this speech?
- Was there to be a general recognition from Morocco to Indonesia that the same people who elected Bush are now apologizing for this affront by presenting the new era of Obama?
- Was he trying to convince the same people, hey, we're not so bad?
- Was he trying to avoid Huntington's 'Clash'?
- Just another stop on his 'we've been bad' tour?
- Was he trying to pry moderate Muslims away from Tantawi-esque, MesbahYazdi, Jannatti Islam? If so, was the effort laudable regardless of the likelihood of the desired outcome?
I cannot imagine that if Barack Obama is as smart as we hear, that anything other than 1 and 5 are the main answers.
I think he succeeded with 1. Worthy goal or not.
But 5 is a farce.
During the run up to the war in Iraq among the hundreds of Arabs 'debating' me over the worthiness of the endeavor's correlative effect (democracy in a middle eastern land) - one of those who scored worthy points was one who said 'NEVER FROM YOUR HANDS', and then began a chorus amid these mostly Sunnis from the gulf that underlying the western idea of democracy was the idea that law created by man trumped all in the end.
Of course, one must submit to the Quran. End of story.
I have no doubt there is a majority of humans who happen to be Muslim by birth that are appalled by the actions of the killers (though certainly more appalled when the victims are Muslims), and I have no doubt as well, there are no words of an American who may be argued to be born Muslim (by their rules), now elected President, about us or them which can invalidate the crux of the issue.
We make up our laws which are supreme, which means the words of God cannot be.
They submit to the word of God as they must, and part of those words are that in the end we must submit, pay the tax or, well, you know. Many here would like to argue that we can ignore certain unpleasant parts of the uncreated words of a perfect being.
Many feel we cannot, unless of course, Muslims admit to the idea the Quran is written by Mohammad and a committee of peers who collected all the differing Qurans in the years after his death.
So the idea moderate Muslims can be pryed from the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Nasrallah, Tantawi, Qaradawi, Bin Baz, Khomeini Islam, when the very fact that these names are referenced as the authorities of the ascendant form of Islam due to their POPULARITY, and the accepted basis of their ideas, formed over 1500 years of Islam is a forlorn hope.
No deist Jefferson, rejecting man's religious authority to interpret and punish thru organized religious thought is in the offing over there to relieve this conundrum.
Better to say, 'we will never bridge this gap of western man's law being supreme vs the Quran, but do we have to kill each other? Can 9:29 (among other tasty treats) be ignored, or is Hudna the only way?'
And direct the question from the president of the USA in Cairo, OUTRIGHT to Tantawi, to Nasrallah, to Khameini.
Was this worth the effort?
If it aids us in seeing the truth.
I thought so.
So, was there a point to that speech?
Labels: the Obama administration
My Review Of BHO's Cairo Speech11:42:00 a.m. permanent link# 7 Comments
Video Taken June 4: Little Rock, Arkansas
The following video was filmed in front of the Army-Navy Recruiting Station, where Pvt. William Long was murdered earlier this week by "the Arkansas jihadist":
From this source, which may offer periodic updates:
Secure Arkansas organized a rally in rememberance of the first terrorist attack since 9/11. Pvt. William Long was killed and Pvt. Quinton I. Ezeagwula was wounded by Carlos Leon (aka Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad).Contrary to what the muslimatoon say in the video, many of us do indeed know "what is Islam."
Channel 11 was the only TV crew out there with a camera, and the AR Dem Gazette sent a reporter and a photographer. The event had several speakers who did a wonderful job. Video footage of them will be uploaded soon. However, the most shocking part of the event was when a muslim fanatic crashed the event. The fanatic drove by and yelled at us, then parked in the parking lot and stood out with a homemade sign yelling anti-American and later anti-Semetic comments.
Had this been a ceremony for Tiller, this would have been the top story for both local and national media. Since it isn't a top story, it's up to you to send this to as many people as possible....
Stormin’ Noman has a go at sharia
The Daily Mail tells us how Tebbit has likened sharia tribunals to the kind of arbitration run by the Kray twins.
He told the House of Lords, “Are you not aware that there is extreme pressure put upon vulnerable women to go through a form of arbitration that results in [their] being virtually precluded from access to British law?”
Five sharia courts currently operate mediation systems approved under the 1996 Arbitration Act. Although their rulings are not legal under British law, once they’ve been through these kangaroo courts they can merely be approved by a proper judge.
As you would expect, Muslims don’t agree with Tebbit’s comment. The Mail says they’ve called it “baseless and ignorant”.
Well take a look a this post, and make up your own mind about sharia law. If they want to practise it, they know where they can bugger off to.
OBAMA "BLASTS" HOLOCAUST DENIERS - ER UM.... EXCEPT MAHMOUD ABBAS!
It was slight of hand.
“The Zionist fantasy, the fantastic lie that six million Jews were killed.”
KISP HAS A PHOTO OF OBAMA, HILLARY AND ABBAS WORTH 1,000,000 WORDS.
When Obama "blasts" holocaust deniers, but sucks up to Holocaust denier Abbas - who along with other leading Muslims in the region are holocaust deniers -
all Obama REALLY proves is that he is full of shit.
IT'S WORSE: Obama actually proves he is an ally of the Holocaust denying enemy because Obama actually is doing Abba's's & FATAH's bidding by ORDERING Israel to stop ALL settlement activity, all Obama proves is that he is a MENDACIOUS, UNTRUSTWORTHY PHONY ANTI-ZIONIST PUNK.
And a PUNK who doesn't know real history, only the left-wing anti-West PROPAGANDA version of it:
- AND THE MSM IGNORES THESE RIDICULOUS AND STUPID AND ANTI-WEST/ANTI-AMERICAN ERRORS.
- IF BUSH HAS MADE ONE OF THESE THREE GLARING FACTUAL ERRORS THE MSM WOULD HAVE RUN WITH IT 24/7 AD NAUSEUM.
- THE MSM DOESNLT BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THE LEFTIST LIES, THE ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA, JUST LIKE THEIR LEADER, OBAMA.
Labels: the Obama administration
Get Right With The Man1:00:00 a.m. permanent link# 0 Comments
Friday, June 05, 2009
Is Obama Trying to Make America Part of the dar al-Islam?
Unfortunately, a pattern is being established whereby President Obama routinely exaggerates the Muslim character of America. For example, at Cairo University, he claimed there are nearly seven million Muslims in this country - a falsehood promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood and its friends - when the actual number is well-less than half that. Shortly before The Speech, in an interview with a French network, Mr. Obama said, "If you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."
Incredible as these statements may seem, even more astounding is their implication for those who adhere to Shariah. The President's remarks about America as a Muslim nation would give rise to its treatment by them as part of dar al-Islam, the world of Islam, as opposed to dar al-harb (i.e., the non-Muslim world).
Were the former to be the case, Shariah requires faithful Muslims to rid the United States of infidel control or occupation...
Could it be possible that Obama is trying to facilitate absorption of the United States into the dar al-Islam by encouraging the delusion that America is "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world"? As Gaffney states, the Cairo speech's
preponderant and much more important message was one that could have been crafted by the Muslim Brotherhood: America has a president who is, wittingly or not, advancing the Brotherhood's agenda of masking the true nature of Shariah and encouraging the West's submission to it.
David Horowitz' Take On Obama's Al-Azhur Speech
Yes he rewrote history, particularly the history of Muslim and Arab rapacity and bigtory, and he pandered a lot. But the pandering was in large part diplomacy and far less than conservatives were predicting, and far less than the pandering that characterized his previous attempts to mollify the Muslim world. He most pointedly did not apologize for American actions after 9/11, or seek to find excuses for the terrorist attacks in our policies and behavior before 9/11. On the contrary, he deliberately opened the wound of 9/11 to justify
’s wars in America and Afghanistan . Iraq
“We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from
and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts…” America
! This is the war he had opposed as unnecessary and wrong, until now. In Iraq he did not apologize for “Bush’s war” or Cairo ’s “occupation.” He said that the Iraqis were better off without Saddam Hussein, which obviously could not have happened without the war – a truism, which for seven years Democrats failed to concede. Where Kennedy and Gore and Obama himself condemned America ’s war as “unnecessary,” “illegal” “based on lies,” an aggression against a “fragile and unstable” country that could not defend itself, Obama, speaking in a Muslim capital, defended our presence in America as driven by a desire to give Iraqis their freedom and their country. Bush could not have said it better. Iraq
As for the
Middle Eastconflict, Obama began – began – by telling the Muslim world that the bond between and the Israel is unbreakable, and by opening the wound of the Jews that made a homeland for them a moral imperative: “ United States 's strong bonds with America are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.” Israel
And then he characterized Holocaust deniers like Ahmadinejad as despicable, and identified them as a cause of war in the Middle East, and announced that he was going to Buchenwald the next day (clearly to underscore that fact): “Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit
Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.” Israel
And while Obama made false parallels between Jews and Arabs as contributors to the intractability of the Middle East conflict and rewrote some history, he also said in no uncertain terms that it was Palestinians who had to renounce violence (and here he drew no parallels and no moral equivalence) and had to recognize the Jewish state -- something even the “moderate” terrorist Abbas refuses to do.
And to underscore this point he drew a parallel between the struggles of American blacks for civil rights and Palestinians. But unlike Condoleeza Rice who not too long ago drew the same parallel to aggrandize the PLO terrorists as civil rights activists, Obama drew a sharp and revealing line of distinction between them: “Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in
suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America ’s founding.“ America
And that was really the core of Obama’s speech. It was a defense of
’s founding and America ’s mission. We are a tolerant nation and a peaceful nation Obama told 1.5 billion Muslims and we will accept and embrace you if you reject the violent and hateful among you and walk a peaceful and tolerant path. And this tolerance must extend not only to the Jews of Israel, and other infidels, but to Muslims among you who are oppressed ... America
Go read the whole thing.
Labels: the Obama administration
Obama Wrong On History of Iranian Coup
Did Obama get anything right in his Al-Azhur speech yesterday.
Yes, the US instigated a coup against Iranian prime minister Mosaddeq but President Obama was wrong to assert that "the United States played a role in the overthrow of ademocratically elected Iranian government." Far from it, the US overthrew a wannabe dictator who came to power because his predecessor was assassinated by Islamists, yes Islamists and following an election he suspended for fear he would lose it. Does anyone in the administration have access to the Internet? I found this on a most obscure source known as Wikipedia:
In March 1951 the Shah appointed General Haj-Ali Razmara as prime minister. Four days later he was assassinated by Khalil Tahmasebi, a member of an Islamist terrorist groupFadayan-e Islam:Fadā'iyān-e Islam (Persian: فدائیان اسلام), also spelled as Fedayeen of Islam" or "Devotees of Islam", was an Iranian Islamic fundamentalist or Islamic terrorist secret society founded in 1946, by "a charismatic" 22 year-old "theology student" named . Safavi sought to "purify Islam" in Iran by ridding it of `corrupting individuals` by means of carefully planned assassinations of certain leading intellectual and political figures.or in English "
The Shah then APPOINTED Mosaddeq and the petrified "elected" Landlord and Peasant in Persia, Babak Khandani explains that members of the parliament were mainly landlords, who were elected by their peasants. "The most famous of this kind of politicians is Mohammad Mossadegh, a Qajar aristocrat and a chief landlord of his era."(parliament) confirmed him. Apropos elections, in his book,
But back to the "democratic elections." Mosaddeq's anti-Western policies made him popular in the urban areas, especially with leftist students. He was less so in the provinces. To improve the balance in his favor, he tried to disenfranchise the peasants by outlawing votes of illiterates (yes, literacy test!). The majlis defeated his "reform" bill. What did Mossadeq do? He organized a new elections but "stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies – just enough to form a parliamentary quorum — had been elected." The urban areas votes first. He demanded that the Majlis state that there was "foreign" manipulation of the voting. It refused. The result?
The elections were postponed indefinitely and since the Majlis refused to tow his line, Mosaddeq ruled though "emergency powers."
Well, this is certainly a version of democratically elected government American president would. It is a small wonder, Middle Eastern liberals were so disheartened by his speech. Clearly Obama threw them under the bus.would recognize but before the defender of the faith, Barack Hussein Obama, no
It does get more and more crowded under the Obama bus. In addition to his own grandmother, one can find there an increasing number of democratic American allies such asPoland, Czech republic, Israel, Germany, India and France. Trust me, he has only just begun. But US anti-democratic enemies could not be more delighted. His definition of democracy suits them just fine.
Banks retreating from partnership with Obama administration
The rush of capital into the banking industry over the past month is allowing firms to postpone the painful process of selling devalued mortgages and other troubled assets, a step many financial experts still consider necessary to fully revive lending.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said Wednesday that it would suspend indefinitely the launch of a program to finance investor purchases of banks’ troubled loans because few companies were interested in selling. A related Treasury Department program to finance purchases of mortgage-related securities remains on the drawing board months after both were announced with fanfare.
The FDIC decision marked a victory for the banking industry, which has argued that such a program would transfer profit from banks to investors at public expense. It also showed the limits of the government’s ability to impose its will on the banks. Regulators generally cannot compel firms to sell assets, and the inflow of private capital has undermined the argument that the banks must take urgent steps to get healthy.
But FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair said yesterday that the best course for banks, and for the broader economy, remained a combination of raising new capital and shedding old problems. She said that the FDIC would continue to prepare to help banks sell assets.
Banks learned a lesson from the TARP cramdown, which is that letting government “help” you means that government runs you.
Robert Spencer on Murder of Private William Long
Crossposted at The Dougout
Obama’s Assault on the Mind
Guest Commentary by Edward Cline:
White House press secretaries have earned the reputation over the last half dozen administrations of being practiced in the arts of obfuscation, deception and lying with straight faces as opaque as plastomer. The White House press corps, for their part, have become inured to the hyperbolic and elliptical rhetoric. Depending on whether the corps are friendly or hostile to the administration, individual members can read the subtexts of a press secretary’s statements and, governed by their biases and subjectivist preferences, tailor their interpretations one way or the other and project them as kinda-sorta news or analyses of what may or may not be official policies or positions. Their talent is to describe a pea-soup fog. This is what passes for modern journalism.
The press corps of President Barack Obama’s White House are not a true press corps. The majority of its members have betrayed their vocation and attend these rigged press conferences as a formality. The events seem to be more dumb-show and noise for groundlings than opportunities for news-gathering. One gets the sense that the White House would rather just dispense with the formality. The corps may as well be animated mannequins; they rise on cue to ask pre-screened questions of the press secretary or president; the latter will have prepared answers to those questions, the former is a skilled fog-making machine. Teleprompter or no teleprompter, nothing could be phonier than give-and-take spontaneity that may as well be rehearsed.
Former President George W. Bush at least had a modicum of honesty and, during his infrequent press conferences, faced a largely hostile press corps and did not do well. His advisors kept him off-stage as much as possible and let his press secretary run interference. But now the news media have largely become a collective shill for Obama’s policies, allies who give him a free pass for his contradictions and flip-flop policies, and who can be trusted to pass on to the public the latest official ukase. If any one of them decides not to play ball, presumably he will be put on a press conference “do not recognize” list.
Robert Gibbs, 38, a career political creature, has been Obama’s press secretary since January, and has worked for Obama before, during and after the latter’s Senate days. It should come as no surprise that he was also press spokesman for Senator John Kerry and other Democratic politicians. While he is no Joseph Goebbels, the maniacal propaganda chief of Nazi Germany whose obfuscations, deceptions, and lies were dutifully repeated as news by an unfree press, Gibbs performs much the same role for a press that chooses to be unfree. As Goebbels did, as the “public image” managers of tyrants in the past have done, he helped to create the myth of infallibility and the populist persona of Barack Obama, and now is responsible for preserving them. In that unconscionable fraud he is aided by a largely obliging news media.
But cracks are appearing in the façade of Obama’s “open presidency.” They are becoming more and more evident in Gibbs. On May 27, in response to a blog statement by Newt Gingrich that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, ought to withdraw from consideration or be withdrawn because of racist and feminist remarks she made, Gibbs said something that was in the spirit of Goebbels. Responding to the Republicans’ opposition to Sotomayor, one based on her past affiliations, her less than stellar record of understanding the Constitution or even being cognizant of it, her apparent hostility to white males, and the media-generated myth that she is the daughter of immigrants (who, being Puerto Ricans, were actually U.S. citizens) who rose by her own efforts against tremendous odds (but, like Obama, probably the beneficiary of affirmative action or racial, gender, or “diversity” quota policies). Gibbs said, in the innocuous, undramatic tone of a garage mechanic recommending a certain grade of engine oil:
“I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation.”
Briefly, there is no “aspect“ of Sotomayor‘s character or record which should be open to description, identification or debate. If anyone breaks that rule, Gibbs implied, the offending party will be smeared as a racist, bigot, and misogynist. Gibbs and chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel are in charge of the White House machinery that can manufacture a backlash of outrage. Ask Sotomayor legitimate questions at your own risk. Her confirmation hearing will be a “debate” in name only. Besides, her confirmation is “impending,” in the cards, a sure thing, so why bother dredging up inconvenient truths about her?
When you watch Gibbs fielding questions from the press corps, you do not have the sense that you are observing evil incarnate. You do not see a Goebbels-like maniac. What you see is a person who very likely never once placed a value on truth or honesty. You see a non-entity whose existence is assured by his willingness to obfuscate, deceive, lie and juggle banalities commensurate with his character and task. You see a human face that reflects little else but calculation of how best to say nothing that could be interpreted as an absolute, a nondescript face with blank, evasive eyes and a self-effacing manner that expects and gets the cooperation of his auditors in putting one over on themselves and on the whole country.
Whether Gibbs’ warning to the Republicans not to press too hard on Sotomayor’s qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court was a conscious flouting of the First Amendment -- he should know that even Senators have First Amendment rights that should not be threatened or abridged by a mere press secretary or anyone else, let alone by a president -- or was an impromptu rebuke that was insensible to that Amendment, is irrelevant. What matters is that, for a moment, in a handful of incautious but revealing words, the mask of respect for anyone’s right to freedom of speech was dropped. His warning was aimed not just at Senators, Internet bloggers and Newt Gingrich, but at the press and the news media. It was an all-encompassing growl of disapproval of any questioning of the alleged wisdom of his employer and of resentment for any questioning of his own assertions.
In the real world, the one beyond the White House and Congress, one would not give anyone like Gibbs or his assertions a second thought. His ilk are many, mean, and small. But threats emanating from the representative of a man who is consciously wreaking destruction on this country, who is contemptuous of the Constitution, individual rights, private property, and freedom of speech, should not be taken as a matter of routine. This is not the first time Obama‘s gofers have warned individuals away from speaking out on certain issues and facts. Gibbs’ statements are uttered with the tacit approval of the president. Neither the president, nor Gibbs, nor anyone else on the White House staff, wishes anyone to think and speak with any gravity about Sotomayor or to trouble her with inopportune questions, which, under oath, she must answer with possibly damaging truths, during Senate confirmation hearings or in any other setting. They are all prepared to take retaliatory measures if anyone does.
What remains to be seen is whether or not any member of the Senate committee will be brave enough to take his First Amendment rights seriously enough to pose a single inopportune question, one that may suggest why Obama is so ideologically comfortable with her.
Gibbs’ admonitory “advice” to critics of Sotomayor is an order not to think. A prohibition of thought necessarily extends to a prohibition from action, in this instance, to voluntarily refrain from asking questions lest the White House become “exceedingly“ nasty. After all, why bother thinking about a matter when one is proscribed from acting on it? It is a blatant and unforgivable attack on the mind. Further, Sotomayor’s silence on Gibbs’ mealy-mouth diktat speaks volumes about her own position on the issue of the First Amendment; she does not seem to be aware that Gibbs violated it, or perhaps she is hoping that no one has noticed.
But, then, that has been the constant leitmotif of Obama’s conduct in office.
Crossposted at The Dougout
Labels: the Obama administration
Obama Reads the Phone Book At Buchenwald
Pamela has more, including video of Elie Wiesel's moving speech with Obama standing next to him.
"To this day, there are those who insist the Holocaust never happened," Obama said. "This place is the ultimate rebuke to such thoughts, a reminder of our duty to confront those who would tell lies about our history."
It was a pointed message to Iran's Ahmadinejad, who has expressed doubts that 6 million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis.
"He should make his own visit" to Buchenwald, Obama told NBC earlier Friday. He added: "I have no patience for people who would deny history."
Labels: the Obama administration
Muslims Gave Us Zero
From Don Surber at the Daily Mail:
Barack Obama delivered the same myths about Muslim math that English lit professors have passed along for decades — and Rush Limbaugh called him on it.
The idea that there is a unified Muslim world (just down the road from the Buddhist community, but before you cross the Hindu Street) is as absurd as a unified Christian world. I mean 500 years after the Diet of Worms, Protestants and Catholics still argue over the wording of the Lord’s Prayer.
The pandering by Obama in Cairo, though, showed the misinformation that college professors have passed along to their students for year after year. Obama was a bright student.
OBAMA: “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam at places like Al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s renaissance and enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra, our magnetic compass and tools of navigation, our mastery of pens and printing, our understanding of how disease spreads and how it could be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires, timeless poetry and cherished music, elegant calligraphy, and places of peaceful contemplation — and throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”
Sure, Mr. President, we have seen that religious tolerance in 60 years of refusing to diplomatic acknowledge the state of Israel, and your wife’s ancestors saw that racial equality in the Muslim auctions of African slaves.
This is to history what Al Gore’s global warming phrenology is to science.
RUSH: “OK. I know we’re not supposed to criticize Obama’s speech here. I know it’s going way off the reservation here to do this. But, folks, that is outrageous. This is simply outrageous. It was absurd, in fact. Let’s see. here do we start here? ‘It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra.’ No. The origins of algebra trace back to the ancient Babylonians. They were not Muslims. Algebra was temporarily developed by the ancient Greeks and later the English. ‘Our magnetic compass, tools of navigation,’ Islam gave us these? No. Recent research suggests that the compass may have been discovered by Central Americans, but if they didn’t do it, the Chinese are then its discoverers. In either case, be it the Chinese or the Central Americans, the compass was discovered centuries before the advent of Islam.
“Now, what am I supposed to say? I’m not supposed to say this stuff. Now, let’s see, let’s see. ‘Our mastery of pens and printing…’ Has anybody ever heard of Gutenberg? I didn’t know Gutenberg was a Muslim. ‘Our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed…’? Are there Nobel Prizes for Medicine awarded to Muslims I have missed? ‘Islamic has given us some majestic arches and soaring spires…’ Well, sorry, folks, but arches and spires predate the arrival of Islam by centuries. I mean, come on, folks. Arches? Anybody heard of Rome? He also talked about the great gift, ‘timeless poetry and cherished music.’ The only problem there is that music — and musical instruments especially — are forbidden in most Islamic traditions. And it should be unnecessary to have to note Islam’s ‘religious tolerance’ has been demonstrated.”
Rush is right. The fact is socialist professors have idealized the Islamic faith and created out of midair this ridiculous fantasy about Spain being a great place for other religions under Moorish rule.
I am glad someone in the American media called Obama on this. More Rush is here.
Labels: History of Islam
TOTUS Disrespected in Wahabbi Paradise
Air France 447: Brazilian Navy Finds Debris, But It's Not From The French Airliner
Dominique Bussereau said he regretted that an announcement by Brazilian teams that they had recovered plane debris from Air France flight 447 turned out to be false.
SIGNS OF LIFE IN EUROPE: WILDERS' FREEDOM PARTY MAKES BIG GAINS THE EU ELECTION!
Geert Wilders' Freedom party will win four of the 25 Dutch seats in the parliament, just one behind the country's Christian Democrats.... Exit polls showed late on Thursday that Mr Wilders' Freedom Party (PVV) was on course of winning just over 15% of votes in the Netherlands.
... If confirmed, the result is second only to Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende's Christian Democrats (CDA), which dropped alsmost 5% to just under 20% of the vote.
The polls showed that the party's governing coalition partner, the PvdA, was the biggest loser - down nearly 10% to about 14% of the Dutch vote.
"We dare to talk about sensitive subjects like Islamisation and we use plain and simple words that the voter can understand," Mr Wilders has said.
Mr Wilders was refused entry to Britain in February on the grounds that he had sought to incite hatred with a film he made last year that equated Islam with violence and likened the Koran to Mein Kampf.
The controversial politician is also facing prosecution in the Netherlands for making anti-Islamic statements, following a court ruling the previous month.
Despite the charges many Dutch voters seem to like what Mr Wilders is saying, the BBC's Geraldine Coughlan in The Hague reports.
His party was campaigning under the motto "For the Netherlands" and was extremely anti-EU, our correspondent says. Mr Wilders has said he will not take up his seat if elected as an MEP.
Polls show that Euroscepticism among Dutch voters has increased since the last European elections, with EU enlargement and integration the most unpopular issues, our correspondent adds.
WILDERS: KEEPING HOPE ALIVE!
Et tu, Daniel Pipes?
The much-anticipated meeting between Barack Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu on May 18 went off smoothly, if a bit tensely, as predicted. Everyone was on best behavior and the event excited so little attention that the New York Times reported it on page 12.
As expected, however, the gloves came off immediately thereafter, with a series of tough American demands, especially U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's insistence on May 27 that the Netanyahu government end residential building for Israelis in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. This prompted a defiant response. The Israeli governing coalition chairman pointed out the mistake of prior "American dictates," a minister compared Obama to pharaoh, and the government press office director cheekily mock-admired "the residents of Iroquois territory for assuming that they have a right to determine where Jews should live in Jerusalem."
We are going to end up on opposites sides from the only real ally we have ever had in the middle east, and at it's heart the reason is a little problem Mr. Obama has in his soul.
If the specifics of who-lives-where have little strategic import, the Obama administration's rapid and harsh turn against Israel has potentially great significance. Not only did the administration end George W. Bush's focus on changes on the Palestinian side but it even disregarded oral understandings Bush had reached with Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert.
An article by Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post captures this shift most vividly. Diehl notes, based on an interview with Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, that by publicly and repeatedly stressing the need for a without-exception freeze of Israeli building on the West Bank, Obama
Yasir Arafat smiles as Barack Obama meets Mahmoud Abbas in July 2008.
has revived a long-dormant Palestinian fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees, while Arabs passively watch and applaud. "The Americans are the leaders of the world. ... They can use their weight with anyone around the world. Two years ago they used their weight on us. Now they should tell the Israelis, 'You have to comply with the conditions'."
Of course, telling the Israelis is one thing and getting their compliance quite another. To this, Abbas also has an answer. Expecting that Netanyahu's agreeing to a complete freeze on building would bring down his coalition, Diehl explains that Abbas plans "to sit back and watch while U.S. pressure slowly squeezes the Israeli prime minister from office." One Palestinian Authority official predicted this would happen within "a couple of years" - exactly when Obama is said to expect a Palestinian state in place.
I wonder what Hassan Nasrallah and Ajad are saying to each other about the mysterious ways of Allah, hmmmmm?
Barack Obama's PURPOSE is to drive Israel into direct opposition to american policy and strategic goals.
What does Barack Obama have in mind for the USA that these actions which give Israel the choice of isolation from the USA or death by demographic and terror means are imagined to be to our long term advantage?
Daniel Pipes has said that the golden age for Jews in America is OVER. And we can see in Barack Obama it's means. All who oppose his plans for the mideast will be portrayed without real objection as anti peace, pro Likud, with dual loyalties, and NOT PATRIOTIC. Buchanan, Moran, and other freaks of the bigoted left and paleo right with find themselves together.
Even Dershowitz, one of the truly delusional 53% and 78% now sees Obama is a danger to that tiny state. How long until he recognizes the dangers to this large one?
Get ready for it.