Saturday, February 19, 2011
Lara Logan and the Drooling Beast
“…I know the kind of terror it is….Listen, what’s the most horrible experience you can imagine? To me – it’s being left, unarmed, in a sealed cell with a drooling beast of prey or a maniac who’s had some disease that’s eaten his brain out. You’d have nothing then but your voice – your voice and your thought. You’d scream to that creature why it should not touch you, you’d have the most eloquent words, the unanswerable words, you’d become the vessel of the absolute truth. And you’d see living eyes watching you and you’d know that the thing can’t hear you, that it can’t be reached, not reached, not in any way, yet it’s breathing and moving there before you with a purpose of its own. That’s horror. Well, that’s what’s hanging over the world, prowling somewhere through mankind, that same thing, something closed, mindless, utterly wanton, but something with an aim and a cunning of its own….” – Steve Mallory to Howard Roark in Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead.*
In the aftermath of the abduction, rape and beating of Lara Logan, CBS foreign correspondent, in Cairo on February 11th during the “celebrations” in Tahrir Square over the resignation of Hosni Mubarak as head of Egypt’s government, the news media and the web have been buzzing with accounts and recollections of how dangerous it is for especially women journalists to cover events in so-called “hot spots.”
Note that I do not stress that she and her camera crew were surrounded by a “dangerous element” of two hundred men in a crowd of tens of thousands of Muslims. That whole crowd in the whole square was the “dangerous element.” Note also that I do not stress that she was somehow, inexplicably “separated” from her crew and bodyguards. Physically, yes, she was “separated,” but what does that mean in the context of what happened to her? Any kidnapping requires that the victim be “separated” from home, family, friends, and safety.
She was separated with malice aforethought. Muslims consciously interposed themselves between her and her bodyguards and crew. She was blond, unscarved, unveiled, distinctly non-Muslim, dressed to the nines to conduct an interview later that night with an Egyptian official. In short, she was Western. Too late, to judge by the look on her face in the CBS-released photograph, did she realize the foolhardiness of wading into a crowd of maddened Muslim men celebrating their vaunted omnipotence.
It may have been that the men who raped and beat her were pro-Mubarak Muslims, angry at Western journalists for precipitating the downfall of their man.
But, regardless of the attackers’ political persuasion, she was an infidel, and a natural, inevitable target. And as they assaulted her, they shouted “Jew! Jew!” in conformance with the common fairy tale in Egypt that Israelis were behind Mubarak’s capitulation. However, they could have just as well believed that she had spit in Mubarak’s face, or hailed Islam as the end-all and be-all of human existence, and it would not have mattered. She was a value – to herself, to others – and had to be defiled and destroyed. She was the good, and Islam is all about hating and destroying the good for being the good.
What happened to Lara Logan in Cairo was Islam-by-the-book, the book being the Koran. Like many stonings and beheadings in that Islamic hell-hole, the whole thing was probably recorded on video by participating Egyptian men, but that near-snuff video will not surface in the West.
I read Don Kaplan’s account of the incident, in The New York Post, and offered him these thoughts:
See this report from the LA Times on a CNN-altered photograph of her “moments” before the attack. My questions are: Who took the photo? One of her crew? And did this person have time to take subsequent pictures? Was it taken with a cell phone, or a regular professional camera? Has CBS, which released the original photo to the AP, any other photos that would record and shed light on what happened in the next few moments? Why isn’t there a photo credit? Where did the “200” figure for the crowd come from? Whose estimate was it? Who were the twenty women who rescued Logan and escorted her back to her hotel/crew?To date, Mr. Kaplan and his associates have not acknowledged or replied to my queries. I believe these to be legitimate journalistic questions worthy of some cogitation and investigation.
Is the mob in the background pro-Mubarak or anti-Mubarak? They don’t look angry enough to be pro-Mubarak, who’s just stepped down, and not jubilant enough to be anti-. It hasn’t been specified whose mob it was. The one Egyptian in the background to the right of Logan’s head looks like he’s mugging for the press. If so, would he really want the crew to escape unharmed with an incriminating photo if he planned to take part in the assault?
Hypothesis: Because Logan and her crew were arrested by the military a week earlier, detained overnight, and kicked out of the country, was this the military’s punishment for her and the crew having returned to Cairo – that is, was it a set-up to drive home the point that she wasn’t welcome?
Forgive the questions, it's the Call Northside 777 in me, but the LA Times report just underscores my suspicion that there is more behind the Logan photo than meets the eye. I don’t doubt that Logan was attacked and beaten. What I wonder about is why CBS is being so circumspect about it. Could it be that CBS doesn’t want to indict Muslims, or hold Islamic diktats responsible? I mean, who raped and beat Logan? Chinese? Patagonians? What men of what religious/ethnic group are noted for brutalizing Muslim women as a matter of religious belief, and defiling Western women, as a sign of actual or imminent Islamic conquest, in their own countries (e.g., Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Britain, etc.), and whose responsibility for the attacks is veiled by the press in super-sensitive, politically correct language that hides their
Richard Cohen of The Washington Post made this important observation about the “frenzy” of the night of February 11th in Cairo. Castigating CBS for having withheld news of Logan’s assault, he noted:
As I'm sure even Logan would admit, the sexual assault of woman by a mob in the middle of a public square is a story. It is particularly a story because the crowd in Tahrir Square was almost invariably characterized as friendly and out for nothing but democracy. In fact, some of the television correspondents acted as if they were reporting from Times Square on New Year's Eve, stopping only at putting on a party hat. In those circumstances, a mass [sic] the sexual assault in what amounted to the nighttime version of broad daylight is certainly worth reporting.“Times Square on New Year’s Eve” was precisely how most Western news media portrayed the roiling, emotional, mass-man chaos in Tahrir Square. In fact, I would disagree with anyone who claimed that the events in Egypt the last three weeks had anything to do with a legitimate “revolution.” This is an Islamic country, and its citizens are simply demonstrating for a kinder master, more jobs, better medical care, and the like. This was and is not a “revolution” founded on ideas. It was a clamoring for regime change. That is all.
But even Cohen does not grasp the significance of not only the attack on Logan, but the nature of the “celebration.”
Still, the assault and its undertones of pogromist anti-Semitism (Logan is not Jewish) is very troubling and, at the very least, suggests that not everyone in Tahrir Square that night had democracy on their mind.Yes, every Muslim in Tahrir Square had democracy on his mind. Democracy means mob rule. Democracy, by definition, turns men into criminals. And the attack on Logan was democracy in action. Her attackers wanted a piece of her, and to destroy her, too. That is the Muslim way. The Koran sanctioned it.
On the other side of the critical scale is Debbie Schlussel, who grasps the nature of Islam but whose recent column on Lara Logan’s ordeal was callous beyond decency. She “gets it” but does not “get it.” She allowed her emotions to dictate what she wished to say, and in doing so robbed herself of credibility. She was more interested in venting her anger (and rightfully) at the Western left that has given Islam a free pass in the name of non-judgmental multiculturalism. Lara Logan was of the Western left. Schlussel ended one post about Logan with this unbecoming rant:
This never happened to her or any other mainstream media reporter when Mubarak was allowed to treat his country of savages in the only way they can be controlled. Now that’s all gone. How fitting that Lara Logan was “liberated” by Muslims in Liberation Square while she was gushing over the other part of the “liberation.” Hope you’re enjoying the revolution, Lara!James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal surveyed the left’s treatment of the attack on Logan. Of course, the left hates America as much as any Muslim Brotherhood member or rank-and-file “Death to America” Muslim sign carrier. So it is no paradox that the left would sidle up to Islam in an unlikely alliance. They are ideological and philosophical birds of a feather. No mystery there.
Taranto points up the leftist blinders worn by the MSM and even its hostility towards anyone who questions the legitimacy of the Egyptian “revolution.” Among other instances of leftist ideological binge-drinking, he reports on the Bill Maher-level Twitter comments by left-wing journalist Nir Rosen, an academic at New York University (subsequently fired from his cushy “fellowship” at the school’s Center on Law and Security). Earlier on, however, he poses this conundrum:
The lack of specific detail is completely understandable, as CBS is caught in a conflict between the imperatives of reporting the news and protecting its employee's personal dignity. But it does leave one having to read between the lines to judge the crime's seriousness.One major trouble I have with the story, a trouble cited by Taranto, is that there are no specifics about the assault. The CBS statement is cautionary and vague, so much so that it leaves one doubting whether or not a criminally-defined “sexual assault” occurred at all. In today’s politically correct environment, my calling Senator Barbara Boxer “Ma’am” or Nancy Pelosi a “Botox bimbo” could be deemed “sexual assault.” Was she raped and beaten, or simply beaten by the thugs?
The Wall Street Journal reports that the assault "lasted for roughly 20 to 30 minutes, said a person familiar with the matter, who added that it was 'not a rape.' " Whatever it was or was not, the New York Post reports that "most network higher-ups didn't even know how brutal the sexual assault was until a few minutes before the statement went out."
We have only an allegation by CBS, which, as Taranto writes, leaves us “reading between the lines,” one way or another. We have only that one photo of Logan surrounded by Egyptians, and nothing else but the assertion of CBS and Logan later stating that she wants to go back to work. Another New York Post article mentions that Logan suffered “internal injuries.” Again, “internal injuries” merely connotes, but does not denote, leaving one “reading between the lines.”
Having watched videos of the beheading and stoning of Muslim women, and sexual assaults on them – two of them filmed in Cairo – I do not doubt the bestial capacity of Muslim men to have subjected Logan to rape and beating in public.
Carolyn Glick, in a lengthy article in The Jerusalem Post, discusses the double standards of the MSM, and poses the paradox of the news media condemning Nir Rosen’s “mirthful” remarks about Lara Logan’s ordeal in Tahrir Square and its otherwise oblivious disregard for the nature of Islam and its hostility towards women. She puts her finger on the source of the paradox: “identity politics.”
Identity politics revolve around the narrative of victimization. For adherents to identity politics, the victim is not a person, but a member of a privileged victim group. That is, the status of victimhood is not determined by facts, but by membership in an identity group. Stories about victims are not dictated by facts. Victim stories are tailored to fit the victim. Facts, values, and individual responsibility are all irrelevant.All this is true. But “identity politics” is strictly a Saul Alinsky-inculcated state of mind, a collectivist tactic to achieve political power and/or to commit legalized felonies against the targeted and isolated in the name of “democracy.” Glick notes that Nir Rosen mocked Logan because she was “insufficiently anti-American.” Glick further observes:
In light of this, a person’s membership in specific victim groups is far more important than his behavior. And there is a clear pecking order of victimhood in identity politics.
Anti-American Third World national, religious and ethnic groups are at the top of the victim food chain. They out-victim everyone else.
After them come the Western victims: Racial minorities, women, homosexuals, children and animals.
Israelis, Jews, Americans, white males and rich people are the predetermined perpetrators. No matter how badly they are victimized, brave reporters will go to heroic lengths to ignore, underplay or explain away their suffering.
When members of Western victim groups are attacked by Third World victims, the story can be reported, but with as little mention of the identity of the victim-perpetrator as possible. So it was with the coverage of Logan and the rest of the foreign reporters assaulted in Egypt. They were attacked by invisible attackers with no identities, no barbaric values, no moral responsibility, and no criminal culpability. CBS went so far as to blur the faces of the men who surrounded Logan in the moments before she was attacked. [Which claim raises the question: Who was responsible for the altered photo: CNN or CBS?]What happened to Lara Logan was Islam unleashed. That was the “religion of peace” glorying in its power to violate, defile and destroy. That was Islam at its giddy height. Islam’s doctrines eat out the brains of its adherents, or attract people who wish to surrender their minds. That is the essence of Islam, experienced by Lara Logan in the most personal and violent way. That is what Islam has in store for the West.
Islam is a system of nihilism. It is a drooling beast.
I hope Lara Logan withdraws her ideological predisposition to Islam and things Muslim, or that someone tells her: That’s the essence of Islam for you, that is what you have been promoting and rationalizing. But If, after what it did to you, you continue to romanticize it, then fare-thee-well.
And then there is Washington D.C., and the drooling beasts and the “dangerous elements” in the White House and Congress who wish to defile and destroy this country for the same nihilistic reasons. But, that is another story.
*The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand. New York: 1943. Charter Books/Bobbs-Merrill, 1962.
Crossposted at The Dougout
Google's Wael Ghonim Just Another "Moderate Muslim"?
Why Does Google's Wael Ghonim Heart Radical Sheikh Qaradawi?
Poster boy of Egypt revolution, Google's ME person, Wael Ghonim tweet yesterday
GhonimI loved Sheikh Qaradawi Khutbah today. Was truly inspired when he said: Today I'm going to address both Muslims and Christians. Respect! about 20 hours agoRespect my arse, also in Arabic:
Ghonim سعدت بحضور خطبة الشيخ القرضاوي اليوم وأكثر ما أعجبني فيها قوله: لن أقول أيها المسلمون بل سأقول أيها المسلمون وأيها الأقباط لأن كلنا مصريونGooglish translate:
The pleasure of the presence of a sermon of Sheikh Qaradawi Today, more than what I liked where he said: I will not say but I will say O Muslims, O Muslims and Copts, because you are all EgyptiansGo read the whole thing at Jawa Report.
Wisconsin Protests May Swell To 70,000
Saturday's Protests in Wisconsin Expected to Be Biggest Yet
Published February 19, 2011
In the wake of a budget standoff in Wisconsin that has captured national attention and paralyzed the state, protesters on both sides are expected to clash Saturday in what police were anticipating would be the largest crowds seen yet in the weeklong demonstrations.
Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney predicted crowds could swell to as many as 70,000 people on Saturday and said his department planned to add 60 deputies to the 100 who patrolled during the week.
As many as 40,000 people, including teachers, students, firefighters and prison guards, swarmed the Capitol on Friday, raising the noise in its rotunda to earsplitting levels as they rallied to block Republican Gov. Scott Walker's efforts to ease Wisconsin's budget woes by cutting many government workers' pay, benefits and bargaining rights.
Read more »
Seattle Post Intelligencer:
State budget fights fire up union; Obama involved
By SAM HANANEL AND JIM KUHNHENN
WASHINGTON -- Organized labor is trying to re-energize and take advantage of the growing backlash from the wave of anti-union sentiment in Wisconsin and more than a dozen other states.
President Barack Obama and his political machine are offering tactical support, eager to repair strained relations with some union leaders upset over his recent overtures to business.
The potent combination has helped fan the huge protests in Wisconsin against a measure that would strip collective bargaining rights from state workers. The alliance also is sending a warning to other states that are considering the same tactic.
"I think it's a clear message," said AFL-CIO political director Karen Ackerman. "If you take on middle-class people and try to solve the budget crises on their backs, there's a price to pay. Many thousands of people will be energized to fight back."
For Obama, stepping into a confrontation with a governor has its risks. The president is in a struggle of his own to tame spending, and siding with unions may cast him as a partisan even as he talks about setting a new tone in Washington.
For the labor movement, which suffered a bitter split in 2005, the brash moves by GOP lawmakers such as Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wis., have brought unions together in a way unthinkable a few years ago.
Nearly every major union leader - both public and private sector - has united behind an ambitious $30 million plan to stop anti-labor measures in Wisconsin and 10 other states.
The group at the new "Labor Table" includes AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka working with leaders such as Teamsters president James Hoffa. Until recently, the two barely were on speaking terms.
"There's nothing like the possibility of extinction to focus people's attention," said former Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich., who spent more than a year trying without success to reunify the labor movement.
"They've got everything to lose here and they're either going to do something or they're not," Bonior said.
Read more »
In 2010 we restored a bit of balance, both in D.C. and in the states.
And in that time, during the Tea Parties, even during the mammoth rallies in D.C., no legislative body was evacuated for their own safety.
The Left is having a hissy of epic proportions.
Jeff Fitzgerald: Assembly adjourned because of threats
Fitzgerald told WisPolitics exclusively about the guv's call after the Assembly ended a tense, 30-minute floor session. As the Republicans made moves to pass the controversial budget repair bill without Dem participation, a throng of thousands of protesters outside the chamber grew louder and louder.
There have been reports of threats against lawmakers throughout the week, and Fitzgerald was escorted out of the building by sheriff deputies.
UPDATE: A Walker spokesman declined comment.
UPDATE: The GOP Assembly leadership -- Speaker Fitzgerald, Majority Leader Scott Suder and JFC Co-chair Robin Vos -- have issued a statement reaffirming their commitment to pass the bill next week.
"The leadership of the Assembly has decided to recess due to security concerns. We will reconvene on Tuesday morning and are confident that the security concerns will no longer exist. We are committed as ever to pass Governor Walker’s Budget Repair Bill and will do so next week," the statement reads. "Millions of taxpayers spoke in November and we will not let them down. We have a fiscal crisis that can’t be ignored. We have the votes to pass the bill; it is only a matter of time."
The first and last time that Mullah Omar spoke to an American government official
Obama has begun top secret and direct talks with the Taliban according to Steve Coll author of the DEFINITIVE, incredibly detailed modern history of Afghanistan, GHOST WARS. From the New Yorker:
BY STEVE COLLFEBRUARY 28, 2011
On August 22, 1998, Mullah Omar, the emir of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, made a cold call to the State Department. The United States had just lobbed cruise missiles at Al Qaeda camps in his nation. Omar got a mid-level diplomat on the line and spoke calmly. He suggested that Congress force President Bill Clinton to resign. He said that American military strikes “would be counter-productive,” and would “spark more, not less, terrorist attacks,” according to a declassified record of the call. “Omar emphasized that this was his best advice,” the record adds
Last year, however, as the U.S.-led Afghan ground war passed its ninth anniversary, and Mullah Omar remained in hiding, presumably in Pakistan, a small number of officials in the Obama Administration—among them the late Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan—argued that it was time to try talking to the Taliban again.
Holbrooke’s final diplomatic achievement, it turns out, was to see this advice accepted. The Obama Administration has entered into direct, secret talks with senior Afghan Taliban leaders, several people briefed about the talks told me last week.
Mullah Omar is not a participant in the preliminary talks. He does not attend even secret meetings of underground Taliban leadership councils in Pakistani safe houses. When he does speak, he does so obliquely, via cassette tapes. One purpose of the talks initiated by the Obama Administration, therefore, is to assess which figures in the Taliban’s leadership, if any, might be willing to engage in formal Afghan peace negotiations, and under what conditions
Although the Taliban’s record is nothing like Al Qaeda’s, they have aided international terrorism; in 2000, for example, they facilitated the escape of the murderous hijackers of an Indian Airlines passenger plane. As Hillary Clinton indicated, the morality of talking to them at all, given their history of violence and repression, is debated within the Administration, as it is within the Afghan government. But in both countries there is also hope for an honorable path to end the war.The pursuit of peace, however, can be just as risky as the prosecution of war. If mismanaged, full-blown Afghan peace talks might ignite a civil war along ethnic lines. (The Taliban draw their support from Afghanistan’s Pashtuns; the most vehement anti-Taliban militias are non-Pashtun.) Also, the Taliban and their historical benefactors in Pakistan, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, the spy agency directed by the Pakistani military, have an almost unblemished record of overreaching in Afghan affairs, by funding and arming client militias, and there is no reason to think that their habits would change if serious negotiations unfolded.
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/02/28/110228taco_talk_coll?printable=true#ixzz1EPsFTwt1
You better read it. This is someone whose history book is unsparing across the board. He may represent the facts as he see them, but they are facts.
Tahrir in Teheran? FORGET IT. IRGC MOWS YOU DOWN - COME ARMED
Not quite the way I view it, but the same conclusion
Could change come to Iran in as peaceful a way as what we just witnessed in Egypt, or is the Iranian case fundamentally different?
Egypt under Mubarak was a secular dictatorship. Although the Iranian regime is a de facto military dictatorship, it is not secular and advertises itself as a religious democracy and the defender of Islam—a religion, lest the mullahs forget, based on legitimate governance and social justice!
Egypt’s revolution has largely been about economic deprivation, unemployment, widespread corruption and the absence of hope for a better future. To the contrary, during their revolution in 1979, Iranian protesters railed vehemently against their regime’s social and political failures and against its subservient relationship with a foreign power, namely, the United States. Nor has the Egyptian revolution been infused with religious overtones. But today’s unrest in Iran closely echoes the Egyptian revolution. Iranians face economic hardships as never before. Recent university graduates are leaving the country in record numbers because they have little hope for a better future. Most Iranians no longer resent the United States and would in fact welcome better relations between Tehran and Washington.
There are undoubtedly numerous historical and social reasons for the relatively peaceful nature of the Egyptian revolution, but most prominent in this is the role of the military. The Egyptian military perceived its primary mission as upholding peace and stability while recognizing the legitimate grievances and aspirations of the Egyptian people. Although the Egyptian military has vast economic interests, it did not view the people’s demands as a threat to these interests. At the same time, the Egyptian military has received significant financial support from the United States and has enjoyed close working relations with the U.S. military since the signing of the peace accord with Israel. This close relationship appears to have provided Washington with a channel for achieving a peaceful exit for Mubarak and his cronies.
The Iranian military sees itself differently.The military, more specifically its important component the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), sees itself not as the protector of the Iranian people but as the defender of the regime. If the regime is threatened, the IRGC considers itself threatened. This was not the case in Egypt. A fundamental reason for this is the difference in the economic interests of the IRGC in Iran as opposed to those of the Egyptian military. In Iran the economic interests of the IRGC are more pervasive and brazen than those of the Egyptian military: not only do they have vast ownership in the Iranian economy, they also receive large government contracts in areas in which they have no expertise, such as developing a sector of Iran’s vast gas field (which it shares with Qatar) in the Persian Gulf.
In essence, the leaders of the IRGC view their economic fortunes as tied to the clerical regime and the puppet president. If the regime goes so does the IRGC’s religious cover and its vast economic fortune. In Egypt the military’s economic interests are not directly threatened by the dismissal of the Mubarak regime and may in fact not fare badly given the ongoing popular support they enjoy.
These clear differences in the role of the military in the two dictatorial regimes suggest that it is unlikely the ongoing conflict in Iran will follow the path of the revolution in Egypt.
AFL CIO, Obama, Pelosi mistake 2011 for 1900, are not Walter Reuther and John L Lewis
If the government cannot by the vote of majorities of citizens in the state control it’s own financial health, then the survival of a democracy or republic is in fact in the control of the most ruthless, critically situated, or powerful grouping.
You can read all sorts of things about the IMPORTANT MOMENT IN WISCONSIN where :
So let me set the ground.
My wife is a special education teacher in a rural setting. She makes $15k per year. There is no union. The people in this area are already getting 36% of all income from local, state and federal sources, and thus higher taxes are no answer. She contributes a bit to retirement as her income allows. Neither she nor her colleagues would EVER leave their students to commit what is occurring in Madison, WI.
Yet we can read from the left the following (Guardian)
I’m sure that you’ve been following the Wisconsin situation, especially if you’re an American. If you haven’t and you are not, in sum: the new Republican governor proposed a budget with tax cuts and various tax breaks (especially for the well-off and corporations), huge cuts to education and other services and most controversially a provision that would strip public-employee unions of the right to bargain collectively for anything except wages (not benefits, not vacation days, etc.).
Actually, what we see is that the request for the union to pay ONE FOURTH of what most american workers in the private world pay for health and a somewhat comparable amount for retirement, BECAUSE THE STATE OF WISCONSIN IS IN A FISCALLY DIRE AND UNSUSTAINABLE SITUATION TODAY, DUE IN PART TO THE RESULT OF THE SETTLEMENTS THESE PUBLIC UNIONS HAVE COMPELLED, has triggered a NUCLEAR RESPONSE NATIONWIDE FROM FORCES IN THE UNION MOVEMENT, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND PRESIDENT OBAMA AND HIS PERSONAL COMMUNITY ORGANIZING MOVEMENT -ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA.
The newly elected Republican gov, Walker, whose belief, like those in my state (where a dem senate, house and gov were reversed to republican) is that if BUSINESS LARGE AND SMALL is enhanced, all earn more, all pay more taxes in a ‘rising ocean’ is instead depicted as a crony of millionaires.
Unions, one could forcefully argue, so COMPULSORY at the turn of the 20th century, swung the pendulum to destruction of the industries’ owners they protected their workers from by the 1980’s. Today in the ruined foundations of General Motors and Fiat (remember what Chrysler is now ?) we can see in the structure of their bailouts that the industry’s rescue was PURELY to keep the unions there alive (UAW) with constituents.
With 2 years of unemployment is there any doubt that nearly all the workers from a non existent General Motors would find safety in the increased demand sent over to Toyota, Kia, Hyundai, Ford, and Nissan, all of whom now have large (mostly non Union) plants in the USA?
But we speak of Wisconsin.
This is simple. If the government cannot by the vote of majorities of citizens in the state control it’s own financial health, then the survival of a democracy or republic is in fact in control of the most ruthless, critically situated, or powerful grouping.
If the unions WIN over the citizens voting in a govt specifically to change this situation, the citizens are not in control. Vocal minorities who can stage a TV event, and intimidate are in control.
Never mind Al Qaeda, here is the end of the USA. Dollar by dollar, public union contract by public union contract. The public SEIU’s are fighting for their lives AGAINST THE PUBLIC. There may be a day when we need unions desperately again, but that day is not today. Today they are the parasite that kills the host.
I am 61. I support some kind of raising retirement age to 70 (I don’t expect those doing heavy labor to keep on keeping on), NOW. TODAY. For obvious reasons. My wife, the teacher, is appalled and disgusted by what she sees in Wisconsin.
Why should we not demand equally selfish barbaric looting if these union people WIN?
THAT is what is at stake.
Labels: our ailing economy
Insurrection In America's Midwest?
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi came out strongly in support of Wisconsin teachers and students who are protesting Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal to public employees of collective bargaining rights.Jesse Jackson also supports the protesters, as does Obama. The Democrats in the Wisconsin legislature have fled the scene in their version of a show of support for the protesters.
Pelosi told reporters Friday that the protests are “an extraordinary show of democracy in action.”
“Wisconsin's workers, teachers and public servants must have a seat at the table to fight for a safe workplace,” she said. “I stand in solidarity with the Wisconsin workers fighting for their rights, especially for all the students and young people leading the charge.”
Ahem. The average annual compensation for a teacher in the Milwaukee Public School System is over $100,000...
Read the rest at Always On Watch.
Adam Carolla on Unions, Schools, Students, and Parents5:00:00 am permanent link# 2 Comments
Friday, February 18, 2011
'Class War is Here’: Video of Socialists Rallying in Wis. Supports Beck’s Theory
Posted on February 18, 2011
Recently, Glenn Beck has been predicting that socialists would seize on the unrest in Egypt in order to promote revolution in the United States. There may be no better proof of that than the video below, shot by the MacIver Institute in Madison, WI this week.
In it, Socialists clearly root for revolution, see a direct correlation between the riots in Egypt and the unrest in Wisconsin, and hope that the same thing that happened in Egypt can happen in America.
“I feel like this response actually partly reflects that we just spent a month watching people hold revolutions and stand up in a way, frankly, I didn’t imagine was possible in the near term,” one woman says. “And I think…that kernel of resistance and defiance is the common thread here and I’m so glad to be a part of it.”
Another man announces an upcoming event, “From Cairo to Madison,“ and explains attendees will get instruction on how to ”mobilize workers like they did in Egypt.” He adds, “hopefully we can have something like that here,“ and ”workers unite”:
U.S. Vetoes Palestinian Bid at UN to Halt Israeli Settlements
Feb. 18 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. today vetoed a draft resolution in the United Nations Security Council that would have declared Israel’s settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to be illegal and demanded a halt to such activity.
U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice sought until the final hours before the vote to reach agreement with Palestinian and Arab diplomats on a compromise statement that would have increased pressure on Israel to cease settlement construction, while stopping short of calling it illegal or demanding a moratorium.
Rice was alone in opposing the measure on the 15-member council, the UN’s principal policy making panel. It was the Obama administration’s first veto of a UN resolution and marked the 10th time in the past 11 years that the U.S. has voted against a text considered to be critical of Israel.
The veto, coming amid widespread protests against autocratic rulers in the Middle East and North Africa, may divert attention toward anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments in the region and complicate Obama administration efforts to mediate Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
“The U.S. has a long history of trying to prevent the United Nations from becoming an instrument to coerce Israel, but I think in normal circumstances the U.S. veto would be less uncomfortable,” Stewart Patrick, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, said in an interview. “They have a huge priority not to change the subject of the conversation from oppression of Arabs and Muslims by their own autocratic governments.”
The peace talks, which broke down in September after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to extend a 10-month partial construction freeze in the West Bank, will be more difficult for the U.S. to restart following the veto, according to Robert Danin, onetime aide to former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Middle East envoy for the Quartet, which is comprised of the U.S., the UN, Russia and the European Union.
“The administration will feel they offered a very strong package in the form of a statement critical of Israel and instead were forced to cast the veto, something they did not want to do,” Danin said in an interview. “There will be a lot of frustration with the Palestinians, and with Israel for not having been helpful on the settlements issue.”
Palestinian Authority Ambassador Riyad Mansour said Rice offered U.S. support for stronger statements on settlement construction and other issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by the Security Council and the Quartet, and suggested the U.S. would consider backing a proposed Security Council trip to the Middle East.
The Arabs and Palestinian Authority rejected the deal, saying their resolution incorporated previous language on settlements used by the U.S. government and the Security Council. The Press Trust of India reported today that in a phone conversation yesterday President Barack Obama told Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas there would be “repercussions” for the U.S.-Palestinian relationship in the event the resolution was put to a vote.
The U.S. takes the position that while the settlements aren’t “legitimate,” the issue shouldn’t be taken to the Security Council. “The best forum for making progress in the negotiations, in the peace process, is in direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said yesterday.
The negotiations over a U.S.-drafted statement ignited a flurry of criticism of the administration from some Congressional Republicans and Democrats.
“Support for this anti-Israel statement is a major concession to enemies of the Jewish State and other free democracies,” Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican of Florida and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee said. “It telegraphs that the U.S. can be bullied into abandoning critical democratic allies and core U.S. principles.”
Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, said the “UN is a hotbed of anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment, and the U.S. must not act to further such hatred in any way or to help inject the UN into what should be decided in direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.”
A letter to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from 110 Democrats and Republicans decried “back door deals, of any sort, that weaken the strategic interests of any ally -- let alone one of our closest allies.”
Incentives for Israel
Obama last year offered Israel a package of incentives to halt settlements that included a pledge to block such proposed resolutions in the Security Council, and then abandoned attempts in December to broker a freeze on construction after Israel refused to halt building.
About 500,000 Jews have moved to the West Bank and East Jerusalem since Israel captured the territories in the 1967 Middle East war. The UN says the settlements are illegal, and the International Committee of the Red Cross says they breach the Fourth Geneva Convention governing actions on occupied territory.
Israel says the settlements don’t fall under the convention because the territory wasn’t recognized as belonging to anyone before the 1967 war, in which Israel prevailed, and therefore isn’t occupied.
Bahrain royal family orders army to turn on the people
Bahrain's ruling family has defied mounting international criticism by ordering the army to turn on its people for the first time since pro-reform demonstrations erupted five days ago.
Protesters run from a cloud of teargas during a clash with Bahraini security forces near the Pearl roundabout Photo: GETTY
Bahraini protesters pray and sit in the street facing army tanks, unseen, while ambulances behind them take wounded demonstrators to hospital Photo: AP
By Adrian Blomfield in Manama 8:32PM GMT 18 Feb 2011
As protesters attempted to converge on Pearl Roundabout, a landmark in the capital Manama that has become the principal rallying point of the uprising, soldiers stationed in a nearby skyscraper opened fire.
Since they took to the streets, Bahrain's protesters have come to expect violence and even death at the hands of the kingdom's security forces. At least five people were killed before yesterday's protests.
But this was on a different scale of magnitude.
As they drew near, they were met first with tear gas and then with bursts of live ammunition.
Many fled the first salvoes, scrambling down empty streets as the shots rang out behind them.
As they ran, terror and disbelief flashed across their faces. One man shouted: "They are killing our people! They are killing our people."
Cowering behind a wall, a woman wept, her body shaking in fear.
But many refused to run, initially at least, determined to defy the violence being visited upon them. Some held their hands in the air and shouted "Peaceful! Peaceful!".
The shooting resumed. One man crumpled to the ground, blood pouring from his leg; nearby a second was also felled. A scream went up: "live ammunition!"
As security forces then began to fire anti-air craft guns over their heads and the air filled with tear gas, the protesters' will finally broke.
But even as they fled in headlong panic, a helicopter sprayed gunfire at them and more fell. Paramedics from ambulances that had rushed to the scene darted forward to help the wounded, but they too were shot at. Several were detained and at least one ambulance was impounded.
Doctors at the nearby Salmaniyah hospital said they had received 32 wounded people, nine of whom were in a critical condition. There were unconfirmed reports of two deaths at Pearl Roundabout, but witnesses said the bodies had been seized by the army.
Those caught up in the violence were mourners, returning from funerals of three people killed before dawn the previous day when police opened fire on protesters, many of whom were asleep, in a successful bid to regain control of Pearl Roundabout.
Thousands thronged the body of Ali Ahmad al-Moumen as it was born aloft down the streets of Sitra, a poor Shia village near Manama.
Despite the violence, many said the death of Moumen and other protesters had only increased their determination to press ahead with the protests.
"The regime has failed to stop us," Abdulwahab Hussein, a senior Shia Muslim leader, told the crowd. "Their action shows that they are strong and we are weak."
Most of the protesters are members of Bahrain's long-marginalised Shia majority.
They say they are not demanding the abdication of Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, Bahrain's Sunni king, but they are calling for a constitutional monarchy that would treat the Shia fairly and make them equal subjects in his kingdom.
But they are demanding the resignation of his uncle Khalifa bin Sulman Al Khalifa, who has served as prime minister for 39 years.
During his rule, the protesters say, the Shia have been turned into second class citizens, deprived of jobs in the army, police force and government while Sunnis from abroad have been given Bahraini citizenship to alter the kingdom's demographic balance.
Government officials in Bahrain have warned that the Shia opposition is controlled by Iran, which seeks to use the kingdom to establish a foothold on the Arabian peninsula.
Protesters insist that they have no love for Iran and are only seeking justice for themselves.
The Leftist/Islamic Supremacist Alliance breaks down when the Islamic supremacists have no more use for the Leftists. "Egypt protest hero Wael Ghonim barred from stage," from Jihad Watch.
Google executive Wael Ghonim, who emerged as a leading voice in Egypt's uprising, was barred from the stage in Tahrir Square on Friday by security guards, an AFP photographer said. Ghonim tried to take the stage in Tahrir, the epicentre of anti-regime protests that toppled President Hosni Mubarak, but men who appeared to be guarding influential Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi barred him from doing so.Click on the title to get the whole story at Jihad Watch.
Ghonim, who was angered by the episode, then left the square with his face hidden by an Egyptian flag.
There's also this:
They know they have the support of so much of a population that is already highly receptive to a Sharia regime: a poll published just over two weeks ago showed Egyptians at once largely think democracy is the most preferable form of government (59% of participants), but also want to see stonings (82%) and a death penalty for apostasy (84%).
There will be a rude awakening for the many in the West who have come to assume democracy and human rights by any standard they would recognize are a package deal.
Click on the title to read the whole story at Eye on the World.Shawan Jabarin was convicted of recruiting members for terrorist training outside Israel and served nine months of a 24-month jail sentence.
Sounds like he has perfect credentials for Human Rights Watch.
Is This The Future Of Fighting The Jihad?
London insurers' private fleet to fight Somali pirates
Insurers in the City of London are finalising plans to set up a private fleet of armed in the , in a new drive to stamp out Somali piracy. The naval protection force was conceived by leading figures in the Lloyd's of London market. They have been working with ship owners, freight operators and governments for months, marshalling support for their plan.Arrr!"Time t' blow them t' kin'dom come?"Read the full story here.
The goal of the Convoy Escort Programme is to provide protection for tankers trying to navigate the seas off war-torn Somalia while also reducing the soaring costs of insuring vessels, cargo and crews against increasingly vicious attacks by pirates.Key representatives of the shipping industry, including the Baltic and International Maritime Council (Bimco) have agreed to explore the idea further. Giles Noakes, the chief maritime security officer of Bimco, said that he would be briefing American politicians in Washington on the plan next week.
It is understood that the industry-led project is being monitored by the Royal Navy and its counterparts. The Times understands that the Navy would regard the escorts as a trial which, if successful, would allow naval vessels to hunt pirates in other areas. If the fleet can secure funding and win the support of the shipping community, it could be up and running within six months.
There are also plans to explore using former Nimrod public sector members would be set up. to provide aerial surveillance.Under the plan, which has been developed over two years, a non-profit association involving private and
It would control a fleet of 18 vessels, each with a fixed gun position and an armed crew authorised to engage the pirates in battle.Each vessel would carry eight armed security personnel and four additional crew as well as inflatable speedboats, known as "Ribs", which could be dispatched into combat if the tankers they were protecting came under attack.
Although it would be managed separately, the fleet would be under the operational control of the relevant national navy and the crew would have to conform to international rules on combat and engagement.One of the key architects of the CEP is Sean Woollerson, a partner in the marine, oil and gas division at Jardine Lloyd Thompson, a leading Lloyd's broker for companies seeking insurance protection, particularly for war risks and kidnap and ransom.
KLT is organising the fleet through BGN Risk, a global security consultancy.Mr Woollerson estimates that the programme would need about $US27.5 million to pay for 18 second-hand vessels, believed to be Swedish patrol boats. It is understood that the plan is to try to tap a $US200 million anti-piracy fund managed by the EU.
BBC Film Characterizes Geert Wilders As Europe's Most Dangerous Man
From Melanie Phillips in the Spectator:
I have only just caught up with the BBC1 documentary on the Dutch politician Geert Wilders that was transmitted on Tuesday evening. Did I say documentary? ‘Europe’s Most Dangerous Man' was a vicious hatchet job that was a disgrace to journalism. More than that, it could be argued that by presenting Wilders as a latter-day Nazi who was likely to foment war in Europe between Muslims and non-Muslims, it was in effect inciting violence or the murder of a politician who is already under armed guard 24/7.
There were several aspects of this programme that should have caused any responsible broadcaster to sling it straight into the trash. First and most fundamentally, it simply turned the people threatening the free world into victims and the politician who is trying to defend the free world against that threat into a fascist.
Muslims were presented as universally peaceful people signed up to democracy and human rights; Wilders was the presented as the extremist threat to democracy and human rights. Yet as Wilders himself was quoted as saying – even while the script was telling us that these words were ‘extremist’ – he was defending freedom against the threat from Islamists to extinguish those freedoms.
Worse still, look at the two individuals the film-makers used to level the most inflammatory charges against Wilders – individuals who were described as democrats assigned up to human rights. The first, Ibrahim Mogra, is from the Muslim Council of Britain – described by the programme as ‘an organisation seeking to promote a distinct Muslim identity in tune with British cultural norms and values’.
Yet this is the organisation with which the British government has twice broken off relations on account of its extremism.
The first occasion was when it refused to take part in Britain’s Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony.
The second occasion was in response to the MCB’s deputy general secretary, Dr Daud Abdullah, signing the Istanbul Declaration, a public declaration of support for Hamas and call for violence against the British Royal Navy and Jewish communities.
The film made no mention of this whatever. Instead it used the MCB man to attack Wilders as a dangerous extremist.
The second of these ‘moderate’ individuals wheeled on to attack Wilders was Sheikh Khalid Yasin. The film described Sheikh Yasin as ‘an American Muslim teacher extremely popular among young European Muslims’ who ‘has embarked on a mission to de radicalise them.’ Yasin denounced Wilders for ‘fanning hatred’.
Yet in the Channel 4 Dispatches programme ‘Undercover Mosque’ transmitted two years ago, Yasin was recorded saying:
‘We Muslims have been ordered to do ‘brainwashing’ because the kuffaar [non-Muslims] ... they are doing ‘brain defiling’ ... You are watching the kaffir TVs, and your wife is watching right now, and your children are watching it right now, and they are being polluted, and they are being penetrated, and they are being infected, so that your children and you go out as Muslims and come back to the house as kaffirs...The whole delusion of the equality of women is a bunch of foolishness. There’s no such thing.’And Wilders is called ‘Europe’s most dangerous man’?
Worse, the film then adduced as the final proof of Wilders’s perfidy that he was a passionate defender of Israel. His crime, apparently, was to believe that Israel was ‘the last line of the defence of Europe’ – which indeed it is – and that to solve the Middle East impasse, Jordan should become Palestine -- which indeed it originally was.
Worse again, however, the film suggested that Wilders was an Israeli spy – and, in the words of Sheikh Yasin, that it was doing Israel’s dirty work for it:
‘I think that he [Wilders] has taken and embraced the idea of modern Zionism. And he is using the platform of modern Zionism to espouse the same concepts about Muslims in the world and the Koran, that the Jews cannot afford to say in Israel. But Mr Wilders can do them a favour. He can go outside of Israel with those same feelings and he can characterise the way that the Zionists characterise the Palestinians to legitimise their power. Mr Wilders can characterise Islam in the same way. This is what is taking place.’So the film suggested, in effect, that Wilders was the front man for a kind of Nazi-Jewish conspiracy -- thus defaming both him and Israel in one go.
Others smeared by association with him were the distinguished scholar of Islam (and indefatigable supporter of true Islamic reformers) Daniel Pipes, and the heroic Danish defender of freedom of speech Lars Hedegaard – who recently only narrowly fought off an attempt by Denmark’s pusillanimous prosecutors to silence him through a criminal prosecution for raising concerns about violence within some Muslim family life.
This travesty of a documentary was made by two radical Dutch film-makers for a production company called ‘Red Rebel’. Questions need to be asked how the BBC could transmit something on such an inflammatory subject which ignored the most basic standards of journalistic fairness, -- and was effectively the broadcasting equivalent of a flier distributed by the Socialist Workers’ Party.
But of course, we all know the answer to that already. BBC ‘group- think’ means that BBC executives will have assumed the lazy and vicious left-wing demonisation of Wilders is axiomatically true and unchallengeable. They will thus have suspended any critical faculties or professionalism to which they might ever have laid any claim.
We are living in truly evil times.
Obama's Czars To Be Defunded?
From Weasel Zippers:
The House GOP approved an amendment to a government-spending bill that would block funding for the Obama administration’s so-called policy “czars,” appointed advisers to the president that have been much-criticized by Republicans.
The amendment, offered by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), specifically targets Obama’s “climate czar” by blocking funding for the assistant to the president for energy and climate change, the position’s official title. The amendment would block funding for the ‘czars’ through the end of the fiscal year, when the spending bill would run out. The underlying bill also includes a provision to block funding for the position.
“I think this sends a strong signal to the president that we are tired of him running this shadow government, where they have got these czars that are literally circumventing the accountability and scrutiny that goes with Senate confirmation,” Scalise said after the vote.
Don't tell me he's giving the Muslim Brotherhood 150 Million Dollar US taxpayer money?
The United States will spend $150 million to assist Egypt's after the ouster of , said on Thursday.
"It's very clear that there's a great deal of work ahead to ensure an orderly, democratic transition. It's also clear that Egypt will be grappling with immediate and long-term economic challenges," Clinton told reporters after briefing lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
"I'm pleased to announce today we will be reprogramming $150 million for Egypt to put ourselves in a position to support the transition there and assist with their economic recovery," Clinton said.
The United States has urged Egypt's military rulers to push ahead with plans for democratic reforms that can ultimately lead to free and fair elections in the country, which under Mubarak was a longtime U.S. ally.
Clinton said Bill Burns, the under-secretary of State for , and David Lipton, a White House adviser on international economic affairs, would travel to Egypt next week to consult with various stakeholders on how too use the funds.
Don't tell me he's giving the Muslim Brotherhood 150 Million Dollar US taxpayer money?
Read the full story here.
Pamela sums it up perfectly here:
Bahrain, Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, Jordan.......... the rise of Islamic supremacism.Members of Sunni pro-Hezbollah fighters called "Saraya al-Muqawama al-Lubnaniya", salute as they pay respect at the grave of the assassinated Hezbollah military commander Imad Moughniyeh marking the third anniversary of his assassination in the southern suburbs of Beirut, February 13, 2011. Moughniyeh was assassinated by a car bomb on Feb. 12, 2008, in Damascus after more than two decades of being hunted down by a host of regional and international spy agencies. REUTERS/Issam Kobeisy
Qaradawi's Ominous Return To Egypt
From the Investigative Project:
Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an influential Muslim Brotherhood theologian, promises to be in Egypt's Tahrir Square to deliver a sermon at Friday's prayer service.
Qaradawi, who has lived in Qatar since 1961, was a vocal critic of deposed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. A profile this week in Germany's Der Spiegel called him the Muslim Brotherhood's "father figure."
But his return is being touted as a reward for "Qaradawi's role in mobilizing support for the Egyptian revolution," a claim which is questionable at best.
It won't be the first time Qaradawi has been back to Egypt, but his visits have been fleeting. A sermon from him on the first Friday after Mubarak's ouster could be hugely symbolic as the Brotherhood tries to exert influence over the direction Egyptian society takes. And it will trigger memories of the 1979 Iranian revolution, which took a dramatic turn when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile in France.
Egypt's revolution has been described as largely spontaneous, fueled by a building rage brought on by years of oppression, inspired by a Facebook page created by Google executive Wael Ghonim devoted to a man killed by security forces and ignited by the peaceful Tunisian revolt, which showed change was possible.
If anything, the Muslim Brotherhood deliberately took a low profile during the uprising, not wanting to play into Mubarak's narrative that his ouster would lead to chaos in Egypt. But a statement Monday from Qaradawi's International Union of Muslim Scholars said he "initiated the beginning of the Friday of wrath 28/01/2011 by shouting out loud, 'Go, Mubarak, safeguard the blood and protect the people of Egypt.'"
The Brotherhood confirmed Qaradawi's role in Friday's events, saying he "will address the celebrators on the importance of the role of all Egyptians in building a free and democratic Egypt."
The Der Spiegel profile notes Qaradawi's enigmatic nature. Hailed as a moderate for opposing al-Qaida and embracing modern technology, he has called on Allah to kill "the Jewish Zionists" and spoken "about the right of Palestinian women to blow themselves up." He has been barred from entering the U.S. since 1999, the profile said.
In the past two years, he also has:
- Called on Muslims to acquire nuclear weapons "to terrorize their enemies."
- Called jihad an Islamic moral duty and said Muslims are permitted to kill Israeli women because they serve in the army.
- Affirmed his support for suicide bombings. "I supported martyrdom operations," he said, according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). "This is a necessary thing, as I told them in London. Give the Palestinians tanks, airplanes, and missiles, and they won't carry out martyrdom operations. They are forced to turn themselves into human bombs, in order to defend their land, their honor, and their homeland."
- Called the Holocaust a divine punishment of Jews "for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them - even though they exaggerated this issue - he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers."
- Prayed for the opportunity to kill a Jew before his death. "The only thing that I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah's enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus, I will seal my life with martyrdom. Praise be to Allah."