The Man Who Puts Obama To Shame

Question: Is "post-racialism" possible?
Answer: It is ... if you are not black or a Muslim.

The 36-year old Philipp Rösler will be taking office as Federal Minister of Health in the second Cabinet of Angela Merkel. (The picture above shows him at the swearing-in ceremony as Minister for Economics and Deputy Prime Minister of the federal state of Lower Saxony on February 18, 2009.) I will let you know later what makes the German Federal Minister of Health so topical today.

Rösler was born in Khanh Hoa, Vietnam, and came to Germany at the age of nine months as the adopted son of a couple that already had two biological daughters. He grew up in Hamburg and Lower Saxony. After training to become a combat medic in the Bundeswehr, Rösler was exempted to study medicine at the Hannover Medical School. Following this, he continued his education at the Bundeswehr hospital in Hamburg. He received his Doctor of Medicine degree in 2002, and left the military as a Stabsarzt, which equals the rank of an army captain, in 2003.

He is Catholic, which is decisively not the norm in strictly Protestant Lower Saxony, and a member of the General Conference of the Central Committee of German Catholics.

The picture shows Roesler with Bischof Norbert Trelle of Hildesheim and ex-Prime Minister (consecutively of two different federal states) Dr. Bernhard Vogel

Rösler has been a member of the market-liberal FDP since 1992. He was secretary of the FDP in the state of Lower Saxony from 2000 until 2004. From 2001 until 2006 Rösler was a member in the regional assembly of Hanover (district), where he was also deputy chairman of the parliamentary group. In May 2005 he was elected an observer of the federal FDP executive committee. At the state party conference in March 2006, Rösler was elected chairman of the Lower Saxony FDP. In April 2008, he was confirmed in the office, receiving 95% of the votes.

In July 2007, he was elected to stand as his party’s main candidate in the Lower Saxony state election to be held in January 2008. On 18 February 2009, Rösler was appointed minister for economy, labour and transport as well as deputy prime minister of the state of Lower Saxony.

Now it was declared that he would succeed the painfully inept "Ulla" Schmidt as Federal Minister of Health in Angela Merkel's second Cabinet.

Rösler is married to Wiebke and since Oktober 28, 2008 they are the parents of the dizygotic twins Grietje Marie und Gesche Helene."One looks rather East Frisian, like my wife, the other one resembles me", he told the glossy BUNTE.

---------- JUMP CUT ----------

Today, the trial of a man accused of killing an Egyptian woman in a German courtroom (we reported) opened in Dresden. Security is tight, about 200 police officers secure the court, the area is barred for traffic, the residents were asked to remove their cars from the streets and the accused sat behind bulletproof glass. Many attendants were wearing badges with the victim's face. "This trial is seen as having a higher than usual security risk," a police spokesman said and nobody laughed.

"He stabbed them out of pure hatred against non-Europeans and Muslims. He wanted to annihilate them," prosecutor Frank Heinrich told the court and nobody mentioned all the many peaceful Muslims for whom the security measures had to be taken because they want to annihilate US and have gone a long way towards that goal a darn sight more effectively already than the yob from Russia in the German courtroom in July in reverse.

Will it be enough? You must be joking!

---------- JUMP CUT ----------

January 31, 1997 the 42-year old Vietnamese Phan Van Toau's skull is broken by a German who smashes him on the concrete floor at Fredersdorf (Brandenburg) railway station. Three months later Phan dies in a clinic. The prosecutor at Frankfurt (Oder) opens the case against him on the grounds of xenophobia. During the trial, the perpetrator spouts racist slogans like "Fijis out of Germany". Still, the court does not follow the prosecutor and sees "no xenophobic motive" behind the deed. The defendant gets a sentence of nine and an half year for manslaughter.

In August 2008 a Vietnamese illegal cigarette dealer is stabbed to death by a German who wanted to play cops and robbers in Berlin-Marzahn. Witnesses confirm that the man had announced his deed and that he wanted "those Fijis" to go away. The head of the homicide squad saw no "hints that would suggest a racist crime". Accusations of manslaughter were dropped and the perpetrator confined to a mental institution.

It took me two minutes to find those cases through a Google search including the German search terms for "murder" and "Vietnamese". And neither in those two nor in any other of the other cases I found was a courthouse turned into a fort, no full-bodied declarations of "pure hatred against non-Europeans and Vietnamese" or "annihilation" were made, nobody wore badges with the dead men's faces and no politician went to the funerals carrying a white (or any) rose. In a word: nobody gave a damn.

Did the Vietnamese riot in the face of such REAL German coldheartedness, of such TRULY blatantly unjust sentences? Did they accuse the Germans collectively (if at all) of racism and hatred? Did they make demands? You must be joking! Instead, they went on with their clothes shops, their illegal cigarette dealings, their fruit and vegetable stalls, in a word, with their lifes*, just as Dr. Philipp Rösler did neither turn into an angry advocate for South Asians nor did he ever make his race an issue at all. He does not think that his success is justly deserved for past injustices of whites towards the non-white races, he does not speak for minorities, the disgruntled, the bitter, the jealous and the power-hungry, he does not offer himself as a redemption from the original sin of being white. He is just the right man for the job.

---

* This rather flip statement is supported by a 2007 study of the Ministry for Foreign Aid ("Economic Cooperation" as it is now politically correctly called). Most Vietnamese people, in West Germany more so than in the East, are well integrated. What is specifically interesting is that it was noted that they do little networking. They rather try to assimilate and to get on in life individually, based on their own merits.

In this context, the case of the rabbi who was stabbed by a friendly young man with a migration background in Frankfurt in September 2007 (we reported) deserves to be hauled from the blog bilges as well:

The 22-year-old admitted to stabbing the rabbi, prosecutors said in a statement. The man is being investigated on suspicion of attempted manslaughter and aggravated battery.

According to the rabbi, the assailant said "I’ll kill you, you Scheiß-Jude." [Expletives are hardly translatable -- Scheiß=shit, Jude=Jew].

Prosecutors said that the suspect -- whose name they did not release -- denies having either, any intention of killing the rabbi or any antisemitic motive.

Of course not. Nobody who rams a 7 1/2-centimetre blade into somebody's abdomen has intention of killing the recipient of this attention. That is true. As true as the suspect's statement that he felt threatened by and physically inferior to the middle-aged, obese rabbi and so reached for his knife. As true as he picked by mere chance a man to attack who was, by his outfit, easily identifiable as Jew. As Henryk M. Broder put it: "Here we have another case of self-defense, where the provocateur leaps aggressively into the provocatee's knife as an answer to a friendly "salam aleikum".

Jews didn't riot either in the face of such REAL German coldheartedness, of such TRULY blatantly unjust sentences. They didn't accuse the Germans collectively (if at all) of racism and hatred and they did not make demands.

Does anybody see a pattern here?

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles,

Peace Is Kow-Towing to Islam

So the handsome bag of hot air in the White House got the Nobel Peace Price "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".

My first reaction was to think it's a political jest, a sort of brainteaser. But having finally gotten a grip, it doesn't seem all that surreal anymore, rather only too real. What did Obama actually do within the short time he is in office? Domestically, a lot of things to keep grievances and polarisation between the races alive and thriving, while peddling his (and his wife's) mawkish self-promotion, but that doesn't count all that much for the awarders. Externally, and that DOES count, a summary is equally easy. His first official interview was with a Muslim radio network, his entire demeanour towards the Muslim world is humble and conciliatory, stressing his own Muslim ties and hopes for a Palestinian state, an attitude he even maintains when asked if America could “live with” Iranian nuclear weapons. (A recipe for peace if I have ever seen one.) His term in office took off with a Mideast peace push that included an unequivocal demand for Israel to halt settlement activity in the West Bank, and we all know how well that "land for peace"-thingy has worked so far for Israel, don't we. But to be fair, he isn't all THAT much more hostile towards Israel or the Jews in the Middle East than American officials have been, historically, anyway.

His job, he said, is "to communicate [to the Muslim world] that the Americans are not your enemy”, which is not easily to bring in line with another "job", namely the protection of his country from further Muslim aggression, and yes, when we equate "peace" with that of the graveyard, the awarders of the Nobel Peace Price are not all THAT far off the mark.

But let's stop the cynicisms. Dear Americans, didn't he swear to protect you and your country? And does anybody remember the botched oath? Does anybody see a connection here? Does anybody remember, too, that he grew up as a Muslim and that this "religion" punishes apostasy by death, yet that he is, of all notable apostates, the only one still alive and not under massive death threats? Does anybody remember his butt high in the air, bowing to the Saudi king like a waiter, this leader of the free world? Does anybody ever seriously ask him why? Or where the money for his campaign came from? Too many questions only too many people never ask.

WHY don't you ever seriously ask all that, Americans? Now you will go on bellyaching that a leftist liberal pinko commie, a charismatic seducing his followers in either Stalinist or Nazi spirit (depending on the bogeyman pf choice) and anti-white racist is now at the receiving end of the Nobel Peace Price while the Muslim world will do ... WHAT?


The good side? Easy! There have been worse choices:


Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.

U.S. & Egypt-backed U.N. Resolution Chips Away at Free Speech

Always remember to hang/paste/tack/tape 'em high, folks...

UN rights body approves US-Egypt free speech text

By FRANK JORDANS (AP) – 1 day ago

GENEVA — The U.N. Human Rights Council approved a U.S.-backed resolution Friday deploring attacks on religions while insisting that freedom of expression remains a basic right. The inaugural resolution sponsored by the U.S. since it joined the council in June broke a long-running deadlock between Western and Islamic countries in the wake of the publication of cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.

The resolution has no effect in law but provides Muslim countries with moral ammunition the next time they feel central tenets of Islam are being ridiculed by Western politicians or media through "negative racial and religious stereotyping."

American diplomats say the measure — co-sponsored by Egypt — is part of the Obama administration's effort to reach out to Muslim countries.

"The exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society," the resolution states, urging countries to protect free speech by lifting legal restrictions, ensuring the safety of journalists, promoting literacy and preventing media concentration.

Rights groups cautiously welcomed the resolution as an improvement on earlier drafts, but said Egypt was in no position to lecture other countries about free speech as it has a poor record on the matter.

"Egypt's cosponsorship of the resolution on freedom of expression is not the result of a real commitment to upholding freedom of expression," said Jeremie Smith, Geneva director of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies.

"If this were the case, freedom of expression would not be systematically violated on a daily basis in Egypt," he said.

Others warned that the resolution appears to protect religions rather than believers and encourages journalists to abide by ill-defined codes of conduct.

"Unfortunately, the text talks about negative racial and religious stereotyping, something which most free expression and human rights organizations will oppose," said Agnes Callamard, executive director of London-based group Article 19.

"The equality of all ideas and convictions before the law and the right to debate them freely is the keystone of democracy," she said.

Although the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. Some Asian and African countries had called for stronger condemnation of articles, cartoons and videos they believe defames Islam.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Is Obama Trying to Make America Part of the dar al-Islam?

Pam at Atlas got the same Bad Feeling as I did concerning Obamuhammad's over-emphasis on the alleged Muslim role in American history. So did Frank Gaffney Jr. of the Center for Security Policy. I urge you to follow the link at Atlas to Gaffney's entire article, in which he points out that certain passages in Obama's speech "amount to instances of presidential dawa, the Arabic term for Islamic proselytization." From references to "the Holy Koran" to "having known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed", Obama has, in Gaffney's opinion, gone beyond "respectful" language into "what amounts to code -- bespeaking the kind of submissive attitude Islam demands of all...", and leading Gaffney to question the purpose of Obama's "repeated hyping of Muslims and their role in the United States that is standard Muslim Brotherhood fare."

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.

Stupid Airplane Tricks Abu-Dhabi Style

In case we thought Obama was the only one who could screw things up with a large airplane, may I present the winner of my Hilarious Email of the Week award. Check this out! Apparently the Fwench spiked the story so as not to offend the idiots involved or their brethren, who just happens to be -- wait for it -- Muslims.

Muslims and squiggles

Motoons artist Kurt Westergaard has accused the BBC of appeasing Muslim sensibilities by refusing to air a recent interview with him.

According to a story in Britain’s Daily Mail:

It had been expected to go out on BBC World, the BBC News channel, across radio services and on its website. But the corporation has kept the report under wraps amid claims it is frightened that it will “inflame” Muslims around the world.

Mr Westergaard told the Daily Mail last night: “I am disappointed on behalf of the freedom of speech. Every time you are afraid I think you make a step backwards. That is depressing me.”

He compared the BBC’s behaviour with the way countries tried to appease Hitler before the Second World War and added: “If you have an appeasement policy towards the radical Muslims then you are on a very wrong way and you have to start marching backwards.”

A BBC spokesman said last night: “No decision has been made yet. As and when one is, it will be based, as always, on editorial merit.”

Westergaard was one of 12 cartoonists commissioned by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005 to produce caricatures of the marauding Muslim “prophet”. Muslims say no image of Mohammed should be produced or shown. And by that they mean by anyone, not just Muslims, which is of course ridiculous.

Their fatuous response has led to far more exposure for the cartoons throughout the world – but for some reason they don’t see that. They prefer to march in the streets, threaten, set fire to things, kill and incite violence, thus spurring bloggers and other media to show the cartoons again and again.

You’ll see that we’ve found a rather nice way of showing the cartoons for your viewing and listening pleasure, set to the tune of the Danish national anthem.

Meanwhile, it remains to be seen whether the BBC does go ahead with the interview.

NIN Source States "The Game is Rigged" Against Israel

A "highly placed U.S. Intelligence official" wishing to remain anonymous warns of an "increasing probability of abandonment of Israel by the U.S. and other Western countries" based on "malicious intelligence", says Northeast Intelligence Network Director Douglas Hagmann in a report dated 12/31/08. The official confirmed that a larger extended ground operation is likely in Gaza, adding that as Israel exercises her right to protect herself from her enemies, she is in grave danger of losing the support of the United States.

“I have every reason to believe, based on what I’ve seen at my level of [security] clearance especially over the last several years, that Israel will soon be completely on their own… or worse.” 

When asked what could be worse than losing the support of the United States, he stated: “when our administration provides more support to Arab countries [with] financial and military aid, undercutting Israel’s defense efforts all while pushing Israel to succumb to the pressure of unreasonable demands designed to end with their political annihilation as a nation.”

According to this official, the U.S. has been slowly proceeding down this road. He cited the 2005 surrender of Gush Katif to the Palestinian Authority as one critical example of the slow dismantlement of Israel as a viable nation. “Despite critical intelligence outlining in every possible manner imaginable that this would be a disastrous move leading to the events we are seeing today, it was done anyway,” he stated.

“We are seeing the very scenario play out today that was outlined in intelligence briefs three and four years ago. Knowing that, there is something very wrong with this picture,” he stated.

He added that Western media is also playing a very big role in the current war in the Middle East, thanks, in part, to carefully worded statements prepared by political officials in Washington. Officials in the current administration, like some previous administrations, submit carefully crafted informational releases to a media that is controlled by those having special interests that are contrary to a legitimate peace in the Middle East.
“The game is rigged. At the highest levels of power in the U.S. and even by some in power in Israel, the game is rigged,” he emphasized.

Vetted intelligence reports twisted to fit the agenda of those in government whose special agenda is hostile to Israel, fed to the biased MSM which serves up this poison to an American public unaware that not only Israel's security but our own is being systematically undermined from within. Read the rest and try not to lose your lunch. Hagmann plans to post the remainder of this report in the near future.

We're Already At War With Iran, Or At Least, They Are At War With Us

Michael Ledeen wrote an excellent article, worth reading, in the latest Imprimis. Among other things, he wrote:

The simple facts regarding Iran are easy to understand. We are dealing with a regime that came to power in 1979, when the Iranian revolution overthrew the Shah. Immediately thereafter, Iran declared war against the United States, branding us “The Great Satan.” The Iranians have been at war against us for 30 years, and prior to 9/11 the Iranian regime was directly or indirectly responsible for the murder of more Americans than any other country or organization in the world.

Some people want to talk to Iran. Or negotiate or something. Ledeen has this to say about talking with Iran:

We have been talking to the Iranians, almost non-stop, for 30 years. There isn’t an American president from Jimmy Carter to the present who has not authorized negotiations with Iran. The classic case occurred during the Clinton administration. We ended all kinds of sanctions against Iran, let all kinds of Iranians into the U.S. for the first time since the 1970s, had sporting matches with the Iranians, hosted Iranian cultural events, and unfroze Iranian bank accounts. Then President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright started publicly apologizing to Iran for this and that. But when all was said and done, Ali Khamenei reminded everyone that Iran is in a state of war with the U.S., and that was the end of negotiations. This is what has happened every single time we have tried talking to or appeasing Iran.

Read the whole article (PDF document): Understanding Iran

No More Concessions To Islam

A little while ago I posted something on the IBA called How Many Concessions Will It Take Before The Free World Is Unrecognizable? I envisioned a huge post, full of comments, but alas, my post was a flop. But I really like the idea of having one huge collection of concessions that democracies (and companies and people in the free world) have made to Islam, so I could use it whenever I mention concessions. (And for other people to use when they mention concessions.) When I write about Islam chipping away at democracy, someone can go to this site and see what I'm talking about.

Each little concession may not be noteworthy or cause an alarm, but I think seeing so many in so many different places and in so many different forms all in one view, it might make even a hardened skeptic think, "Hold on there! That's enough!"

So I started a blog and tried to make the URL as short as possible (http://concess.blogspot.com) so it's easy to share in comments. Check it out: NO MORE Concessions to Islam.

I would also like to invite anyone to send me concessions you come across. The format I'm using is a short summary of the concession followed by a link to the article. I think this would create a maximum impact because the reader would be able to scan 25 concessions in just a few minutes, giving a feeling of freedom slipping away, and hopefully having a motivating visceral reaction. If you feel inclined to participate, send me concessions here: citizenwarriorgeneral@gmail.com. Thank you. This is another weapon in our arsenal.

Seven Ways to Stop the Invasion

I don't know who wrote the list below, but it's pretty good. I got it here and here. Someone asked, basically, "So what do you think can be done about all this besides moral grandstanding and warning about 'our failure to act?'"

The article, if you can call it that, gives seven specific answers. I'm curious how you IBA readers react to this list.

Best ways to deal with the Muslim invasion of the West:

1. Deportation to countries of their origin.

2. Deportation to Muslim-only towns guarded by the police.

3. One child per family policy reinforced with sterilization.

4. Mandatory lessons about Muslim atrocities.

5. Very strict control of Muslim clergy (mullahs).

6. Tax on Muslims to recompense us for all the harm they have done to us.

7. Sermons (khutbah) and religious instructions must be conducted in the local language, rather than Arabic, so that hate speech can be easily identified.

I think 4, 5, and 7 are particularly good. What do you think?

How Many Concessions Will It Take Before The Free World Is Unrecognizable?

I keep harping on the idea that one important solution to the problem of Islamic political encroachment is the blanket rule by all democracies: No more concessions to Islam. And it occurred to me that the readers of IBA have a wealth of knowledge, all coming across different news items, and that we could use a single page that collects concessions, in the same way that The Religion of Peace website collects Islamic acts of violence against non-Muslims.

If we had a single page, those of us who are bloggers could link to it whenever we mention concessions to Islam, and those who are not bloggers could give a link to it whenever they mention concessions to Islam to their friends.

We could all keep a link to this page and whenever we come across another concession, we could add it to the comments until this is such an enormous list it crashes Blogger.com and makes the news. So let's begin. I'll go first (read the comments).