Thursday, April 30, 2009

London Mayor’s Muslim Cleric Says Hitler Put Jews In Their Place

(Thanks to Damien for sending this in to me)

MORE on former London Mayor Ken Livingstone’s cuddle companion: Yusuf al-Qaradawi

As Ken said when he met the great misunderstood cleric:

“On behalf of the people of London, I would like to apologise to the Sheikh for the outburst of xenophobia in sections of the media which demonstrated an underlying ignorance of Islam.”

He apologised on your behalf to a man who can be seen and heard being misunderstood in this clip:

Tom Harris, Labour MP for Glasgow South and blogger noters:

But, according to Osama Saeed, who leads the Scottish Islamic Foundation, Qaradawi is an “eminent scholar”. Saeed has complained that the BBC accurately reported Qaradawi’s relelant views of violence against women and homosexuals.

Oh, and did I mention that Saeed was last week formally endorsed as a parliamentary candidate for the nationalists in Scotland?

In doing so, the nationalists have become the first “mainstream” party in the United Kingdom to endorse an Islamist candidate.

Mommy, What Are You Carrying In Your Arms, Instead of Me?

Where are all my fellow Infidels? I seem to be the only one posting today.

And, once again, this is something I found over at Vlad Tepes:

I have so very much to say about this video. But why bother? Today, a man was sentenced to death for selling land to a Jew in Palestinian territory and they call Israel an Apartheid state. It doesn’t or at least shouldn’t need to be mentioned that Muslim Arabs own land stores businesses and anything else they want anywhere in Israel they care to have them. Yet again, people overall seem obsessed with the minutia of the Israeli state and its treatment of non Jews.

Anyway, here is an example of the kind of TV propaganda that Muslims watch in Gaza. Anyone still on that side, please find me any comparable example of this sort of thing from Isreal. Hell from anywhere at all non Islamic.

A New Low For the Followers Of Mohammed

This is from the Vlad Tepes Blog:

My inner dialogue defines genius as the ability to recognize the blindingly obvious for what it actually is. Mr. Kay consistently meets that criteria. What astonishes me, is the vast number of people who use poor logic to try and make horror something other than it is and feel clever about it. Like the slight of hand of moral relativism etc.

Having spent this morning catching up on my weekend reading, I came across this Page 4 article from Friday’sNew York Times. Here’s the lead paragraph:

BAGHDAD — At least 80 people died and 120 others were injured Thursday in three bombings, one by a female suicide bomber in Baghdad who, Iraqi officials said, held a young child’s hand as she set off her explosives among a group of women and children receiving emergency food aid.”

Even putting aside our baseline revulsion at terrorism, there are three especially hideous things that jump out from this:

1) A mother deliberately taking her (presumed) child with her as she immolates herself. For all the hundreds of suicide bombings that Iraq has already witnessed, this has got to be a first.

2) This was a line for food aid. Islamists have gone from attacking U.S. soldiers, to attacking Iraqi soldiers, to attacking police stations, to attacking the religious ceremonies of rival sects — on down the line of nihilism until, now, they are reduced to blowing up hungry people seeking sustenance.

3) This hideous crime was played on page four of The New York Times. And a quick scan of other media suggests it got similar B-rate treatment elsewhere. This sort of act would have been worth a worldwide banner headline a decade ago. But now, it’s just another demented Islamist senselessly slaughtering fellow Muslims. With her kid. Yawn.

Says a lot about the world we live in, doesn’t it?

UK airline wipes Israel off the map to avoid offending Muslims

From Jihad Watch:

Reality offends them.

Raymond just wrote in to remind me that BMI has been following a consistent pattern of dhimmitude, asking flight attendants to walk behind men and wear Muslim garb while in Saudi Arabia, and forbidding staff from taking Bible and Christian items into Saudi Arabia.

"BMI airline wipes Israel off the map," from the Jerusalem Post, April 30 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Cheap British carrier BMI, which launched lines flying to Tel Aviv in March, deleted Israel from electronic maps presented to passengers on its flights so as not to offend Islam, Army Radio reported Thursday afternoon.

However, the orientation of Mecca, the direction to which Muslim face when they pray, is shown on the electronic screens. In the electronic maps presented on BMI flights to Tel Aviv, neither Israel nor any of its cities are marked, except for Haifa, which is spelled 'Khefa,' a transliteration of the Arab name of the city as it was called before 1948.

BMI operates many lines to Muslim destinations and presents the 'Mecca Compass' as a service to its many Muslim passengers. The company flies from England to Syria, Lebanon and Iran, among other destinations in the Middle East....

The company said in response that two planes flying to Tel Aviv were originally intended to arrive in Arab countries and therefore the map was tailored to the passengers and showed mainly sites holy to Muslims.

A "logistic failure" caused the map to be presented on the flight to Tel Aviv, a company statement said, adding that it will be removed from the Tel-Aviv bound planes. The company was making every effort not to hurt passengers' feelings by adopting a nonpolitical position, the statement added.

Obama in 2012, after he fails to deal with Iran

By Ari Shavit

Even now, in November 2012, it is hard not to think back with elation on Barack Obama's first year as president of the United States. In his first 100 days in the White House, the energetic president took a series of daring steps that extricated the American economy from its worst crisis since the 1930s. Immediately after that he put an end to torture, indicted Dick Cheney, convened a Middle East peace conference and made historic reconciliation visits to Havana, Damascus and Tehran. 

Obama's economic and foreign policies were both based on a moral worldview that inspired Americans and non-Americans alike. After years of despair and cynicism, the 44th president proposed a new national and international agenda based on dialogue, demilitarization, justice and peace. 

The first signs that something was wrong had already appeared at the end of that first year of grace. Nevertheless, Washington was astounded when, in the summer of 2010, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that he was expelling international inspectors and galloping full-tilt toward the production of nuclear weapons. The shock turned to horror on the eve of Christmas 2010, when Iran's spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei, stated that his country had its first three nuclear warheads - aimed at Riyadh, Cairo and Tel Aviv.

Spring 2011 was dramatic. First a mutual defense treaty and an agreement to collaborate on oil exports were signed between Tehran and the fragile Baghdad government. Then Kuwait, Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai bowed their heads and signed treaties that made them protectorates of the rising Shi'ite state. Saudi Arabia took the opposite approach: In May 2011, it announced that it had purchased nuclear weapons from Pakistan both for itself and for its ally Egypt. But Egypt's sudden nuclearization failed to appease the Muslim Brotherhood. Mass demonstrations forced President Hosni Mubarak to resign shortly after he suspended the peace agreement with Israel. 

By Thanksgiving 2011, the situation was clear. Jordan's King Abdullah left for exile in London. Hezbollah took control of Beirut and a bloody war of attrition erupted between Israel and the Palestinians. The unrest in western Asia had repercussions on the rest of the international arena: Afghanistan went up in flames, Pakistan collapsed and Russia raised its head. In view of Washington's helplessness, some European states began to lean increasingly toward China. When the price of oil rose above $200 a barrel, the American economy plunged into another deep recession. 

Obama had no chance in the snows of Iowa in 2012. So with Oprah Winfrey wiping a tear at his side, the most promising president ever announced he would not run for a second term.

What went wrong? Where did Obama go astray? In retrospect, the answer is clear and simple. In the summer of 2009, the president had to make the most courageous decision of his life: to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Granted, opting for confrontation would have been incompatible with the DNA of the liberal Democrat from Chicago. Ironically, however, only such a decision could have saved his legacy and advanced the noble values he believed in. Only that decision could have led to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. If Obama had decided three years ago to impose a political-economic siege on Tehran, he would have changed the course of history. The Roosevelt of the 21st century would have prevented regional chaos, a worldwide nuclear arms race and an American decline.

Yesterday, immediately after television networks announced the sweeping Republican victory of November 2012, close friends gathered around the outgoing president. They found him sad but sober. Obama had no doubts: Had he known at the beginning of his term what he knows now, he would have made a different strategic decision about Iran's nuclear program. If only it were possible to go back, the pensive president told his humbled chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. If only he could have made a different decision in the summer of 2009.


From Atlas Shrugs:

Obama's first female 'Islamist' appointee, Egyptian born Dalia Mogahed, conducted her first interview  with Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi's extremist Islamic website, Islam Online. I posted the whole thing here.  The taqiyya interview is irony-rife with decrees of victimhood and subjugation.

Here she says,
What do you think of the rising Islamphobia in America?

Islamphobia in America is very real. [...]The disease of racism, by definition, is a bias in judgment. This means that racism clouds sound judgment and leads people to make irrational decisions. It also divides a nation and prevents the full utilization of its intellectual and cultural resources. Racism is wasteful.

Have a look at the comment section. It amuses and bemuses me that the whining thugs who club the West about the head with hate speech horsedung and racism rubbish, endlessly bitch that they are the victims of "islamophobia"and a nonexistent "racism" (though Islam is a religion not a race - but why split hairs?). And yet they spew the most violent, disgusting hate and no one says boo.

Reader Janet alerted me to the comments and said she tried repeatedly to report 'ABUSE' on

"COMMENTS by "free human" = kike loser By Cracker Whacker on 2009-04-29 18:24 (GMT)

but she said, "my text input is not recognized." Yeah, right. It's not halal.

To the4 so-called "free human"...the animosity of the Jews to Islam has its roots in Al-Madinah

By Ramsy on 2009-04-29 21:34 (GMT)

To the so-called "free human", a filthy Zionist Jew, spewing hatred and islamophobia , here are your roots of animosity towards Islam:

Some of the Jews of Al-Madinah (Yathrib) in north Hijaz, were well-known in their animosity to the Messenger of Allah (MPBUH) at the day he immigrated to this Arab town.Among these staunchest Jews enemies to Prophet Muhammad were (note their Arab names! ): Hayy and Abou Yaser and Jadi Banu Akhtab, Salam bin Mashkam, Kinanah bin Ar-Rabee', Ka'ab bin Al-Ashraf, Abdullah bin Souria, Ibin Saloubah , Malik bin As-Salt, Shas bin Qays. Banu Qura'izah, Banu An-Nadir were the two Jewish tribes in Al-Madinah who hated Muhammad and plotted more than three times to assassinate him!......

Here are your anti-Islamic roots bloody filthy Zionist!

Commenter: "free human" = kike loser
By Cracker Whacker on 2009-04-29 18:24 (GMT)

Of course you're a zionist kike since you believe that you kike terrorists are "chosen people." Israel has as much right to exist as Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa. Zionist fairy tales have no place in the civilized world. 
Its a shit country made and financed by white slaves full of pimps, thugs and gangsters. The only thing kikes have accomplished in the last 5000 years is getting kicked out of every country they infected.
Ben Franklin was right :
"I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and penetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews.

In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone depreciated its commercial integrity have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions have built up a state within the state and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal.

Who Tried to Kill the Dutch Royal Family?

Thanks to HRW for sending this in.

From Debbie Schlussel:

As reader Shy Guy suggests, place your bets on who is behind this one. We all know that Muslims have a lot of grievances against the Dutch (heck, they have a lot of grievances everywhere about everything, but especially in places like the Netherlands, where they've taken a lot of control and have reached a critical mass of sorts). We know that in Holland, they've already assassinated Theo Van Gogh and threatened Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

So who is behind this attempt by a car to crash into the Dutch Royal Family?

Hmmm . . .

At least two people have been killed and 12 injured in a serious incident during the royal family's visit to Apeldoorn to celebrate Queen's Day.
Who Tried to Kill Queen Beatrix?
TV pictures show a heavily-damaged black car driving through the barriers erected to keep the crowd under control, close to the open bus carrying queen Beatrix and the rest of her family.

The car hit several people and ploughed into a fenced-off obelisk.

Family members on board the open bus witnessed the incident.

The driver of the car was cut out and taken to an ambulance on a stretcher. One eyewitness told the Telegraaf someone had fallen out of the car shortly before it hit the pillar. Another said the car appeared to be attempting to drive at the bus.

The Telegraaf reports that the royal procession was running late by 20 minutes but that the driver appeared to have followed the royal bus exactly.

The rest of the celebrations in Apeldoorn have been cancelled and the royal family will not appear again in public, Nos tv reports.

Nos tv said it is difficult to find out more about the incident because the use of mobile phones has been banned.

Not sure why cell phones were banned there. Perhaps because they could be used as bombs.

This certainly appears deliberate and has echoes of the people who drove into the Glasgow airport a couple of years ago. And you know who they were. Doctors "of Peace."

Thanks to Anonymous for sending the video:

Attorney General Holder - Gitmo Hotels Might Be Housed in Hotels

Eric Holder - you know, our beloved Attorney General who called America a nation of moral "cowards" - says we may put Gitmo detainees up in Hotels. Maid service, continental breakfasts (or will they be staying at the Embassy Suites who serve a full breakfast), in-room dining, a bar downstairs (the perfect place to hatch new plots against America ...

Oh yes, and by the way, he is also, once again, asking our allies to take their "share of the detainees." The idiot. They've already told us "no" several times over. Fucking idiot.

Fuck Eric Holder.

BERLIN (AP) — The United States and its allies must make sacrifices to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday in a high-profile appeal for Europe's help.

Holder spoke to the American Academy in Berlin, not long after telling reporters that the United States had approved the release of about 30 Guantanamo detainees.

"We must all make sacrifices and we must all be willing to make unpopular choices," said Holder.

"The United States is ready to do its part, and we hope that Europe will join us — not out of a sense of responsibility, but from a commitment to work with one of its oldest allies to confront one of the world's most pressing challenges," he said.

There are currently 241 inmates at the facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Holder spent the past several days privately asking European leaders in London, Prague and Berlin for help relocating detainees the United States wants to set free.

Holder spoke before a select group of policy experts, academics and journalists in a crowded room of about 100.

In answer to a question about Bush administration officials' decisions to authorize tough interrogation techniques, Holder said he believed that many of them would, privately, admit to having made some mistakes in the pressure and worry that followed the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I don't suspect that would be true of Vice President Dick Cheney," Holder added.

At another point, a questioner earnestly asked of those Guantanamo detainees who are believed to be innocent could be put in a hotel somewhere.

"Hotels might be a possibility, it depends on where the hotel is," joked Holder.

And, so fucking funny he is too, huh? He should be a standup comedian. 

Maybe we can put them up in hotels next to your house, Mr. Holder.

See, I can be funny too.

This Week On The Gathering Storm

Listen to The Gathering Storm Radio Show, which WC and I cohost. The show broadcasts live every Friday beginning at noon, Pacific Time.

The call-in number is (646) 915-9870.

Callers welcome!

Our guest today for the full hour is I.Q. Al Rassooli.

You don't want to miss this show!

I.Q. Al Rassoli is the author of Lifting the Veil: The True Faces of Muhammad and Islam. He also has two web sites: In The Name Of Allah and the YouTube site Idiot's Guide To Islam. Sample from the latter:

Listen to the May 1, 2009 edition of The Gathering Storm Radio Show, live or later, by CLICKING HERE.

May 8: Tracy of No Compromise When You're Right!
May 15: Frank Salvato
May 22: John Kenneth Press and Midnight Rider
May 29: Koran debate

I Got Yer Video of the Week Right Here

at Fausta's Blog

Humpday Blues

Count Basie and Oscar Peterson
Slow Blues


Just havin' one of those days. . .

I'm Your Huckleberry


Obama's "Swagga"

NKorea threatens nuclear, missile tests


NKorea threatens nuclear, missile tests

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea threatened Wednesday to conduct nuclear and missile tests and start an uranium-enrichment program in addition to its existing plutonium-based one, unless the U.N. apologizes for criticizing its recent rocket launch, dramatically raising its stake in the worsening standoff over its atomic programs.

Pyongyang's Foreign Ministry said in a statement the country "will be compelled to take additional self-defensive measures" unless the U.N. Security Council apologizes immediately. "The measures will include nuclear tests and test-firings of intercontinental ballistic missiles."

The North's ministry also said the country would build a light-water nuclear reactor and start developing technologies to produce nuclear fuel, a threat that experts said indicated the country would start enriching uranium—another type of nuclear bomb ingredient.

The current nuclear standoff flared in late 2002 after Washington raised allegations that Pyongyang had a clandestine nuclear program based on enriched uranium in addition to a separate one based on plutonium. The North has strongly denied the allegations.

North Korea is known for brinksmanship and harsh rhetoric, but it is unusual for it to threaten a nuclear test.

Pyongyang conducted its first-ever atomic test blast in 2006 and is thought to have enough plutonium to make at least half a dozen nuclear bombs. But experts have said the country is not believed to have mastered the technology to make a nuclear warhead small enough to put on a missile.

The U.N. Council adopted a statement this month denouncing the North's April 5 rocket launch and calling for tightening sanctions. Pyongyang has claimed the rebuke is unfair because the liftoff was a peaceful satellite launch. But the U.S. and others believe it was a test of long-range missile technology.

Wednesday's threat came days after the North said it had begun reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods at its Yongbyon nuclear complex—a move aimed at harvesting weapons-grade plutonium.
That announcement came hours after the U.N. blacklisted three North Korean companies.

The Security Council should apologize for infringing on the North's sovereignty "withdraw all its unreasonable and discriminative resolutions and decisions" against the North, the ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

Later Wednesday, South Korea's Foreign Ministry expressed "serious concerns" over the North's threat, accusing the country of "directly challenging" the international community.

"We make it clear that the international responsibility for worsening the situation will be entirely on North Korea," the ministry said in a statement.

Professor Kim Yong-hyun at Seoul's Dongguk University said the North's threat "appears to be rhetoric for now."

"The North is trying to maximize the stakes as the United States keeps ignoring it," he said. But the expert also said the communist could gradually put the threat into action depending on reaction from Washington.

Yang Moo-jin, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies, said the North appears to have already begun preparations to conduct nuclear and missile tests, given it is demanding "an unrealistic, unprecedented" demand—a U.N. apology. He said the threat to build a light-water reactor "of course" meant Pyongyang would start a uranium enrichment program.

Yang, however, said the North would eventually withdraw its nuclear and missile threats, both targeting the U.S., if it achieves its main goal of wresting direct talks with Washington.

Under a 2007 six-nation deal, North Korea agreed to disable its main nuclear complex in Yongbyon north of Pyongyang in return for 1 million tons of fuel oil and other concessions. In June 2008, North Korea blew up the cooling tower there in a dramatic show of its commitment to denuclearization.

But disablement came to halt a month later as Pyongyang wrangled with Washington over how to verify its past atomic activities. The latest round of talks, in December, failed to push the process forward.

The negotiations involve China, Japan, the two Koreas, Russia and the U.S.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Tony Blair calls on world to wage war on militant Islam


Tony Blair calls on world to wage war on militant Islam
Times Online (UK)
April 23, 2009
Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

Tony Blair has said he does not regret leading Britain to war in Iraq when he was Prime Minister and has called on the world to take on and defeat Islamic extremists. He believes that, without intervention, the problem will continue to grow in countries such as Afghanistan.

He called for a battle to be waged against militant Islam similar to that fought against revolutionary communism. In an address last night to a forum on religion and politics in Chicago, Mr Blair said that the world today faced a struggle posed by “an extreme and misguided form of Islam”, which threatened the majority of Muslims as well as non-Muslims.

“Our job is simple: it is to support and partner those Muslims who believe deeply in Islam but also who believe in peaceful co-existence, in taking on and defeating the extremists who don’t.” The struggle could not be won “without our active and wholehearted participation,” he said.

Mr Blair was speaking almost ten years to the day since he gave an address in Chicago at the height of the Kosovo crisis when he set out what he described as a “doctrine of international community” that sought to justify intervention, including military intervention, not only when a nation’s interests are directly engaged but also where there exists a humanitarian crisis or gross oppression of a civilian population.

The speech was criticised widely at the time as hopelessly idealistic and even dangerous.

“Probably, in the light of events since then, some would feel vindicated,” Mr Blair said last night, but he stood by his stance. ‘I still believe that those who oppress and brutalise their citizens are better put out of power than kept in it,’ he said.

Defending his intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said the argument that Britain should revert to a more traditional, cautious foreign policy should be resisted.

“The case for the doctrine I advocated ten years ago remains as strong now as it was then,” he said, arguing that there was a link between the murders in Mumbai, the terror attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, the attempts to destabilise countries such as Yemen, and the training camps of insurgents in Somalia.

“It is not one movement. There is no defined command and control. But there is a shared ideology. There are many links criss-crossing the map of Jihadist extremism. And there are elements in the leadership of a major country, namely Iran, that can support and succour its practitioners.”

Defending the Obama Administration’s attempts to engage with Iran, Mr Blair said: “The Iranian Government should not be able to claim that we have refused the opportunity for constructive dialogue, and the stature and importance of such an ancient and extraordinary civilisation means that as a nation, Iran should command respect and be accorded its proper place in the world’s affairs.” I hope this engagement succeeds.

He argued that the purpose of such engagement should be clear and was about more than preventing Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability. “It is to put a stop to the Iranian regime’s policy of de-stabilisation and support of terrorism.”

Listing the conflicts across the world, from Israel through Iraq to the Philippines and Algeria, he said: ‘It is time to wrench ourselves out of a state of denial. There is one major factor in common. In each conflict there are those deeply engaged in it, who argue that they are fighting in the true name of Islam.”

Mr Blair said that the doctrinal roots of extremism could be traced back to the period in the late 19th and early 20th century where modernising and moderate clerics and thinkers were slowly but surely pushed aside by the hard-line dogma of those, whose cultural and theological credentials were often dubious, but whose appeal lay in the simplicity of the message that Islam had lost its way and departed from the “true faith”.

“The tragedy of this is that the authentic basis of Islam, as laid down in the Koran, is progressive, humanitarian, sees knowledge and scientific advance as a duty, which is why for centuries Islam was the fount of so much invention and innovation. Fundamental Islam is actually the opposite of what the extremists preach,” he said.

He welcomed President Obama’s reaching out to the Muslim world at the start of a new American Administration but warned that it would expose “the delusion of believing that there is any alternative to waging this struggle to its conclusion”.

“But the ideology, as a movement within Islam, has to be defeated. It is incompatible not with ‘the West’ but with any society of open and tolerant people and that in particular means the many open and tolerant Muslims.”

He had moved on from believing that the removal of a despotic regime was sufficient to create the condition for progress.

“This battle cannot so easily be won. Because it is based on an ideology and because its roots are deep, so our strategy for victory has to be broader, more comprehensive but also more sharply defined.”

Outlining a six-point strategy, he said that this must include using the armed forces to fight where necessary. “In the use of hard power, we have to understand one very simple thing: where we are called upon to fight, we have to do it. If we are defeated anywhere, we are at risk of being defeated everywhere.”

He also advocated “soft” options. “I do not accept at all the view that democracy is unattainable or unaccepted in the Islamic world. On the contrary, eventually it is only by the embrace of greater democracy — albeit by evolution — that this battle will be won.”

Arab Intellectual: The Holocaust Must Be Remembered by Everybody - For It Targeted the Very Essence of Humanity


Arab Intellectual: The Holocaust Must Be Remembered by Everybody - For It Targeted the Very Essence of Humanity

MEMRISpecial Dispatch - No. 2322
April 22, 2009

In an article posted April 21, 2009 on the liberal Arab website, reformist writer Basem Muhammad Habib condemns the Holocaust denial in the Arab world. He states that this trend, which is unreasonable and inhumane, is motivated by political agendas, and by a false belief that empathy for the victims of the Holocaust amounts to a betrayal of the Palestinian cause. He calls on the Arabs to separate these two issues, and to join the world in commemorating the Holocaust, for it was an attack on the very essence of humanity. Following are excerpts:

There Is No Connection at All Between the Reality of the Holocaust and What Has Happened in Palestine “These days, the world is commemorating the Holocaust, because it was one of the biggest massacres in history, which surpassed other massacres in its barbarity, even those committed by primitive civilizations. Abundant [evidence] indicates that more than six million Jews were killed during the 1930s and 1940s, having been accused by the Nazi authorities of conspiring with the Allies, of causing the Germany’s defeat in World War I, and of cooperating with the efforts of its enemies in World War II. This racist thinking fed the feelings of hatred towards the Jews, and led to this horrible massacre, whose wounds are still tormenting the world even decades later.

“Though this horrible event has become part of history, and cannot possibly be denied, there are nevertheless some who insist on denying it and on questioning [the validity of] the numbers, out of motivations that are mostly political. [This is true] especially in our region, which is steeped in [psychological] complexes and feelings of resentment. Many [in our region] attempt to link the Holocaust and the issue of Palestine, believing that to recognize and commemorate the Holocaust is to betray the Palestinian cause. This approach raises questions about the soundness of the ideologies that dominate our attitudes and feelings - ideologies that are clearly not anchored in sound logic, and are not at all consistent with our human values. Thus, we unwittingly turn our backs on the proper human attitude, just because our feelings of hatred get the better of us.

“There is no connection at all between the reality of the Holocaust and what has happened in Palestine. These are two different matters that [occurred in different] times and places, and we can assess each of them independently of the other. [Only] then… will our judgment be free and grounded in correct values and sincere sentiments.

“Instead of doubting [the historicity of the Holocaust], we should admire the Jewish political leaders for the interest they show in the Jewish [Holocaust] victims and for their constant remembrance of those atrocities. They dedicate much effort to honoring their memory, documenting their trials, and fighting for [the survivors’] rights, wherever they are. This is something we hardly ever see in our region, where people are killed for the most trivial reasons, and their suffering and pain are quickly forgotten. In Iraq, for example, hundreds of thousands were killed [under Saddam Hussein’s] reign of terror and tyranny, yet we have never heard of any attempt to commemorate these victims, nor have we seen any concern for their lost rights…

“Today, the world has become free of [fascist] ideologies, and the reign of reason is expanding. Even Germany, which witnessed this criminal massacre, has acknowledged this catastrophe, and has begun to atone for it in various ways, [for example] by providing annual economic support to Israel. The U.N., for its part, has issued a resolution designating January 27 as [International] Holocaust Remembrance Day… This date was chosen in honor of the few survivors who were discovered in Auschwitz by the Allies [when they liberated the camp on January 27,] 1945 - [survivors] who were among the few who experienced the horror [of the Holocaust] and lived to tell the tale.”

Holocaust Denial Usually Stems Not from Scholarly Motivations, But from Political Ones “Because of the doubts raised by many [people about the Holocaust], some countries have been forced to issue laws that criminalize any attempt to doubt or deny this event - for the casting of doubt does not usually stem from scholarly motivations but [comes to serve] political and ideological goals… Some regard such laws as undemocratic, and as indicating a pro-Israel bias. However, the truth is that [these laws] came in response to a wave of irrational doubt, promoted by certain parties under the guise of scientific inquiry.

“The Holocaust deserves to be [recognized as] a momentous world event, because it targeted [the very essence of] our humanity. At the time, there was no Jewish state and most of those who suffered this injustice lived in Europe in small Diaspora communities.

“We [Arabs] should feel empathy for the victims of the Holocaust and commemorate them, as do others [throughout the world]. Certainly, our participation in commemorating this event will help our international position and change the way people regard us. Perhaps we will be able to improve our image in the eyes of the world and reverse some of the damage that the terrorists have done.”

Obama sows seeds of demise

from The Hill h/t Ace:

Obama sows seeds of demise
By Dick Morris
Posted: 04/28/09 05:45 PM [ET]

When the Obama administration crashes and burns, with approval ratings that fall through the floor, political scientists can trace its demise to its first hundred days. While Americans are careful not to consign a presidency they desperately need to succeed to the dustbin of history, the fact is that this president has moved — on issue after issue — in precisely the opposite direction of what the people want him to do.

Right now, Obama’s ratings must be pleasing to his eye. Voters like him and his wife immensely and approve of his activism in the face of the economic crisis. While polls show big doubts about what he is doing, the overwhelming sense is to let him have his way and pray that it works.

But beneath this superficial support, Obama’s specific policies run afoul of the very deeply felt convictions of American voters. For example, the most recent Rasmussen Poll asked voters if they wanted an economic system of complete free enterprise or preferred more government involvement in managing the economy. By 77-19, they voted against a government role, up seven points from last month.

And in the Fox News poll — the very same survey that gave Obama a 62 percent approval rating and reported that 68 percent of voters are “satisfied” with his first hundred days — voters, by 50-38, supported a smaller government that offered fewer services over a larger government that provided more.

By 42-8, the Fox News poll (conducted on April 22-23) found that voters felt Obama had expanded government rather than contracted it (42 percent said it was the same size) and, by 46-30, reported believing that big government was more of a danger to the nation than big business. (By 50-23, they said Obama felt big business was more dangerous.)

By 62-20, they said government spending, under Obama, was “out of control.”

So if voters differ so fundamentally with the president on the very essence of his program, why do they accord him high ratings? They are like the recently married bride who took her vows 100 days ago. It would be a disaster for her life if she decides that she really doesn’t like her husband. But she keeps noticing things about him that she can’t stand. It will be a while before she walks out the door or even comes to terms with her own doubts, but it is probably inevitable that she will.

For Americans to conclude that they disapprove of their president in the midst of an earth-shaking crisis is very difficult. But as Obama’s daily line moves from “I inherited this mess” to “There are faint signs of light,” the clock starts ticking. If there is no recovery for the next six months — and I don’t think there will be — Obama will inevitably become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

And then will come his heavy lifting. He has yet to raise taxes, regiment healthcare or provide amnesty for illegal immigrants. He hasn’t closed down the car companies he now runs and he has not yet forced a 50 percent hike in utility bills with his cap-and-trade legislation. These are all the goodies he has in store for us all.

Obama’s very activism these days arrogates to himself the blame for the success or failure of his policies. Their outcome will determine his outcome, and there is no way it will be positive.


• You can’t borrow as much as he will need to without raising interest rates that hurt the economy;

• The massive amount of spending will trigger runaway inflation once the economy starts to recover;

• His overhaul of the tax code (still in the planning phases) and his intervention in corporate management will create such business uncertainty that nobody will invest in anything until they see the lay of the land;

• His bank program is designed to help banks, but not to catalyze consumer lending. And his proposal for securitization of consumer loans won’t work and is just what got us into this situation.

So Mr. Obama should enjoy his poll numbers while he may.

What a bitch. . .

Pelosi: We doan haz to 'splain nuttin' to you pee-ons, so piss off.

from The Hill's Blog Briefing Room h/t Ace:

Pelosi: now we don't have to 'explain process'
@ 7:44 pm by Eric Zimmermann

Sen. Arlen Specter's decision to switch parties will make it easier for Democrats to move forward with their agenda, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday.

Specter's switch will give Democrats 60 caucus members in the Senate (assuming Al Franken wins his legal battle in Minnesota). That is enough votes to end debate on a bill and overcome Republican filibusters.

"Very exciting, very exciting for the American people (she said while pissing herself) , because now we can get things done without explaining process," Pelosi told CNN's Candy Crowley.

Specter has said that he will not be that "automatic 60th vote."

Pelosi added that Specter's decision should prompt some reflection on the part of Republicans.

"You know what, they're going to have to do their own self-analysis," she said, adding that Democrats had worked harder to be bipartisan. "Hopefully now [Republicans] will also extend the hand of friendship so they can work together in bipartisan way."

Pelosi also defended her claim (lie lie lie) that she was never informed that waterboarding would be used on suspected terrorists. She added that her Republican critics might be revealing classified information by revealing more specifics from the interrogation briefings (right, meanwhile you were conducting your own foreign policy in Syria though urged not to).

"[F]or some reason the Republicans, while I am barred from talking about what goes on in meetings and I could be charged for revealing classified information, they seem to feel at liberty to talk about everything that went on at every meeting as they saw it," Pelosi said. (oh the Bitch has got her nerve. . .)

The Speaker indicated that she won't push for an independent "Truth Commission" to investigate Bush-era interrogation policies, instead ceding to President Obama's desire to leave the matter co Congressional committees.

"It's pretty clear–the president has been pretty clear that he doesn't want any Truth Commission on Torture and so has Harry Reid," she said, "so the attention to that will probably be done in a more regular order way by the committees in the House and in the Senate." Pelosi
added that she would personally prefer a commission (anyone who did anything in the name of National Security under Bush just came into the Congressional cross hairs. Thanks Arlen you fucking turncoat).

The Irrelevancy of Conservatism

Guest Commentary by Edward Cline:

It must be an uncontrollable compulsion in conservatives that in almost any discussion of the role of government, they cannot help taking a swipe at novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand, denying that she was much of a novelist or even a philosopher, and devoting at least a few derogatory words to her and her novels, if not launching into a nearly frenzied tirade characterized by ad hominem charges against her and sneers at her work. Three of her most notorious American detractors were Whittaker Chambers, William F. Buckley, Jr., and Granville Hicks, the latter a Marxist-cum-“humanist” editor, novelist and book critic. Since their scurrilous reviews were published decades ago, Rand-bashing has become a kind of fraternity initiation ritual for Right and Left alike.

Speculation on the root causes of the compulsion can range from envy for the sales of her books, which far outstrip the sales of anything ever written by any conservative, to moral opposition to her philosophy of selfishness and individualism, which they abhor, to a fear that she is and has been right about everything she ever wrote and spoke about, a fear and hatred hidden behind a mask of occasional dispassionate criticism.

Of her novels, Atlas Shrugged has drawn the largest dose of their venom, and that dosage has grown larger ever since the outset of the financial debacle last fall. Newspapers and other periodicals have noted, with a degree of objectivity and respect never granted to the novel in the past by the Left or Right, the parallels between the events in the novel and events in reality, which have helped to spur sales of the novel. No novel ever written by a member of the Right or Left has proven to be so prophetic in its essentials and even in some of its concretes.

Yaron Brook, president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, however, cautioned in an interview that Atlas Shrugged should not be seen exclusively as a prophetic playbook of how to cause economic disasters:

Many of these commentators seem to view Atlas Shrugged as a novel that’s primarily about politics and economics. The main issue…and which we feel is extremely important to address…is that the origins of the crisis in Atlas Shrugged and the origins of today’s crisis are much deeper than that. They result from the prevailing morality of the culture, of which political systems are an extension. In Atlas Shrugged the political system is crumbling because of the morality of altruism, and that is also the root source of our current crisis. So Rand is relevant, and she’s relevant on a level far more fundamental than politics and economics.
Historically, on a moral and political level, the Left has objected to her philosophy because it claimed the individual owes his existence to society or the state and so should not be free to act against it, while the Right claimed that the individual owes his existence to God and society, so his mind should not be free to question either. Over the last few decades, Left and Right have been converging to the same points of agreement: that the individual owes his existence to the state or society (God’s role being optional) and should not be free at all.

Rand herself marked the malaise of conservatism in 1962 in her essay, “Conservatism: An Obituary.” Identifying why conservatism was finished as a distinct political ideology and political force, she wrote:

If the ‘conservatives’ do not stand for capitalism, they stand for and are nothing; they have no goal, no direction, no political principles, no social ideals, no intellectual values, no leadership to offer anyone. Yet capitalism is what the ‘conservatives’ dare not advocate or defend. They are paralyzed by the profound conflict between capitalism and the moral code which dominates our culture: altruism.*
The compulsion can be explained. They must attack Rand because her philosophy contradicts and refutes their core premises and assumptions. Atlas Shrugged demonstrates and dramatizes the moral and practical consequences of those premises and assumptions. It is not merely a matter of details. As Rand once put it, it is a matter of philosophical nuclear warfare. Conservatives cannot hide their recognition that Rand’s is not merely a rival philosophy; it is their chief, mortal enemy. In the meantime, the “atheistic” Left is their principal ally, today aggressively applying the collectivist and altruist principles which it shares with the Right.

A critic does not, as a rule, devote thousands of words and his best verbal pyrotechnics to dismissing a novel which he asserts in the beginning of a review should not be taken seriously. Granville Hicks (1901-1982) and Whittaker Chambers (1901-1961), however, did take Atlas Shrugged seriously when it appeared in 1957, not because they placed any personal importance on it, but because they feared with quivering, incensed certainty that it would be taken seriously and earn, over time, an esteemed place in the culture (which it has achieved). Their reviews of the novel were essentially flippant and snarling pleas to the reading public to ignore the novel. They protested too much the novel’s supposed insignificance.

Hicks, once an associate editor for the publisher that debuted Rand’s first novel, We the Living, but who fought against it, resigned from the Communist Party in 1939 over the Nazi-Soviet Warsaw “non-aggression” Pact.** Chambers, who was a courier between the Soviets and several Communists working in various federal bureaucracies, left the Party in 1937 or 1938 over the Soviet purge trials, and also because he did not want to risk being summoned to Moscow only to be “purged” from existence for having supposedly “ratted” on fellow American Communist agents in the U.S. He went into hiding, joined the staff of Time Magazine, and eventually became a conservative.

But a putative renunciation of communism (or of any other collectivist ideology) does not necessarily trigger an automatic recognition of the efficacy of reason and a concomitant endorsement of egoism, individual rights, and capitalism. Nor does it guarantee the acquisition of a better set of literary standards or values. Both Hicks and Chambers are cases in point. After “repudiating” communism, they remained hard-core collectivists to their dying days – Chambers would today probably be a “big-government” neoconservative – hostile to and consistently deprecatory of any degree of political and economic liberty, in fiction or in fact.

As for Buckley (1925-2008), I will simply repeat here some remarks from my March, 2008 obituary notice on the occasion of his death in February that year, “The Philosophic Postmortem of William F. Buckley, Jr.” He uttered and wrote numerous vicious comments about Rand over the years, but showcased conservative-convert Whittaker Chambers’ review of Atlas Shrugged in the National Review, Chambers acting as his proxy critic. On his role in serving as a moral guide for the morally bankrupt Republican Party, I noted:

Buckley saved their necks and provided them with a ‘system’ of ideas they could feel at home with. He persuaded a spent and ideologically rudderless conservative movement to base its political philosophy on religion, altruism, and self-sacrifice as an alternative to the ‘atheistic’ liberal welfare state of society, altruism and self-sacrifice. Individual rights were nothing to him if not ‘God-given.’ He was as much an enemy of freedom – and of freedom of speech – as any holy-roller Democrat. Fundamentally, there is no difference between the policies advocated by ‘atheistic’ or secular collectivists and ‘religious’ ones. Buckley never seriously challenged the ‘status quo’ of controls, deficit spending, or the regulation of business and industry. He was one of the original advocates of volunteerism or mandatory public service.
Sound familiar? Are these not points on which Republicans and Obamacrats agree? As for Buckley’s style and tone, I observed:

Learned, glibly articulate with a penchant for obscure words and noted for a complex, obfuscating verbosity nearly as convoluted as Immanuel Kant’s, master of sardonic humor, often self-deprecatory, Buckley was the Ellsworth Toohey of the Right.
There is little irony in the fact that Atlas Shrugged was reviewed in two publications ostensibly on opposite ends of the political spectrum, the left-liberal The New York Times and the religious-right National Review. Both publications were then, and still are, united in their opposition to laissez-faire capitalism, individual rights, and man the individual with no duty or obligation to “serve society.” Although their political affiliations are hardly irrelevant, they are not the subject here. In the long run, it is the evaluations by Chambers, Hicks and Buckley of Atlas Shrugged that have been proven to be not only wrong, but themselves insignificant and futile.

As proof of how Left and Right are merging into a single, mongrelized enemy of capitalism and individual rights, Family Security Matters (FSM), a conservative Internet site, on April 23 ran a long article on the financial crisis by William R. Hawkins, who is billed as “a consultant specializing in international economic and national security issues.” In his article, “Conservatism After the Tea Parties,“ Hawkins decries the Tea Parties of April 15 and expresses anger that they have been largely governed by the political thought of “libertarians” such as Rand. The problem, he claims, is not “big government,” but “big government” that has not behaved responsibly. And the protesters should not have sported signs and placards that cited Ayn Rand. Rather, he claims, these protesters should look to arch-conservative Russell Kirk and economist Milton Friedman for moral and economic guidance.

About the April 15 Tea Parties, Hawkins writes:

More precise thought needs to be given to what the protests are about if effective reform is to result. The cry cannot simply be to oppose ‘government’ per se. In a major financial crisis like the current one, when comparisons to the Great Depression are not unwarranted, it is the responsibility of the Federal authorities to take action to stabilize the economy and lay the groundwork for recovery.
Is this not what the Obama administration is attempting to do now? And why should it be the responsibility of the Federal authorities to have any role in the crisis? Is it not the government’s regulation of private sector banking and financial actions that was and continues to be the cause of the crisis? And is not “reform” of the economy along socialist/fascist lines what is on the administration’s agenda? Hawkins does not address these issues, except to endorse government action. By way of an authoritative sanction of government interventionist policies, he cites Milton Friedman, in his words, “the guru of modern capitalist ideology and foe of socialism.”

Milton Friedman…laid out this responsibility in his monumental A Monetary History of the United States. He makes the now standard interpretation of what made the ‘great contraction’ so severe. During the years 1930-33, a wave of bank failures reduced the money supply by a third. Federal authorities did not take action on the scale needed to counteract the impact of the financial collapse on the real economy. No advocate of Big Government, Friedman could nevertheless declare this earlier dilatory attitude ‘confused and misguided.’
Significantly, Hawkins states that Federal Reserve Board chairman, Bernard Bernanke, “is a student of Friedman, and his decision to buy $1.2 trillion of government bonds and mortgage-related securities last month makes more sense than trying to rebuild a financial system crippled with $2.7 trillion in toxic assets (according to the IMF) with tax money.” Echoing the assurances of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and others in the administration, Hawkins agrees with their conclusions:

These losses are too large to replace with fiscal measures, and the public is rightfully worried that to try would burden future taxpayers (and their children) with too much debt.
How much debt is “too much”? Should there be any debt? Is there a feasible, non-coercive method to finance legitimate government functions -- that is, the courts, the military, and police -- that would not entail debt and economic interventionist policies and a wealth-redistributing welfare state? And will not the debt being rung up by the Obama administration be a burden for several generations of taxpayers, and not just future taxpayers and their children, provided the economy and country do not first collapse into anarchy and dictatorship because of that debt? Hawkins does not essay any suggestions on these issues. He sticks to the conservative line, and refuses to venture outside the boundaries of traditional conservative thought into the Uncharted Forest of reason.

More importantly, however, the article reveals that conservatives are afraid that men are realizing that Ayn Rand is fundamentally relevant to today’s political, moral and economic crises, and that they have grown irrelevant. The “transcendent order” of Russell Kirk (1918-1994), cited by Hawkins as a source of moral and political wisdom, was based “variously on tradition, divine revelation, or natural law,” but has made way for the “transcendent order” of the brute collectivism of the state, to which Americans are more and more expected to defer.

What should really agitate the public is not the principle of government intervention to prevent an economic collapse, but how the politicians have seized the opportunity to spend huge sums on non-emergency, special interest programs.
Where was Hawkins on April 15? The Tea Parties featured protests on a variety of issues, including Congress’s pork barrel projects, in addition to government intervention. And should anyone worried about the consequences of government interventionist policies discard the principle, and settle for just emoting against special interest programs?

Hawkins criticizes the $787 billion stimulus package, the Obama administration for exploiting the crisis to rush through social programs, the Republicans and Democrats for being corrupt, and “the very Wall Street entities whose blunders plunged the country into economic disaster.”

These are the proper targets for outrage, not some formless chanting against ‘government’ per se. Such chanting is the nonsense of anarchists (known in polite circles as libertarians), not the wisdom of conservatives.
And what is the wisdom of conservatives? It is the “dean of conservative thinking” Russell Kirk’s, which the reader may sample here, beginning with:

….Conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type ofcharacter, a way of looking at the civil social order.
So it is an anti-ideology, or a set of “sentiments” and non-ideas, or a “state of mind” which is supposed to animate anyone to try to dam the advancing, liberty-destroying lava of statism. Hawkins offers his conservative credentials in this outburst:

The most alarming sign that the anarchists are trying to take over the Tea Party movement is the sudden revival of the amoral and anti-social screeds of the late and unlamented Ayn Rand. Her name has been bantered around far too often on talk radio and by Fox News commentators.
Hawkins should wonder why her name is so frequently “bantered around,” and not Buckley’s or Russell Kirk’s. Perhaps it is because men are searching for answers and ideas, Rand has had them for decades, and answers and ideas are not to be found in conservatism. He should also learn that Rand was neither an anarchist nor a libertarian.

As if to underscore the religious, anti-reason color of conservatism, Hawkins manages to introduce Original Sin as an ingredient of the financial crisis:

True conservatives know the character of Mankind is ’fallen’ and that there is a dark side to human nature to which bankers and fund managers are just as vulnerable as anyone else. Freedom without responsibility, and rights without duties, leads to license and wrong-doing.
To which Presidents Bush, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Senator John McCain would say, “Amen.” Hawkins then descends into pure fantasy. He falls back on and endorses the assertions of Constitutional scholar Walter Berns.

He warned that our modern problem is the retreat of government, not its growth. We have already instituted too much of a libertarian state, one ‘that does not get involved in censorship, in moral education….’
This is Hawkins’ most bizarre statement. If a “libertarian” state is one of limited government whose powers are defined and delimited by the Constitution, how can he explain, as examples, court-upheld speech codes, restrictions on tobacco and pharmaceutical advertising, subsidies to banks and automakers, and the indoctrination of children in public schools in the guise of “moral education”? Where, exactly, is the government retreating, and not growing? What sector of the Twilight Zone has Hawkins emerged from?

Hawkins ends his article with more advice for the Tea Party movement:

Hopefully, those attracted to the Tea Parties will follow the path of Kirk and not of Rand.
Far be it from Hawkins to risk soiling his fingers by opening a copy of Atlas Shrugged to check on the spelling of names and the roles of the characters. So he misquotes another writer (of an April 20th Forbes article on the resurgence of interest in Rand) by describing Henry Rearden, the steel manufacturer and inventor of Rearden Metal, as Rand’s “most famous fictional character Hank Riordan.” Had he paid closer attention to the news coverage of the Tea Parties, he might have observed several protesters’ signs that read, “Who is John Galt?” and none that read, “Who is Hank Riordan?” He might have himself asked, “Who is John Galt?” but the connection between the name and the novel eluded him, because apparently he has never read that “amoral and anti-social screed.”

Conservatives were once noted, if not for their God-fearing rationalizations of why men should or should not be free, then for their fastidiousness concerning the facts and ideas they were attacking or twisting out of recognition. Now, in their desperate rush to de-emphasize the influence of Ayn Rand and her ideas, they are just growing sloppy. They are hurling spit balls at a photo of Rand pinned to a dartboard, but hitting only the wall around it.

I have dwelt on this writer and his assertions because Family Security Matters often re-posts my commentaries that appear on Rule of Reason, Capitalism Magazine and other compatible blog sites. FSM has done this without my knowledge, and certainly to my surprise, and I never know if FSM or any other website has done it unless someone informs me of it. It goes without saying, especially in lieu of Hawkins’ article, that I do not endorse the politics of FSM.

Finally, I have gone to this length to rebut Hawkins because I have not encountered any better arguments by conservatives elsewhere; their common denominator is a congenital hostility to reason, Ayn Rand, and freedom. So this should serve as a blanket answer to any one or all of them.

*In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. New York: Signet softcover, 1967, pp. 193-201.
**See Essays on Ayn Rand’s We the Living. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2004. Rand’s determination and confidence in the value of the novel allowed her to break through the “Red ceiling” of the New York publishing world in 1936. Richard Ralston’s essay on the novel’s publishing history is informative and illuminating.

Crossposted at The Dougout