Biden against 9-11 victims

Daniel Greenfield reports faux-president Joe Biden's staff are opposing 9-11 victims in court, all for the sake of giving the Taliban money they don't deserve:

White House Democrats have a history of fighting against terror victims suing Islamic terrorists. The Obama administration battled American terror victims suing the PLO. In 2015, after they won a $218 million judgement against the terror group, Blinken, then only a deputy secretary of state, intervened claiming that the lawsuit threatened “several decades of US foreign policy.”

But now Biden is fighting 9/11 victims on behalf of the Taliban. At stake are billions being held by the Afghan central bank fund in the United States.

A decade ago, 9/11 families sued the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Iran. The court found that the Islamic terrorists were responsible and a judgement of $6 billion was handed down.

The verdict was described as "symbolic" at the time. CBS News commented that "it would be near impossible to collect any damages, especially from the Taliban or al Qaeda." But that was before Biden turned over Afghanistan to the Taliban. Since Afghanistan has assets in this country, including $7 billion in bank funds, it’s now entirely possible to collect that money.

Or it would be if the guy who let the Taliban take over wasn’t also in the White House.

Biden officially announced that he was splitting the $7 billion between the families of the victims and a "trust fund" to provide "humanitarian aid" for the people of Afghanistan.

But that was just another one of his many lies and double crosses involving Afghanistan.

The $3.5 billion was placed in a separate trust that would be "separate and distinct" from the around $800 million the Biden administration has already spent on aid to Afghanistan. Officials admitted that the money could actually be used for matters other than "humanitarian aid".

The media headlined it as, "Biden frees frozen Afghan billions for relief, 9/11 victims". But a Biden official admitted that it was done to stop 9/11 families from getting access to the money.

It goes without saying that to undermine victims and relatives of such a barbaric act as the attack on the WTC only compounds the evils of the Democrats. Now, thousands of 9-11 victims have been desecrated as the result of far-left ideologies.

Parents refusing to send their children on school trips to mosques spark fears of Islamaphobia

From Vlad Tepes Blog:

Schools are being issued with guidance about RE trips after it emerged some parents are refusing to allow children to visit mosques. 

Families have the right to withdraw pupils from visits to places of worship. Some cite costs, while others are concerned about safety or a ‘political agenda’. 

Now Staffordshire’s Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education (SACRE) has produced a document to help schools tackle the sensitive topic. 

It includes a template letter to parents, outlining the value of helping pupils understand different cultures and faiths.

Vlad notes:

Communism seeks to tear families apart and have people see unknown workers as more closely related to them than their own offspring. And nothing can do that like having their children convert to Islam.  

Oddly its ONLY Islam they have to understand. There are no trips to Buddhist temples or Synagogues that I know of, and if there are, I bet no attempt to get Muslim kids to go take place.

I would only add: There may well be trips to Buddhist Temples. But, if there were, few people would ever complain about them, and if they did, it would be a mild form of complaint.

The reason for this is, Buddhism is not an inherently violent religion. Buddhist do not shoot up streets full of people, ram trucks into crowds, or airliners into buildings.

Fuck Islam.

AND THEN THERE'S THIS:

‘Write letter to family about converting to Islam’: Furious stepfather refuses to let his stepdaughter, 12, complete her homework after she is asked to pen them a note about becoming a Muslim

A furious stepfather has refused to let his 12-year-old stepdaughter finish her homework after she was asked to write a letter to her family about becoming a Muslim.  

Mark McLachlan, 43, from Houghton-le-Spring, near Sunderland, has slammed the decision by the Kepier School to ask pupils to pen the note. 

He has refused to let his stepdaughter, who he has asked not to be named, complete the task after failing to see what the letter would accomplish. 

Mr McLachlan said: ‘I know as part of the national curriculum they have to learn about all religions.

WIKILEAKS: Surveillance Cameras Around The Country Are Being Used In A Huge Spy Network

Byte88 via flickr

The U.S. cable networks won’t be covering this one tonight (not accurately, anyway), but Trapwire is making the rounds on social media today — it reportedly became a Trending hashtag on Twitter earlier in the day.

Trapwire is the name of a program revealed in the latest Wikileaks bonanza: it is the mother of all leaks, by the way. Trapwire would make something like disclosure of UFO contact or imminent failure of a major U.S. bank fairly boring news by comparison.

And the ambitious techno-fascists behind Trapwire seem to be quite disappointed that word is getting out so swiftly: the Wikileaks web site is reportedly sustaining 10GB worth of DDoS attacks each second, which is massive.

Anyway, here’s what Trapwire is, according to Russian-state owned media network RT (apologies for citing “foreign media”… if we had a free press, I’d be citing something published here by an American media conglomerate): “Former senior intelligence officials have created a detailed surveillance system more accurate than modern facial recognition technology — and have installed it across the US under the radar of most Americans, according to emails hacked by Anonymous.

MORE.

The Totalitarian Impulse

Caroline Glick calmly sums up what should be common sense:

That is, leftist writers whose works have been admired by terrorists have not been held accountable for the acts of terrorism conducted by their readers.

Nor should they have been. And to understand why this sort of guilt-by-readership is wrong, it is worth considering what separates liberal democracies from what the great Israeli historian Jacob Talmon referred to as totalitarian democracies. Liberal democracies are founded on the notion that it is not simply acceptable for citizens to participate in debates about the issues facing their societies. It is admirable for citizens in democracies to participate in debates - even heated ones -- about their government's policies as well as their societies' cultural and moral direction. A citizenry unengaged is a citizenry that is in danger of losing its freedom.

One of the reasons that argument and debate are the foundations of a liberal democratic order is because the more engaged citizens feel in the life of their societies, the less likely they will be to reject the rules governing their society and turn to violence to get their way. As a rule, liberal democracies reject the resort to violence as a means of winning an argument. This is why, for liberal democracies, terrorism in all forms is absolutely unacceptable.

Whether or not one agrees with the ideological self-justifications of a terrorist, as a member of a liberal democratic society, one is expected to abhor his act of terrorism. Because by resorting to violence to achieve his aims, the terrorist is acting in a manner that fundamentally undermines the liberal democratic order.

Liberal democracies are always works in progress. Their citizens do not expect for a day to come when the debaters fall silent because everyone agrees with one another as all are convinced of the rightness of one side. This is because liberal democracies are not founded on messianic aspirations to create a perfect society.

In contrast, totalitarian democracies - and totalitarian democrats -- do have a messianic temperament and a utopian mission to create a perfect society. And so its members do have hopes of ending debate and argument once and for all.

Glick reviews the histories of "totalitarian democracies" going back to Rousseau. She exposes the hypocrisy of the left in its excuse-making for jihadi terror and "understanding" of eco-terror. The left's exploitation of Breivik to shut down all discussion of immigration, Islam, and patriotism will undermine the discussion that a liberal order requires:

And it is this tendency that most endangers the future of liberal democracies. If the Left is ever successful in its bid to criminalize ideological opponents and justify acts of terrorism against their opponents, their victory will destroy the liberal democratic foundations of Western civilization.

I'd add to the above that this is what Breivik wants. They are playing right into his hands.

Greenpeace Targets Soft Toilet Paper, Comes Up With "Toilet Paper Guide"....

Save the planet, rip your ass to shreds.....

These people really want to control every aspect of your lives, right down to what comes in contact with your ass.

Click on the title and go to Weasel Zippers for the whole story.

Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory, Totalitarianism, and The Destruction of Hope and Joy

("The Cooling of America" and "The Big Freeze" covers are from the 1970's. Scientists have been trying to convince us the world is coming to an end since I was a childhood. Why do you think that is?)



The AGW movement, and the Green Movement out of which it came, are Trojan Horses which are being used to introduce Socialist ideas into Western political systems.

Just for the record, the reason I don't believe Global Warming is going to kill us is because, at 46 years of age, I have been Chicken Littled by scientists far too many times.

During the course of my lifetime, I have been told

1) we were overpopulating the earth (it turns out all of our problems with food have to do with distribution, not shortages)

2) we would eat each other like rats in cages (I have yet to see evidence of mass cannibalism caused by overcrowding)

3) we were polluting ourselves to death (the USA is cleaner than when I was a kid, but the third world is more polluted, proving the solution to pollution is not less productivity but more Capitalism)

4) we were destroying all the forests and would run out of oxygen (the US is more forested now than in the 1800's)

5) we were going to choke the earth with plastics (I have yet to see the Earth huffing and puffing for its last breath)

6) we were going to run out of oil (I had several professors in college in the early 80's who promised me we would run out of oil by the early 1990's - we actually have MORE KNOWN RESERVES NOW THAN AT ANY TIME IN HISTORY - AND IT IS ALL BUT A PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT OIL IS NOT A FOSSIL FUEL, BUT IS INSTEAD A NATURAL OCCURRING SUBSTANCE)

And now, these malevolent, insane scientists are telling us we are destroying the Earth with CO2, which they say causes Global Warming.

Why would anyone believe them, after all they've been wrong about?

AND, THE MOST AMAZING THING IS I HAVE NEVER HEARD AN APOLOGY FROM ANY SCIENTIST FOR ANYTHING THAT THEY HAVE BEEN WRONG ABOUT.

Why do you think that is?

And note this, have you ever heard any apologies from the Left for having been wrong about Stalin, the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan's strategy for destroying the Soviet Union, the idea that Reagan would start a nuclear war, etc.?

No, there are no apologies from the Scientists who have been wrong.

And, there are no apologies from the Leftists who were wrong about Communism and its death toll, nor about how to destroy the USSR.

And, why do you think these two groups refuse to apologize when they have terrorized us with their never-ending bullshit?

Because, the Leftists and the Scientists share the same goal, and that is they want to do away with consumption, capitalism, and ultimately, human beings in large numbers.

They hate life. And, they want to drag all of us down with them.

How it is that scientists make all these mistakes, terrorize us with predictions about the end of the world, and then refuse to apologize when they are proven wrong.

Additionally, we need to consider why it is that the answers scientists come up with to solve all these problems have always involved totalitarian government intervention.

For instance, Obama's Czar John Holdren prescribed forced abortions and mass sterilization to deal with the overpopulation "problem" (which has turned out to be a complete myth).

John Holdren has never taken his words back, nor has he apologized.

And, consider this, when people are constantly taught the world is coming to an end, how are they to plan for the future? How are they supposed to have hope?

And, if people believe our population is too high, why should they have children? Is not life less joyful, less full of love and hope, if we have less children?

And, if people believe consumerism inevitably leads to more Global Warming then, once again, why should people have children? After all, every child added to the world is yet another consumer, who will inevitably make the Earth even warmer.

If we are to take these scientists seriously, we must consider

1) what the psychological effect is on human beings who are told the world is ending (damages our ability to live with hope and joy)

and

2) what our society would look like if we actually decided to use the prescriptions of these insane totalitarian scientists ...

Imagine if we took their prescriptions for public policy. Most of you under the age of 35 probably would NEVER HAVE BEEN BORN.

If we do not consider these questions, then we are being complacent, and intellectually dishonest. Not just about science, but about the reality of the prescriptions, and about the reality of the mass psychological damage to human beings.

Do not be complacent about these questions, becaue they are fundamental questions which go right to the heart of the love, joy, and hope. They are questions which force us to consider whether we can even afford to enjoy life.

And that is at least as important as Global Warming.

Happy Reunification Day Germany!

A commemorative plaque at today's Werdau high school says:

In memoriam of the 19 young people who were sentenced by the GDR-judiciary on October 3, 1951 to altogether 130 years of Zuchthaus*.

In self-made flyers they stood up for Germany's unity and protested against Stalinist terror.
*i.e. an aggravated prison sentence.

The Werdauer Oberschülerprozess, the case of the high school students from Werdau, was a court trial of 19 young people, most of them students at the Alexander-von-Humboldt-Oberschule in Werdau, a small town in West Saxony, in 1951. They were accused of "boycott-baiting of democratic institutions and organisations", Boykotthetze gegen demokratische Einrichtungen und Organisationen.

The first two arrests were made in the night of Friday, May 18, 1951. Many chairs remained empty in Werdau high school on Monday.

Almost half a year, the boys and girls waited for their trial, isolated from each other and without any communication with their parents. Some of them were supposed to pass their final secondary-school examinations to go to university during that time. Instead, they were subjected to one of the most memorable political trials in the former GDR.

Not long ago, Sovjet military tribunals had made short work of comparable cases. Roughly 1,200 high school students are said to have been trialled in Berlin, Mittweida, Güstrow, Jüterbog, Schwerin, Weimar, Wittenberge and other places.

In Altenburg, two students and two teachers were sentenced to death and executed. They had interfered with a radio transmission of President Wilhelm Pieck's speech to celebrate Stalin's birthday. In Werder, Brandenburg, 20 young people were trialled. 9 death sentences were imposed, including two against women, eight were executed. Some of the other convicts ended up in Sovjet camps.

On October 3, 1951 the 19 students were sentenced to long-term Zuchthaus imprisonment by the Landgericht Zwickau. Only "politically reliable" people were allowed to attend. The students' parents and family were excluded, newspaper reports were not allowed. When the (West Berlin) radio station covered the trial, Werdau was cut off the electricity network. Parents who tried to see their children were beaten out of the court building.

The names of the convicts were:

Name	Age	Sentence
Joachim Gäbler	18 Years	15 Years
Karl-Heinz Eckardt	16 Years	14 Years
Gerhard Schneider	19 Years	13 Years
Sigrid Roth	17 Years	12 Years
Theobald Körner	18 Years	10 Years
Heinz Rasch	19 Years	10 Years
Achim Beyer	19 Years	8 Years
Günter Fritzsche	17 Years	7 Years
Gerhard Büttner	17 Years	6 Years
Hermann Krauß	18 Years	6 Years
Gottfried Karg	19 Years	5 Years
Siegfried Müller	19 Years	5 Years
Walter Daßler	31 Years	5 Years
Manfred Stets	24 Years	3 Years
Günther Kahler	19 Years	3 Years
Gudrun Pleier	18 Years	2 Years
Edgar Göldner	17 Years	2 Years
Wolfram Schürer	18 Years	2 Years
Anneliese Stets	16 Years	2.5 Years

There had never been a fair chance of defense, however, the young people remained unfaltering. 18-year-old Joachim Gäbler closed his plea, saying: "I am proud to have fought for freedom."

They served up to five and a half years of their sentences, were sharing cells with murderers and sex offenders and were deployed to clean the excrement buckets. However, they were comparatively lucky. Without the XX. party convention of the Sovjet Communists and Chruschtschow's reckoning with Stalinism in 1956, they wouldn't have been released so relatively soon.

Fifteen of the students left the GDR after the last one of their fellow convicts was released so as not to compromise him. In West Germany they were recognised as political prisoners.

Was justice done after re-unification?

Read the entire article at Roncesvalles.

Stop the Islamization of Europe! Stop the Islamization of the West!

This essay is being re-published today. It was originally published on my weblog on November 28, 2005. Despite the enormity of the problem, nothing has been done about the increasing Islamization either of Europe or America. It is high time for something to be done about it though; it is high time for one of our politicians to bite the bullet. The hour is late. - Mark

The West is being Islamized before our very eyes! It is happening in such subtle ways that it is sometimes imperceptible to those who are not looking out for it. But much of the time, what is happening is plain to see. Each and every concession we make to Muslims is a further nail in the coffin of liberal democracy. Each time we consider granting Muslims a public holiday, each time we consider curtailing our own freedom of speech to appease them, we are assisting Muslims to further Islamize our home countries. Be sure of that!

Western governments should not be powerless to deal with this, but evenso they seem to be: They lack the will and determination to stop the rot.

Political correctness, of course, has taken its toll on the West. So has the ridiculous concept of multiculturalism. Add to this a deep-seated guilt complex, a pervasive attitude of self-denigration, extreme tolerance, and an army of apologists for Islam, and we have a catastrophe in the making!

One of our greatest mistakes is to think of Islam as just another one of the world's great religions. We shouldn't. Islam is politics or it is nothing at all, but, of course, it is politics with a spiritual dimension, politics all wrapped up in a deity.

What is the nature of the politics of Islam? Well, that's an easy one to answer: It is little different from the politics of a totalitarian state, little different from the ideologies of Nazism or communism, different only in detail rather than style. Both Nazism and communism used the purge to try and 'cleanse' society of what it considered undesirable. Islam always does the same. Both of those tolerated only a single political party. Islam generally does the same, and certainly, where it doesn't, insists that all parties be Islamic ones. This, of course, gives the establishment the power to coerce the people. G. H. Sabine, in his book, A History of Political Theory, tells us this about Nazism and communism:

...the party was a self-constituted aristocracy which has [sic] the mission partly of leading, partly of instructing, and partly of coercing the bulk of mankind along the road that it must follow. Both were totalitarian in the sense that they obliterated the liberal distinction between areas of private judgment and of public control, and both turned the educational system into an agency of universal indoctrination. In their philosophy[,] both were utterly dogmatic, professing, the one in the name of the Aryan race and the other in the name of the proletariat, a higher insight capable of laying down rules for art, literature, science, and religion. Both induced a frame of mind akin to religious fanaticism. In strategy[,] both were reckless in their assertions, boundless in their claims, abusive toward their opponents, prone to regard any concession on their own part as a temporary expedient and on a rival's part as a sign of weakness. The social philosophies of both agreed in regarding society as in essence a system of forces, economic or racial, between which adjustment takes place by struggle and dominance rather than by mutual understanding and concession. Both therefore regarded politics as merely an expression of power.

So much in Islam resembles those two despicable ideologies. The ruling party in Islamic countries coerces the people along the road that it must follow. This is particularly easy to observe in Iran today. Islam, too, tries to obliterate the liberal distinction between areas of private judgment and of public control. We see this in all Islamic countries. Similar to Nazism and communism, Islam also turns the educational system into an apparatus of the state for the purpose of universal indoctrination. One would be justified in using the term 'brainwashing'.

In addition, Islam also lays down rules for art (no depiction of the human form is allowed, for example), for literature (all is censored), for science (nothing discovered may contradict the Qur'an or Ahadith, or the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad), and certainly for religion (no religion is accepted of man except Islam). Where Jews and Christians live in Islamic countries, they are given protection in return for a high tax known as the jiziyah, but are given dhimmi status, which means, in effect, that they are subdued and given second class status.

Islam also induces a frame of mind akin to fanaticism. That this is so is self-explanatory. Islam is also reckless in its assertions, and boundless in its claims. Example: All the world belongs to Allah; therefore it is the duty of all Muslims to Islamize it. In Islam, too, adjustment takes place by struggle and dominance. Note the Jihad.

A remarkable similarity is this: Islam is also inclined to be abusive to its opponents (they are infidels and unclean), and is prone to regard any concession on its own part as a temporary expedient and on a rival's part as a sign of weakness. And Islam, too, regards politics as an expression of power. Oh, and we shouldn't forget that Islam is profoundly anti-Semitic!

Aren't the similarities just remarkable?

What is troubling is this: Islam is closing in on us. We have so many unassimilated Muslims living in Europe, and an ever growing number living in the States, too. In fact, millions and millions of Muslims live in the West today. But the West has no strategy for dealing with the fall-out. We saw this recenty in France when their cities burnt night after night. The mayhem Muslim immigrants caused there was enough to make anyone's hair stand on end! But what has France done about it? It has unveiled a series of measures to appease the Muslim immigrants, and has ignored the fact that this was an uprising caused in no small part by the Islamic community flexing its ever strengthening muscles.

If we in the West wish to ensure the survival of our own civilization, wish to ensure that our children will be able to live as freely as we have been able to do, wish to ensure that people are free to choose their religion in the West, but just as free not to choose one, then we have a lot of thinking to do!

I would suggest that we start by asking one simple question: Should we regard Islam as a mere religion, or should we start to see it for what it truly is: A political ideology with megalomaniacal aspirations? A political ideology with a spiritual dimension which will stop at nothing until the West is no more, until the West has been brought into Dar ul Islam, or the 'House of Islam', until the West has been well and truly Islamized. To ignore this fact is tantamount to playing fast and loose with our children's future freedoms and security. In fact, it is negligent of their future well-being!

©Mark Alexander

All rights reserved