It's not (just) the leaders, it's the people. Turkey is the exception which proves the rule

This blog has banged away, again and again that the war that Islam has laid against the west is a matter of the people, and what they believe, not just what some leader does.

Some believe that Israel's fight is not ours and vice versa. I used to think that way myself, even after 9/11. But the charges of colonialism and imperialism, of doing evil because we are evil all lie at the heart of this war.

The leaders in the ME, many of whom by our standards are illegitimate, both serve the popular hates and ride that wave. They cannot oppose that wave because after all the years of whipping up hatred, it cannot be a legitimate stand, and would be seen as irreligious as well.

Thus to Turkey .. the first secular nation out of the Ottoman Empire and Caliphate. This nation has slowly descended back into the realms of now, not being even secular and tolerant enough to be a member of the EU. They have been, if not military allies of Israel, then seen their military realistic enough to seize the advantages of a cordial relationship with Israel. That is probably over.
Telegraph, UK:

Turkey hails PM as 'Conquerer of Davos' after walkout

Turkey's Prime Minister returned home to a hero's welcome this morning after storming off stage at the World Economic Forum in Davos during a heated spat over Israel's assault on Gaza.

In the most dramatic moment of this year's muted Davos conference, Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked off a panel discussion including Shimon Peres and Ban Ki-Moon after a moderator cut off his reply to a long and impassioned monologue by the Israeli President.

Mr Erdogan gathered up his belongings and marched off stage, red-faced, shouting that he would not return to Davos again as he had not been allowed to speak.

Around 3,000 supporters gathered at Istanbul's airport in the early morning, waving red and white Turkish flags and banners reading "Conqueror of Davos" as Mr Erdogan's flight back from Davos landed.

Some carried banners denouncing Israel, a worrying development for a state that counts Turkey as its closest ally in the Muslim world and relies on its role as an intermediary between it and traditional enemies such as Syria.

"I did what I had to do," Mr Erdogan told reporters. "I cannot remain apathetic when it comes to these things, it's just not in my nature. I am duty-bound to defend the honour of my country."

Mr Erdogan blamed the debate's moderator, David Ignatius of the Washington Post, for the incident, although he condemned Mr Peres's hectoring behaviour on stage.

Ignatius is not what I would call PRO ISRAEL, and he has been criticized heavily here.

Hamas, the Islamist leaders in Gaza, hailed Mr Erdogan for his "courageous stance" against Israel's war in Gaza, which killed more than 1,300 people, a third of them children.

I challenge as factual that report by the Telegraph (which was also guilty in the '1200 dead in Jenin' falsegasm.

The loving and devoted Muslim father

Here’s an example of the way religions sometimes define love: go and beat the shit out of yourself.

A 47-year-old Muslim from Rugby in Warwickshire, England, has been given a six-month suspended prison sentence – according to the BBC and others – for encouraging his ten-year-old son to beat himself with an implement that sports blades and chains in a ceremony called zanjeer matam, which commemorates a seventh-century martyrdom in the Muslim world.

Really relevant to today’s innocent ten-year-olds living in the UK, what?

The BBC story tells us that the man – who can’t be named for legal reasons – is “the second Muslim to be convicted of cruelty as a result of allowing a boy take part in the ceremony”.

The ritual was said to have happened at a Birmingham mosque. The guilty man, who pleaded not guilty, said he acted out of “love” and “devotion”.

Should we naïvely believe that these two disturbing incidents are the only ones that have ever happened in the UK, or just the tip of an iceberg? Maybe something in between? Given (a) that religionists go in for ceremonies, (b) that this is a ceremony and (c) that there is an implement made specifically for the purpose (as depicted by the BBC website in the picture shown here), it would be reasonable to believe that it’s happening all the time.

UK: Oil refinery strikes analysis: Paying the price for boom immigration policies

From the London Times:

The wave of stoppages at oil refineries in protest at the employment of foreign workers is an ominous sign.

The unofficial wildcat strikes are almost certainly in breach of the laws against unofficial secondary action of this sort.

However, they are also an indication – as, indeed, was the nationwide stoppage in France on Thursday – that the recession could bring to the boil the tensions over high levels of immigration that were suppressed during the boom when work was plentiful.

The problem for the British workers who fear for their jobs is that the foreigners to whom they object are EU citizens, and therefore perfectly at liberty to travel to, settle and work in the UK.

One of the most surprising stories of the week was the news that 500,000 Poles had decided to stay in the UK despite the rapidly rising unemployment.

They will, inevitably, compete for jobs with British workers in the coming recession but probably think they are better placed because they will accept lower wages.

The trade unions representing refinery workers are now seeking urgent talks with the Government, though since they supported high immigration they are in a pretty weak position to complain.

What did they think would happen?

Similarly, Gordon Brown's refrain at the Labour party conference in 2007 that he would ensure 'British jobs for British workers' was always going to come back and haunt him.

The placards brandished by the strikers at the Total refinery at Lindsey threw those words back in his face.

But in a globalised world with free movement of travel within the EU, companies will always be able to pull together contract teams of workers who will undercut their British counterparts unless the latter accept lower pay – which the unions will oppose.

This is something that the Labour party seems unable to understand. As the stoppages spread, Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, said the angry British workers were "entitled to an answer".

An answer to what, precisely? Is the Government that encouraged immigrant workers to come here in good times now cynically turning on them in bad?

Shona McIsaac, the Labour MP for Cleethorpes, said that awarding the contract to a firm using foreign labour was like "a red rag to a bull".

Yet the Italian company Irem won the construction contract against British companies fair and square.

To have awarded it on national, rather than cost, grounds would have been unlawful under EU rules. The Government is in no position to step in and stop the proper tender process.

One reason why so many EU workers are in Britain is that the Government decided not to use transitional powers to restrict access to the UK labour market to the new east European countries that joined in 2004.

Other major economies, notably Germany, kept restrictions in place. As a result, most Poles and other east European came to this country.

When the economy was booming this helped the economy: they took jobs that British workers seemed to shun or did not require.

However, there is anecdotal evidence that they undercut British wages and encouraged indigenous workers to stay out of the jobs market and live on benefits rather than accept cuts in their own income.

The Government's whole immigration strategy, like its economic and public spending policies, was predicated on an assumption that the boom would continue indefinitely.

Ministers said that high numbers of foreign workers were needed to pump up what turned out to be a bubble, even though there were millions of British people of working age living on welfare.

This has fuelled the anger of British workers and is grist to the mill for extremist parties which are already starting to exploit these tensions.

A BNP spokesman said: "This is a great day for British nationalism."

The sky is now darkening with chickens coming home to roost.

UK: Muslim Population Rising Ten Times Faster Than Rest of Population

And, the Christian population is dropping.

From the London Times:

The Muslim population in Britain has grown by more than 500,000 to 2.4 million in just four years, according to official research collated for The Times. 

The population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics reveals. In the same period the number of Christians in the country fell by more than 2 million. 

Experts said that the increase was attributable to immigration, a higher birthrate and conversions to Islam during the period of 2004-2008, when the data was gathered. They said that it also suggested a growing willingness among believers to describe themselves as Muslims because the western reaction to war and terrorism had strengthened their sense of identity. 

Muslim leaders have welcomed the growing population of their communities as academics highlighted the implications for British society, integration and government resources. 

David Coleman, Professor of Demography at Oxford University, said: “The implications are very substantial. Some of the Muslim population, by no means all of them, are the least socially and economically integrated of any in the United Kingdom ... and the one most associated with political dissatisfaction. You can't assume that just because the numbers are increasing that all will increase, but it will be one of several reasonable suppositions that might arise.” 

Professor Coleman said that Muslims would naturally reap collective benefits from the increase in population. “In the growth of any population ... [its] voice is regarded as being stronger in terms of formulating policy, not least because we live in a democracy where most people in most religious groups and most racial groups have votes. That necessarily means their opinions have to be taken and attention to be paid to them.” 

There are more than 42.6 million Christians in Britain, according to the Office for National Statistics, whose figures were obtained through the quarterly Labour Force Survey of around 53,000 homes. But while the biggest Christian population is among over-70s bracket, for Muslims it is the under-4s. 

Ceri Peach, Professor of Social Geography at Manchester University, said that the rapid growth of the Muslim population posed challenges for society. “The groups with the strongest belief in the family and cohesion are those such as the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. They have got extremely strong family values but it goes together with the sort of honour society and other kinds of attributes which people object to,” he said. “So you are dealing with a pretty complex situation.” 

Professor Peach said that the high number of Muslims under the age of 4 — 301,000 as of September last year — would benefit Britain's future labour market through taxes that would subsequently contribute to sustaining the country's ageing population. He added, though, that it would also put pressure on housing and create a growing demand for schools. “I think housing has traditionally been a difficulty because the country is simultaneously short of labour and short of housing. So if you get people to fill vacancies in your labour force you also need to find places for them to live,” he said. 

Muhammad Abdul Bari, general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, predicted that the number of mosques in Britain would multiply from the present 1,600 in line with the rising Islamic population. He said the greater platform that Muslims would command in the future should not be perceived as a threat to the rest of society. 

“We each have our own set of beliefs. This should really be a source of celebration rather than fear as long as we all clearly understand that we must abide by the laws of this country regardless of the faith we belong to,” he said. 

The Cohesion Minister, Sadiq Khan, told The Times: “We in central Government and local authorities need to continue our work to ensure that our communities are as integrated and cohesive as possible.” 

Growing numbers

The total number of Muslims in Great Britain: 

2004: 1,087,000 

2005: 2,017,000 

2006: 2,142,000 

2007: 2,327,000 

2008: 2,422,000 

Pub Prep

Ah, Friday night. National Party Night. At least it was when I was in school. Nevermind how long ago.

And so a playlist. Tuneful titillations for libations preparations.

And as always may the sidewalks of your pub crawl be soft & smooth and rise gently to meet you.

Joe Bonamassa. Some interesting ax work then Mountain Time

Walter Trout with a Robert Johnson song, but Johnson never did it like this. . .

Stevie Ray. . . Crossfire

Buddy Guy. . . Tramp . . . if you've never felt the sonic assault of his Sweet Tea album at live volume, well, it's an event. It registers about an 8 on the Richter.

And Finally Muddy Waters from the Newport Jazz Fest 1960. Don't laugh too much at the guy giving the intro. This one lovely lady my wife and I drink with insists I play this on the jukebox every time we hit F--na-a-'s Pub.

So there you go, Infidels.

I say at 10:00 Eastern tonight I'll raise one to all of you & each of you raise one to all the others . A Nationwide Toast to The Infidel Life!

Cheers!

Infidel Disclaimer: Now listen, all you crazy Jihadis out there. We Infidels, especially we Infidels who really like this kind of stuff, the stuff you just watched but won't tell your bosses you did, we're an affable fun loving bunch. Hell, we might even let you buy us a drink. But we take our fun seriously. So you just mind your manners because if we see the haft of a knife, the thread of a ripcord or any hint you're up to your shenanagan's you may quickly find yourself on the naughty end of a snubnose .357 realizing, in one final moment, that you've suffered "a catastrophic failure of the victim selection process" and there really aren't 72 virgins waiting for you. Just the Devil himself with his poker commanding you to bend over. . .

Secular culturist NOT secular humanist

What the Pope Should Do To Reassure the World

From Newsweek/Washington Post's On Faith:

Pope Benedict's decision to undo the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson, an unrepentant Holocaust denier, has been met with wall to wall condemnation. Short of the launch of a new Crusade, it is hard to imagine how the Pope could have ignited such outrage with one decision. 

Yet there is an even greater crisis waiting in the wings that will soon be picked up by world media. Williamson's fellow travelers -- the entire network of the breakaway Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) -- are vocal enthusiasts of a medieval religious anti-Semitism that gives the Islamist imams in Pakistan some serious competition.

The papal move to re-embrace SSPX was carefully negotiated. And if Pope Benedict was expecting any cosmetic changes in SSPX's Jew-hatred he was dead wrong. True ideologues in their hatred, their group's website remains unchanged. Jews, it tells us, are directly responsible for the crucifixion. Jews are cursed with the "blindness to the things of G-d and eternity." As a people, they stand "in entire opposition with the Catholic Church." "Christendom and Jewry are designed inevitably to meet everywhere without reconciliation or mixing." 

Jews "should neither be eliminated from among us, nor given equality of rights."

SSPX bookstores sell the anti-Semitic screeds -- "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," and Henry Ford's "The International Jew." 

But Jews, we are told in an essay by SSPX icon Fr. Denis Fahey, should not worry. He explains why he is not an anti-Semite. Anti-semites hate Jews, which he does not. He hates the Jewish naturalism, which is the plot of Jews (who have secretly abandoned God for the last two millennia) to take over the world.

Pope Benedict XVI has made a personal crusade of hastening Church unity. According to the Vatican document announcing SSPX's rehabilitation, lifting the ban against the four bishops allows the Church to talk in earnest with the four, and the tens of thousands of traditionalist Catholics they represent. Short of assigning Bishop Williamson a stint as intern in the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum it's not clear what else can be said to a man of God who just last week denied the Nazi gas chambers and that 6 million Jews were the victims of genocide.

The Pope's moves reveal a stunning blindness and deafness to the troubling reality all around him in Europe. He rehabilitated Holocaust denier Williamson in the days before both the 50th anniversary of the Convocation of Vatican II, and Holocaust Memorial day, January 27th, the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the largest Jewish cemetery on the planet. More troubling is that this Pope's outreach to this brazenly anti-Semitic group comes amidst an explosion of anti-Semitism not seen since the days before World War II. As synagogues and Jewish places of business are firebombed, as placards at demonstrations organized by extremist Muslim groups sport the slogan, "Upgrade to Holocaust 2.0" and "Jews to the ovens," the Pope has unwittingly lent credence to those who unleash hate and violence against Jews. 

Why now?

Some Church apologists argue that the Pope has reached out to the four in order to rein them in. He will have more control over them, more influence over what they can teach and preach, if they are brought under the umbrella of the Church. But this move has not been accompanied by declarations that there is no turning back the clock on the teachings of Vatican II that blazed the way for new understanding between Catholics and Jews. In fact, other Church observers speak more ominously, claiming that Vatican II is "not a dogma of faith," and therefore no barrier to the reintegration of SSPX faithful into the Church.

Millions of Jews, and tens of millions of mainstream Catholics, wait in dismay and anxiety. The teachings of Vatican II and Nostra Aetate were the most serious moves by any religious group to undo the effects of hundreds of years of Church-inspired anti-Semitism and persecution. They also helped bring Catholicism firmly into an age of modernity, without sacrificing its integrity. They allowed hundreds of millions of Catholics to escape the tension between modernity and sincere religious belief. They do not want to see a return to the medieval abbey.

Both Jews and Catholics wait for the next moves of the Holy See. The Pope can repair the public relations debacle by declaring unequivocally that the teachings of Vatican II are not optional and not just tools to be taken off the shelf for interfaith op-eds. He can state that they represent the true spirit of the Church, from which there is no return.

The ultimate irony may lay in the fact that one of the intellectual architects of Vatican II, responsible for seeing that the progressive innovations of Vatican II were consistent with rigorous Church theology, was one Father Joseph Ratzinger--the future Pope Benedict XVI. Jews and Catholics can only pray that at the end of day it will be the voice and conscience of that Father which will ultimately prevail.

Take Your Pick, Babe Of The Week

A 50-year-old Saudi woman asked for divorce after her husband lifted her face veil while she was sleeping, local press reported.

For 30 years, the wife said she never showed her face to her husband in conformity with the tradition of her native village near the south western Saudi city of Khamis Mushayt.

"After all these years, he tries to commit such a big mistake," the wife told Saudi newspaper Al-Riyadh, after she left the house in total disbelief.

She said the husband apologized and promised never to do it again.

This is not the first case of husbands who have not seen their wives' faces in decades.

In the past Al Arabiya has reported the case of Ali al-Qahtani, whose wife had been wearing the face veil for the entire ten years of their marrage. When he tried to take it off, she threatened to leave and only decided to stay after he swore never to try again.

Hassan Al-Atibi threatened to marry another woman if his wife didn't show him her face. The woman nominated one of her friends who doesn't observe this tradition as a possible new wife for him, saying this would be better than her showing her face.

And neither the husband or children of Om Rabea al-Gahdaray, 70, have ever seen her face. Al-Gahdaray says it is a family tradition, also followed by mother and sisters, which her husband accepted and never tried to change.

When asked how she could have kids without her husband ever seeing her face, she replied: "Marriage is about love, not faces."

TRICK

OR TREAT

The Wanker And The Wall

Earlier today I thought I would listen to an old classic, but I ended up deleting it from my files as I got so pissed off about the hypocrisy of one of its former members.

So here good folks

"The end of apartheid stands as one of the crowning accomplishments of the past century, but we would not have succeeded without the help of international pressure-- in particular the divestment movement of the 1980s. Over the past six months, a similar movement has taken shape, this time aiming at an end to the Israeli occupation". Desmond Tutu

The following statement, signed by 54 international figures in the literary and cultural fields, was published in the International Herald Tribune on May 8, 2008:

“Even after fifty years of living the Palestinian exile I still find myself astonished at the lengths to which official Israel and its supporters will go to suppress the fact that a half century has gone by without Israeli restitution, recognition, or acknowledgment of Palestinian human rights and without, as the facts undoubtedly show, connecting that suspension of rights to Israel’s official policies. … the Palestinian Nakba is characterized as a semi-fictional event … caused by no one in particular.”

Edward Said, commenting on the “Israel at 50” celebrations in the US in 1998

The creation of the state of Israel almost 60 years ago dispossessed and uprooted hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes and lands. With their peaceful lives ruined, society fragmented, possessions pillaged and hope for freedom and nationhood dashed, Palestinian refugees held on to their dream of return, and Palestinians everywhere nourished their aspiration for freedom, dignified living, and becoming whole again.

There is no reason to celebrate! Israel at 60 is a state that is still denying Palestinian refugees their UN-sanctioned rights, simply because they are “non-Jews.” It is still illegally occupying Palestinian and other Arab lands, in violation of numerous UN resolutions. It is still persistently and grossly breaching international law and infringing fundamental human rights with impunity afforded to it through munificent US and European economic, diplomatic and political support. It is still treating its own Palestinian citizens with institutionalized discrimination.

In short, celebrating “Israel at 60” is tantamount to dancing on Palestinian graves to the haunting tune of lingering dispossession and multi-faceted injustice.

There is absolutely no reason to celebrate! But there are myriad reasons to reflect, to engage, to work towards peace and justice.

Signatories:

Mahmoud Darwish (poet, Palestine),
John Berger (artist/author, UK),
Augusto Boal (director/writer, Brazil),
Ella Shohat (author, USA/Israel),
Roger Waters (musician, UK),

Roger Waters,?

PINK FLOYD

Open Letter to Roger Waters

Palestinian Arts Community | | March 7, 2006

Mr. Roger Waters
31 Ruvigny Gardens
London SW15 1JR, England

7 March 2006

Dear Mr. Waters,

The Palestinian arts community received in disbelief the news of your upcoming performance in Tel Aviv in June, at a time when Israel continues unabated with its colonial and apartheid designs to further dispossess, oppress and ultimately ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their homeland. We strongly urge you to cancel your plans to perform in Israel until the time comes when it ends its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory and respects the relevant precepts of international law concerning Palestinian rights to freedom, self-determination and equality.

Upon learning of your planned tour, Palestinian as well as several international artists asked in shock: How can the artist whose name around the world was for many years associated with breaking walls of injustice be in any way complicit with the monstrosity of Israel’s Wall, declared illegal by the International Court of Justice at the Hague? Not too long ago, you lent your good name to the War on Want’s effort to collect signatures of public figures against Israel’s Wall. At the time, you rightly stated “The poverty inflicted by the wall has been devastating for Palestinians. It has kept children from their schools, the sick from proper medical care and continues to destroy the Palestinian economy. I fully support War on Want’s campaign, and hope that as many people as possible sign the wall – as a strong message to the UK government that immediate action is essential.”

This same Wall has grown substantially since. It now divides many more Palestinians from their livelihoods and vital health and educational services. The support it garners in Israeli society has also grown – close to 90% of all Israeli Jews support the Wall despite its devastating repercussions on Palestinians under occupation.

Furthermore, as you may know, Palestinian civil society has almost unanimously called upon international civil society to engage in acts and campaigns of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it fully complies with international law and recognizes the fundamental human rights of the people of Palestine. The Church of England, the US Presbyterian Church, a group of top British architects, among many other groups and institutions in the West, have all heeded the Palestinian distress call and considered applying effective pressure on Israel to promote peace and justice in our troubled land. Is it too much, then, to expect conscientious international artists to uphold the values of freedom, equality and justice for all?

Ironically, when you were invited last year to perform in the Palestine International Festival 2005, the theme of that festival was “Another BREAK in the Wall!” The following lyrics for a song which was to be performed by school children were inspired by your timeless song:

We don’t need no occupation
We don’t need no racist wall
No more siege and no more curfews
Soldiers leave us kids alone
Hey! Soldiers! Leave us kids alone!
All in all you’re just another brick in the wall
All in all we’ve just made another BREAK in the wall

These words still express our collective view of the Wall, of our oppressors, and are still inspired by you. Do they still mean the same to you?

We appeal to your moral compass, your record of standing up for principles of human dignity and equality. And we sincerely hope that you shall be another brick in the bridge to liberty and justice, not another concrete slab in Israel’s Wall of shame.


Truly,

The Undersigned:

Full list here

We don't need no occupation: Roger Waters graffitis the Israeli Wall in Palestine

British wanker and Pink Floyd co-founder Roger Waters spray-paints the words "No Thought Control" on a section of Israel's separation barrier in the West Bank

The Power To Change

From BabbaZee:

Obama's friend Ali Abunimahsez: End of Israel within reach 

Obviously this man does not own a Bible...

Ali Abunimah sez: Obama Hiding Anti-Israel Stance

The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing."As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, 'Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.' He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy [and said:] 'Keep up the good work!'"

And, of course, Obama has had the audacity to rehire Samantha Power, to make ensure that the Middle East situation will change:

As if king President Hussein couldn't make a scarier appointment. She was removed from his campaign team back in March because she was radioactive - but now the king answers to no one. Ain't no stopping him now.

Israel-Hating Samantha Power Named Key Obama Adviser 

Here's a note to the 78% of American Jews that voted for Barack Obama. The "Other Shoe" has been thrown at Israel. The President is naming Samantha Power to a senior foreign policy/national security position ...
Friends of Israel may remember Power for a different reason. She is a strong believer in the anti-Semitic notion that Jews Control foreign policy. She has also said that she would recommend that the US SHOULD SEND IN TROOPS TO IMPOSE A SOLUTION ON ISRAEL.

Previous Atlas Samantha Power Posts:
Atlas Shrugs: SAMANTHA POWER RETURNS: I TOLD YOU SO

Atlas Shrugs: Obama chief advisor calls for a military invasion of Israel ...

Powers: Obama's Foreign Policy Appease Team UPDATE: POWERS RESIGNS!

Ed Lasky and Richard Baehr wrote the best piece on Samantha Power back in February 2008, when it became clear that President Hussein was surrounding himself with classic Jew haters.

Samantha Power and Obama's Foreign Policy Team

Samantha Power

Senator Obama's supporters have uniformly ignored the role and the views of Harvard Kennedy School of Government professor Samantha Power, who is very problematic regarding Israel, Iran, and for that matter, American supporters of Israel (see below). Power left her position at Harvard to work for Obama for a year after his election to the US Senate.  She is now identified as a "senior foreign policy advisor.". 

In the case of Power, it was Senator Obama who made the initial contact with her after reading her book on genocide. Power is now actively working for the campaign.  She cannot be casually dismissed as one of Obama's many advisors, with no particular assigned role.

It is not at all hard to imagine her having a senior foreign policy role in an Obama administration, perhaps as US Ambassador to the United Nations, an organization she views warmly. The problem for those who favor a strong US-Israel relationship is that Power seems obsessed with Israel, and in a negative way.  Much like the authors of the Baker-Hamilton report, she believes resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to solving other problems in the Middle East. And it is clear that her approach to addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be for the US to behave in a  more "even handed" fashion, which of course means withdrawing US support for Israel, and instead applying more pressure on Israel for concessions. 

Commentary Magazine, and in particular Noah Pollack, have done a superb job of investigative reporting regarding Power's record and views.  She is a headliner for Senator Obama -- a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and a professor at Harvard.  Power has a column carried byTIME and she writes frequently. Indeed, it is her writing that reveals reasons to be concerned. From Commentary:

Power is an advocate of the Walt-Mearsheimer view of the American relationship with Israel. In a recent interview published on the Harvard Kennedy School's website, Power was asked to explain "long-standing structural and conceptual problems in U.S. foreign policy." She gave a two-part answer: the first problem, she said, is "the US historic predisposition to go it alone." A standard reply, of course. The second problem, though, should give us pause:

Another longstanding foreign policy flaw is the degree to which special interests dictate the way in which the "national interest" as a whole is defined and pursued....  America's important historic relationship with Israel has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics, which, as the war in Lebanon last summer demonstrated, can turn out to be counter-productive.

So greater regard for international institutions along with less automatic deference to special interests -- especially when it comes to matters of life and death and war and peace -- seem to be two take-aways from the war in Iraq.

Power is not just assenting to the Walt-Mearsheimer view of American foreign policy, but is also arguing that Israel had something to do with the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003: an appalling slander, and a telling one.

piece Power wrote for TIME, titled "Rethinking Iran," the thrust of which rethinking involves the need to engage diplomatically the mullahs and pretend that the Iranian nuclear program is a figment of the paranoid imagination of the Bush administration. She writes:

The war scare that wasn't [the recent incident between Iranian speedboats and the U.S. Navy in the Straight of Hormuz] stands as a metaphor for the incoherence of our policy toward Iran: the Bush Administration attempts to gin up international outrage by making a claim of imminent danger, only to be met with international eye rolling when the claim is disproved. Sound familiar? The speedboat episode bore an uncanny resemblance to the Administration's allegations about the advanced state of Iran's weapons program-allegations refuted in December by the National Intelligence Estimate.

Does Power actually believe that the NIE put to rest concerns about the Iranian nuclear program? If she actually thinks that -- and it appears she does -- she deserves voluminous ridicule from thinking people everywhere.

Power also advocates that America send armed military forces, "a mammoth protection force" and an "external intervention", to impose a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. This directly contradicts her criticism of the invasion and "occupation" of Iraq and her call for the removal of American forces from that nation. On the one hand, Power abhors American efforts to remake an Arab nation, but takes the contrary view when it comes to inserting American forces in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in order to impose a settlement. These troops, if sent, would be seen as occupiers and be sitting targets for Arab extremists. The colonial image of America and charges of imperial overstretch would echo throughout the Arab world.

If America sought to avoid being so tarnished -- which is presumably what Samantha Power would desire -- then the alternative would be for the United States to take a confrontational attitude toward Israel, so as to be seen as standing up for the Palestinians. Given herinclination to view Israel as guilty of war crimes  she would probably look favorably on such an approach towards the Israelis and Palestinians.

Power's views on the problems caused by the US-Israel relationship also place her in the same camp as Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Soros (an influential supporter of Barack Obama's), who also oppose the so-called "Israel lobby" and reject the participation of American supporters of Israel, including Christians, in the foreign policy discussion. Power writes of her willingness to

"alienat[e] a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing...billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the state of Palestine."

Power appears to support slashing, if not eliminating, military aid to our ally (surrounded by 300 million people who wish to destroy her) and giving it to the Palestinians, whose charters (whether the Hamas or Fatah version) advocate the destruction of Israel. The PA has used aid dollars to teach hate and sponsor terror, and Palestinian society has devolved into an internationally-supported welfare state characterized by enormous corruption. Why is there any reason to believe that massive amounts of additional aid be used any differently and more constructively?

Power also showed her animus toward Israel in another instance, appearing to argue with the New York Times for more negative coverage of Israel in the paper.  As Noah Pollak writes: 

"Martin Kramer points us to an interesting quote from the 2003 book Ethnic Violence and Justice, in which Samantha Power, one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers, asks a question of David Rohde, a reporter who covered the intifada for theNew York Times. The quote is as follows:

Samantha Power: I have a question for David about working for the New York Times. I was struck by a headline that accompanied a news story on the publication of the Human Rights Watch report. The headline was, I believe: "Human Rights Report Finds Massacre Did Not Occur in Jenin." The second paragraph said, "Oh, but lots of war crimes did." Why wouldn't they make the war crimes the headline and the non-massacre the second paragraph?

(The article to which Power refers is here and its headline is: "MIDEAST TURMOIL: INQUIRY; Rights Group Doubts Mass Deaths in Jenin, but Sees Signs of War Crimes." Obviously, Power has misremembered the headline.)

Here we have another window into the thinking of Power: Israel is accused in sensational press reports of a massacre in Jenin, and is subjected to severe international condemnation; Human Rights Watch finally gets out a report and says there was no massacre; the NYTreports this as its headline; and Power thinks the headline still should have been: Israel guilty of war crimes!"

 

Revelations regarding Power's views of Israel can be found in her new book, Chasing the Flame: Sergio Vieira De Mello and the Fight to Save the World, a biography of the UN official killed in Baghdad in a 2003 terrorist bombing.  A series of terrorist attacks emanating from the mini-terror state created in Southern Lebanon by the PLO had led to an Israeli occupation of the southern portion of Lebanon. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon had been inserted to quell the conflict, but was proving ineffectual. Israeli forces remained in place.

Power wrote:

" Israeli forces refused to comply with the spirit of international demands to withdraw and the major powers on the Security Council were not prepared to deal with the gnarly issues that had sparked the Israelis invasion in the first place: dispossessed Palestinians and Israeli insecurity".

The "spirit of international demands" to withdraw? Aside from wondering what that means and the enforceability of such a spirit, how about that phrase "dispossessed Palestinians and Israeli insecurity"? The dispossessed Palestinians had left Palestine mostly at the behest of calls by their Arab brethren to step out of the way as armed forces invaded Israel upon its founding. They and their descendants were denied rights by Lebanon and were unable to assimilate -- unlike the 600,000 Jews who were stripped of their possessions in Arab lands and whom Israel welcomed. The term "Israeli insecurity" makes it seem as if the Israelis were suffering from an emotional or psychological condition. In fact, it was not insecurity, per se, that the Israelis suffered from. It was Palestinian terrorism that the Lebanese government refused to prevent.

There is more from Ms. Power. Israel warned UNIFIL of its upcoming move into Southern Lebanon. Power talked of this move as a "ploy" and then wrote of "humiliation" that was to come as Israel ignored UN efforts to stop them. She wrote:

"Israel had thumbed its nose at the Security Council resolutions that demanded that Israel stay out of Lebanon, and in the course of invading a neighbor, its forces had trampled on the UN peacekeepers in its way".

She quotes the subject of her book -- really a hagiography -- calling the Israelis "bastards". She writes that the degradations suffered by UNIFIL before the Israeli invasion was felt far worse after the Israelis came into Lebanon. She writes that the Israeli authorities "threatened the peacekeepers and regularly denigrated them".

And now she is a senior foreign policy adviser to Presidential candidate Barack Obama, as well as occupying the Anna Lindh Professorship of Practice of Global Leadership and Public Policy  How appropriate: Anna Lindh, the late Swedish Foreign Minister, was a dedicated opponent of Israel.

Who's Next? - War on Anti-Islamist Speech Heats Up

From Islamist Watch:

"Hit list." So reads a newspaper headline shown in Fitna, a short film by Dutch MP Geert Wilders that correlates jihadist violence with Koranic decrees. Accompanying the headline are photos of the "hit list" members: murdered moviemaker and provocateur Theo van Gogh, human rights activist and then-parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Wilders himself.

With van Gogh long dead and Hirsi Ali having been run out of the Netherlands years ago, the final element of the trio is now being targeted — only this time it is the Dutch legal system doing the heavy lifting on Islamists' behalf. Last week, an appeals court instructed prosecutors to put Wilders on trial for his criticisms of the Islamic faith:

The three judges said that they had weighed Mr. Wilders' "one-sided generalizations" against his right to free speech, and ruled that he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians.

"The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs," the court said in a statement.

That a citizen will be dragged before magistrates to be judged on his negative opinions about Islam and Islamists is disturbing enough. More disturbing is that such instances are far from uncommon in this new century. Among the most infamous examples:

• In 2004, two pastors were found guilty of violating hate speech laws of Australia's Victoria state following remarks made during a seminar on Islam.

• Journalist Oriana Fallaci spent the final months of her life preparing to go to trial for "defaming Islam" in Italy. She succumbed to cancer in 2006.

• Due to her strident critiques of Islam and Muslims, actress Brigitte Bardot has been repeatedly convicted and fined for "inciting hatred," most recently in June 2008.

• A Canadian tribunal heard a complaint that Ezra Levant had promoted hatred by reprinting the Danish Mohammed cartoons. The charges were dropped last year.

• In October 2008, Canadian newsweekly Maclean's was cleared of official wrongdoing for running an excerpt from Mark Steyn's controversial book America Alone.

Some have suggested that Wilders' high-profile case could be a blessing in disguise by helping to shine light on the Islamist agenda in the West. Perhaps. But win or lose, one thing seems certain. Wilders will not be the last citizen made to answer for speech that Islamists and multiculturalists alike yearn to silence. The only question is: who's next?

Obama Tells Muslim World, “Here’s my lunch money, please don’t hit me.”

From Little Green Footballs:

Charles Krauthammer gets it exactly right in today’s column, on Barack Obama’s embarrassing interview with Al Arabiya: Obama Distorts America’s Stance on Muslims.

Every new president flatters himself that he, kinder and gentler, is beginning the world anew. Yet, when Barack Obama in his inaugural address reached out to Muslims by saying “to the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” his formulation was needlessly defensive and apologetic.

Is it “new” to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn’t just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, insisting on the need to “restore” the “same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.”

Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years — the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world — America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved — and resulted in — the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The two Balkan interventions — as well as the failed 1992-93 Somalia intervention to feed starving African Muslims (43 Americans were killed) — were humanitarian exercises of the highest order, there being no significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. In these 20 years, this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on Earth. Why are we apologizing?

This is what we teach children—to apologize when they’re wrong. Obama seems to believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs of Iran are just like us, basically good at heart, and just need to hear the right combination of words to lead them back to the path of righteousness. This is an infantile, dangerous approach to dealing with truly evil people, and it’s a lesson America is apparently going to need to learn—again.

The Corporate State - Blessing or Curse?

It is as remarkable as interesting that I seem to discover an increasing number of reflections on monarchy by Americans. Is that because our current Western societies are so inept at protecting their citizens best interests?

More provocatively un-American thoughts at Roncesvalles and The Evil Style Queen.

Mom ( Jan 1921- Jan 30, 2009 )

It is hard to imagine two people less alike in birth, experience, time, place, heritage and family than my mother, Renee and the General of the Army of Northern Virginia from 1862 to 1865, Robert E Lee. But the central cores of their lives exhibit an identical thrust, and the identical devotion.

Robert Lee was the son of a profligate, speculating, gambling father, and a mother in need of his help after his father’s death a thousand miles from his family, husband of an invalided wife, father to children who died young, and wounded in war he said:

“Duty is the most sublime word in our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less.”

Renee , child in a very challenged family, sister to a sibling who died at 29, wife of a man who died a young 48, leaving a very young daughter, and a son in college, and faced abruptly with the challenges that meant - I have no doubt that at any event or time in the life of my mother she was less than all that such a man as Lee aspired to be, or that she achieved the pinnacle he set at every challenge, and at every turn.

Placing herself thru school as a working widow after his death, selecting a career path which gave her a chance at security and time at home, selling her home so a young daughter could be cared for while she worked -there was never a word expressed that I ever heard about what she wanted other than to follow and fulfill as Goethe said, “What the day demands”.

Daniel Webster said: “A sense of duty pursues us ever. It is omnipresent, like the Deity. If we take to ourselves the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, duty performed, or duty violated, is still with us, for our happiness or our misery. “

She never expected a reward for walking this razor’s edge. She never asked for one. She never looked for one. It was never that there was no alternative way to live; it was that not to fulfill her duty as she saw it was an unimaginable thing.

We cannot know if she was satisfied that she walked this path, only that now WE can see, from the outside, no matter what was done, she was successful in this pursuit of duty.

If one can lead by example, then so well lead, we can hardly achieve more than she achieved, or give more to better purpose.

And in this category we find her among the best ..

Jefferson said: “Only aim to do your duty and mankind will give you credit where you fail. “

If my mother failed to do her duty, it’s a moment I don’t know about.

Duty is a power which rises with us in the morning, and goes to rest with us at night. It is coextensive with the action of our intelligence. It is the shadow which cleaves to us, go where we will, and which only leaves us when we leave the light of life.
- Rt. Hon. William Ewart Gladstone , four time Prime Minister of Britain

That was the life and achievement she sought and found, and fulfilled.

She did her duty every moment, and bore that burden as the natural way of living, and if she complained it was known only in her heart.

She left behind in her family, gratitude and love, for her being

Obama's Porks The Citizens of the United States

Yes, he's porking us, the citizens who own and run this country, but most of all he's porking himself. He's taking that big pork sausage, and shoving it right up his own O.

Reliapundit explains why.

From the Astute Bloggers:

Obama has screwed himself BIGTIME.

Here's how:

The "stimulus" package is loaded with useless crap which won't help the economy - and people know it. 

Much of it won't even be spent until 2010!

But even worse stuff is gonna come out about this porkapalooza; Ben Stein:

I love this. The new kind of politics of hope. Eight hours of debate in the HR to pass a bill spending $820 billion, or roughly $102 billion per hour of debate.

Only ten per cent of the "stimulus" to be spent on 2009.

Close to half goes to entities that sponsor or employ or both members of the Service Employees International Union, federal, state, and municipal employee unions, or other Democrat-controlled unions.

This bill is sent to Congress after Obama has been in office for seven days.

It is 680 pages long.

According to my calculations, not one member of Congress read the entire bill before this vote.

Obviously, it would have been impossible, given his schedule, for President Obama to have read the entire bill.

For the amount spent we could have given every unemployed person in the United States roughly $75,000.

We could give every person who had lost a job and is now passing through long-term unemployment of six months or longer roughly $300,000.

If the economy starts to recover before 2010 - which in all likelihood will happen - then Obama CANNOT take or get credit for the recovery.

And as the crony payoffs embodied in the bill become more widely known - as they inevitably will be, it will expose Obama for what he truly is: A CORRUPT CREATURE OF THE MACHINE.

The GOP will reap HUGE rewards for having NOT voted for the porkapalooza, and will in all likelihood retake the House and Senate on 2010.

All because of Obama.

The only thing which can save Obama is if he VETOES the stimulus package and says he's doing so because there's too much pork in it.

The odds of that are less than the odds Obama will covert to Judaism.

UPDATE: Lowry agrees:

There's usually a reaction to every action in American politics, and while the Democrats and Obama have basically a free hand to expand government in the current environment, you can already feel the backlash building.

UPDATE #2: MORE CRITICISM OF THE BILL HERE.