Tellin' It Like It Is

From Wafa Sultan:

As a writer-activist who has fought for the rights of Muslim women, I thought I knew my fellow bad girls of Islam. But Wafa Sultan, 47, has given new meaning to the word bad. A psychiatrist in Syria before transplanting to Southern California in 1989 with her family, she gave an interview with al-Jazeera a couple of months ago that made her a household name in the Islamic world. "The clash we are witnessing around the world is ... a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another that belongs to the 21st century," she said. "It is a clash between freedom and oppression."

Indeed! Watch this:



Wafa Sultan for President?

:)

Some of the countries of Eurabia might want to listen to this lady.

There is another side to the story.

(Hat tip to UBA, who have this vid on their site.)

Expletive Deleted?

Details.

Rogue Elements

On tonight's episode of "24", Jack Bauer is sold out by rogue elements in the US government.

It's fiction.

It could never happen in real life.

In real life, there is no such thing as "fragging". We are all on the same sheet of music. We are all on the same team.

This is especially true of our officials in Washington.

They are all selflessly looking out for our nation's best interests.

None of them would ever disobey orders or betray our country, especially not for personal gain.

"24" is fiction; it is entertainment.

In real life, there is no such thing as "rogue elements" in our government.

Please keep telling yourself this. Conform.

Now, go back to your daily life.

Sold Out

This is outrageous.

This is immoral.

This is wrong.

This is our federal debt:

This is how our federal debt has grown since 1997:

If you divide our current US Federal Debt by our current population according to the US Census Bureau, you will see that each person in the US owes just under $42,000.

And don't, for a moment, think that they have slowed down spending.

The Clintonite provincial corruption was outdone by the cronyistic looting done by Bush's Banana Republicans, but now the Obamanistas are going for full-scale socialism.

Never mind your wallet - it's empty. Now count the IOU's.

__________

How will WE THE PEOPLE pay for this?

We the citizens of today won't be able to. At best, we could turn it around, and pay the interest, and begin to pay some of the principle.

It will be up to our children and to our grandchildren to actually get out from under this.

How will this happen?

Much of what we now owe, we owe to foreign nations.

How can this be paid off?

__________

We could sell our Navy. How much would a dozen carrier battle groups be worth? And the ballistic missile and attack submarines? How much would the Communist Chinese give for our Navy? They could use our amphibious groups to take Taiwan!

Or, we could sell our Air Force. The Saudis already have an arsenal of American-made warplanes. Would they like some strategic bombers, tankers, and a few ballistic missiles? A couple of decades ago, they were buying ballistic missiles from China, but the missiles were of poorer quality. And, they have options on Pakistan's nukes. Maybe they would pay big petrodollars to have better missiles with their own warheads on them?

How's about selling our Army? Who would be in the market for a few divisions' worth of tanks and armored vehicles?

I know - let's sell real estate. The National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management have extensive holdings, especially out west. What would Yosemite National Park, or the Little Big Horn National Monument, be worth? The Communist Chinese could be our neighbors... Hell, they could be our landlords!

__________

America has been sold out.

Those politicians in Washington sold our future and the future of our children to buy our votes today with their entitlements and other federal programs.

And WE THE PEOPLE have been letting them do it.

We Have Warned You

From Iraq: The Hidden Crime of Rape, by Anna Badkhen:

The three policemen put a burlap sack over Khalida's head and took her to the Iraqi Interior Ministry in Baghdad. There, they interrogated her and beat her, knocking out her front teeth. Then they tore off her clothes and took turns raping her.

"After they finished, the fourth man came into the room," Khalida told me, stubbing out one cigarette to light another. "He was an officer. I could see the rank on his shoulders. He looked at me and said: 'Oh, it's my bad luck that you’re bleeding, because it was supposed to be my turn.'" The officer ordered his men to get rid of Khalida. They wrapped her in a blanket, put her in a car, and dumped her, hemorrhaging, on a Baghdad sidewalk.

We pick up Khalida's story from Rape's vast toll in Iraq war remains largely ignored:

As though recoiling from her own memories, Khalida shrank deeper into her faded armchair with each sentence she told: of how gunmen apparently working for Iraq's Interior Ministry kidnapped her, beat and raped her; of how they discarded her on a Baghdad sidewalk.

But her suffering did not end when she fled Iraq and became a refugee in Jordan's capital, Amman. When Khalida's husband learned that she had been raped, he abandoned her and their two young sons.

Rumors spread fast in Amman; soon, everyone on her block knew that she was without a man in the house. Last month, her Jordanian neighbor barged into her apartment and attempted to rape her.

Khalida never reported the incident. Like tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees in Jordan, she does not have a permit to live or work here, and she is afraid that if she turns to authorities for help she will get deported. So instead of seeking punishment for her assailant, she latched the flimsy metal door of her apartment and stopped going outside.

This is not uncommon in post-invasion Iraq. As Amnesty International reports:

Women and girls are being attacked in the street by men with different political agendas but who all want to impose veiling, gender segregation and discrimination. Islamist armed groups have claimed and justified violent attacks on women not complying with their views.

Women are also suffering violence at the hands of their fathers, brothers and other relatives, particularly if they try to choose how to lead their lives. Many face terrible retribution if they refuse to be forcibly married or dare to associate with men not selected by their families – even though Iraqi legislation specifically prohibits forced marriage, and the right to choose a spouse is guaranteed under international law applicable in all parts of Iraq.

Wars and conflicts, wherever they are fought, invariably usher in sickeningly high levels of violence against women and girls. Amnesty International is concerned that even if greater stability and peace return soon to Iraq, levels of violence against women may remain high if the authorities continue to allow men to kill and maim women with impunity, and if gender segregation and discrimination against women become further entrenched.

The problem is multifold.

First, it involves an oppressive religion from the middle ages, which codifies treatment of women as objects, with an emphasis on their being objects for sexual gratification.

Mixed in with this is a generous dose of tribal culture, where women are kept submissive by being second-class citizens, needing a male to protect them from society.

Superimposed on this is something more familiar to Westerners: the inevitable criminal activity, and especially the victimization of women, that accompanies the chaos of armed conflict.

LICENCED TO KILL

Many men who commit violent crimes against women are never brought to justice because the authorities are unwilling to carry out proper investigations and punish the perpetrators. Six years after the overthrow of former President Saddam Hussein, Iraqi legislators have yet to amend legislation that effectively condones, even facilitates, violence against women and girls.

The Penal Code, for example, provides that a convicted murderer who pleads in mitigation that he killed with "honourable motives" may face just six months in prison. It also effectively allows husbands to use violence against their wives. The "exercise of a legal right" to exemption from criminal liability is permitted for: "Disciplining a wife by her husband, the disciplining by parents and teachers of children under their authority within certain limits prescribed by Islamic law (Shari'a), by law or by custom."

As a result, police frequently fail to arrest men accused of violence against their female relatives and, in the rare prosecutions, judges may hand down lenient sentences, even when a woman has been murdered. This sends out a terrifying message to all women in Iraq – that they may be killed and beaten with impunity.

When things are functioning reasonably well in Western societies, victims of sexual assault can usually turn to the police and various crisis centers for help. But, where do you go when your society has no crisis center, and when the police are your assailants?

Some women do escape domestic violence and seek refuge in special shelters, but there are far too few of these. In the Kurdistan Region, the local authorities have established shelters and others are run by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In the rest of Iraq, the authorities do not provide shelters and those that do exist are run by NGOs and often have to function more or less clandestinely.

The following video link opens the PBS page in a pop-up window:

See also Behind the Veil.

I Want You

I couldn't have made this one up.

An article in Islam Times entitled NATO turning its Back on Opium Sales:

(Islam Times) - NATO has refused to close down the Afghan poppy fields in fear of what would happen after Afghan's sole source of income is eradicated.

Islam Times reports from Press TV: NATO has rejected an appeal made by Russia for eradication of opium fields in Afghanistan, arguing that the sole source of income in the region cannot be removed.

Addressing a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council on Wednesday, head of Russia's Federal Drug Control Agency (FSKN) Victor Ivanov said "Afghan opiates led to the death of 1 million people by overdose in the last 10 years, and that is United Nations data. Is that not a threat to world peace and security?"

The Russian official tasked NATO forces with "normalizing the situation in Afghanistan" which includes "the elimination of drug production."

Meanwhile, NATO spokesman James Appathurai voiced understanding for Russian concerns, given the country's estimated 200,000 heroin and morphine addicts and the tens of thousands dying each year as a result of their addiction.

However, he went on to say that the Afghan drug problem had to be handled carefully in an effort to avoid alienating local residents.

"We share the view that it has to be tackled," the spokesman said. "But there is a slight difference of views," Appathurai added.

"We cannot be in a situation where we remove the only source of income for people who live in the second poorest country in the world without being able to provide them an alternative. That is simply not possible," the NATO official explained.

According to statistics provided by Ivanov, Russia was the single largest consumer of heroin in 2008. Moscow blames NATO for the surge in heroin trafficking from Afghanistan to Russia.

The production of opium in Afghanistan has [been] skyrocketing since the US-led invasion of the country in 2001.

But, the story goes far beyond that; this is a question of "Deep Politics".

As I pointed out in a recent post:

According to information in the Sibel Edmonds case, some of which has now come out through depositions, heroin money was being channeled through Turkish contacts to bribe US government officials, both elected and appointed, from both parties, in the years prior to 9/11. (The Sibel Edmonds case tells us a great deal about this; you can start learning about it here.) Word of the coming terrorist attacks was coming through counternarcotics and counterespionage channels - and, had word gotten out, a lot of US politicians would have been caught with their fingers in a poppy pie!

However, on the other fingers on the other hand, there was no poppy pie, but plenty of fossil fuels: a major terrorist attack on the US would galvanize public opinion to attack Al Qaeda's sponsors, the Taliban. This would pave the way for the pipeline deal to go through. And, for those in the US government receiving bribes from foreign organized crime, it would also allow US troops to protect opiate production from Taliban interference as part of a strategy to win the hearts and minds of Afghan farmers, while blaming resurgent opiate production on Al Qaeda (who, incidentally, does in fact play a role in opiate production and shipment).

Here's what this looks like:

1) We know that heroin sales financed the jihad in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, and the Soviet Union's troubles in Afghanistan helped cause the Evil Empire to implode -- no big loss.

2) We understand from alternative media and "the Left" that much of the de facto interest of our government in the Middle East has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism and the efforts of the faithful to force the world to submit. Indeed, if this were the main concern, why are we so friendly with Saudi Arabia, the source of the ideology and money to fund it? Why are we not more forceful with Pakistan, who sponsors and gives safe haven to the Taliban?

It looks like we are still playing big power politics in Central and South Asia, viewing Russia as the enemy.

Now, I am not advocating we suddenly trust Medvedev and Putin with our lives.

Of course, I don't trust Obama/Bush/Clinton or the other unindicted criminals in Washington, either.

But if we accept that we are playing big power politics, then the jockeying for oil under cover of a "War on Terror" (or what ever the Obamanistas call it now -- the only change the Obamanator has delivered is a new name) is the real game, and it makes sense.

And, many people are duped into not interfering in the heroin trade, because it is killing off our "real enemy", the Russians.

But, what is really going on once you dig down another level and explore the Sibel Edmonds case is that heroin money finds its way to Washington as bribes, so officials find ways to not interfere in somebody's very profitable business.

The Russians, the Afghans, the Americans -- WE THE PEOPLE of all these nations, and of other nations -- are getting screwed by the same dirty machine.

Having said all that, look what I found:

And it's true! The "real" Uncle Sam -- i.e., Real America -- needs us all (Americans, Russians, Afghans, etc.) to do just this: wake up, wake others up, know we are free, think for ourselves, and resist tyranny.

So, where did I find this??

At a website for the Religion of Peace, an ideology that seeks to deprive us of our rights to think freely, and which seeks to impose upon us a barbaric sixth-century tyrrany!

I could have sat here all day, and not have made this one up!

I WANT YOU to think for yourself.

The Empire Strikes Back, Part 1

Claudia at Tea and Politics has a post referencing another post from Creeping Sharia; the news is that the Organization of the Islamic Conference (Muslim countries that generally vote as a bloc in the UN) pushed through a resolution banning defamation of religion, and (of course) specifically mentioning Islam.

I would write: "Needless to say, this flies in the face of our Constitutionally-guaranteed Freedom of Religion" -- except that saying this is very much needed.

The founders of this country fought a great war against one of the most powerful nations of their time; they risked and sacrificed a great deal, and only after years of effort, and only after having paid a high price in lives and treasure, did the United States of America become established.

Once a free and independent nation, the founders gave us what they had found, through experience, to be most precious: liberty.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

- Patrick Henry

It is a sad condition that my country now finds itself in. Dumbed down and addicted to entitlements, we have grown soft.

How many Americans now know who Patrick Henry even was?

"Liberty never came from government. The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it."

- Woodrow Wilson

However, what is being pushed on us now is oppression.

Freedom inevitably and emphatically includes the freedom to say something that is insulting or offensive to someone else. That means daring to suggest that politicians can be corrupted, that police power can be abused, that some religious groups are nothing more than abusive sects...

Freedom means questioning whether our understanding of our Creator's will is correct; it means questioning whether our government is telling us the truth.

When these freedoms are taken away, we are slaves; and nothing can be more Satanic than denying us our freedom to question our Creator's will, because once this is gone, we blindly follow human will (generally that of a brutal dictator), and it leads, much more directly than we may think, to Hell.

The topic at hand is religious oppression. Well, what about forced conversion to Islam of Pakistan's Christians? In their own imperfect English, from March 22, 2010:

Muslims involved in rape of Martha Bibi and burning alive to her husband on refusing to convert to Islam in city of Rawalpindi which is under nose of capital of Pakistan.

Pakistan Christian Congress PCC in a statement issued here from Central Secretariats of PCC said that rape of a woman before her children by police officer and others is shameful act which required immediate action by Chief Minister of Punjab Mian Shahbaz Sharif and leaders of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz group but culprits are free on streets because its rape of poor Christian woman.

Arshad Masih is fighting for life with 80% burns in Holy Family Hospital Rawalpindi after his employer set him on fire on refusing to convert to Islam.

Nazir S Bhatti said "Rape of Martha Bibi before her children by Muslim police officials and burning of her husband took place few miles from Building of Supreme Court of Pakistan where Muslim justices sitting on benches of justice have no sympathy with Christian victim nor it looks crime to them because according to them may be also rape of infidel women not a crime. The 20 million Pakistani Christians are tired of appealing Chief Justice of Supreme Court of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chowdry to take Suo-Motto notice while he ignored rape-murder of Shazia Bashir and burning alive of Kiran George by influential Muslim employers. CJ not heard our appeals to ensure justice for Christian victims of violence by Islamic radical elements in Gojra, Korian and Bahminwala"

That is happening in Pakistan, but the Pakistani government has its ambassador to the UN introducing a resolution to protect -- NOT Christians from being raped and burned alive, but Islam from defamation as Muslims commit these horrific atrocities in the name of Allah.

And this is spreading:

Even if the resolution were moving in the direction of a treaty that would protect all faiths, and not just the Ideology of Armed Conquest Religion of Pieces Peace, it would not be wise. People respecting each other would be great;

However, an international blasphemy treaty with binding effects on domestic laws is not going to assuage secularists or people of faith. Rather it will only create new tensions and further entrench the "religious freedom for me but not for thee" attitude that has increasingly dominated the diplomatic discourse for the past decade.

Additionally, this treaty would empower governments to decide theological questions for believers and would only strengthen the legitimacy of domestic blasphemy laws found in countries like Pakistan and Sudan, where the definition of blasphemy is so broad that the laws are used to settle business disputes.

(From No to an international blasphemy law, March 25, 2010.)

In other words, what Pakistan's ambassador the UN is pushing is essentially carte blanche to continue persecuting infidels in his country.

The simple story here is that many Muslims today are doing exactly what Allah's apostle wanted them to do centuries ago: impose submission on the world around them by any means necessary.

However, centuries ago, Islam's holy warriors found themselves stonewalled by a technologically superior infidel West, and had to take a raincheck on conquering us.

Now, however, they are making great progress.

Why?

Political correctness? Self-destructive socialist policies?

Or, did our balls drop off?

Maybe we are being sold out by those who have taken an oath to protect and preserve our Constitution...?

In early 2008, Chris Deliso did an interview with Scott Horton of Antiwar.com about Deliso's then-recent book, The Coming Balkan Caliphate: The Threat of Radical Islam to Europe and the West.

A book review done by the European Consortium for Political Research Standing Group on Extremism and Democracy in e-Extreme Volume 10, No. 3, September 2009 gives us an idea what the book is about:

The thesis of the book is simple: the misguided US policy, which the author names "Clinton's gift to fundamentalist Islam", is the reason why Islamic radicalism has now swept the Balkans where it is being allowed to grow "as cancer" (the author's metaphor) and become an imminent threat to the West's security.

[snip]

Indeed, a link between Bosnia and Bin Laden was first suggested in reports by security agencies a mere two months after the attacks of 9/11.

Wait a minute!

The link between Bosnia and Bin Laden was not first suggested after 9/11 -- we knew about it nearly five years before!

From Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base, January 16, 1997:

Not Just the Iranians

To understand how the Clinton green light would lead to this degree of Iranian influence, it is necessary to remember that the policy was adopted in the context of extensive and growing radical Islamic activity in Bosnia. That is, the Iranians and other Muslim militants had long been active in Bosnia; the American green light was an important political signal to both Sarajevo and the militants that the United States was unable or unwilling to present an obstacle to those activities -- and, to a certain extent, was willing to cooperate with them. In short, the Clinton Administration's policy of facilitating the delivery of arms to the Bosnian Muslims made it the de facto partner of an ongoing international network of governments and organizations pursuing their own agenda in Bosnia: the promotion of Islamic revolution in Europe. That network involves not only Iran but Brunei, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan (a key ally of Iran), and Turkey, together with front groups supposedly pursuing humanitarian and cultural activities.

That network also involves organized crime, especially narcotics- and arms-traffickers, and groups that traffic women for forced prostitution.

They, together with terrorists, all break laws and hurt people; some for profit, some for Allah, some for both, some just for fun.

The network also includes "charities" and millionaires.

For example, one such group about which details have come to light is the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization which has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia. ["How Bosnia's Muslims Dodged Arms Embargo: Relief Agency Brokered Aid From Nations, Radical Groups," Washington Post, 9/22/96; see also "Saudis Funded Weapons For Bosnia, Official Says: $300 Million Program Had U.S. 'Stealth Cooperation'," Washington Post, 2/2/96] TWRA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Binladen, a wealthy Saudi emigre believed to bankroll numerous militant groups. [WP, 9/22/96]

Wait a minute -- what was that last name?

"Osama Binladen, a wealthy Saudi emigre believed to bankroll numerous militant groups."

And here we supported the rise of these Islamic militants in the 1990's in the Balkans?

Indeed, under Clinton's successor, President George W. Bush, we helped them gain control of a geographic region, Kosovo, and declare independence.

President George W. Bush, Thursday, September 20, 2001:
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Now, I'm confused -- just which side are our politicians on?

We'll consider that question as this series continues.

Conformity

This vid shows a classic experiment.



Here, the experiment has been repeated to see how results change as society changes.



This just seems so pertinent in view of my last post.

The more things change, the more they conform to the way they've always been.

Flies In The Ointment

In a previous post entitled Back-Channel Peace Talks Shut Down - Why?, I finished with this:

By the way, don't think that it is only corrupt elements of Pakistan's government and Islamic extremists who profit by drug trafficking. That money travels from the street, where the drugs are bought, to the fields of Afghanistan, where poppies are grown -- and most of it stops somewhere in between, or gets diverted elsewhere.

And those damned peacetalks with the Taliban were going to ruin all this.

Funny how, after decades supporting militant Islamic extremists and supporting the Taliban, Pakistan's security forces all of a sudden got on-board, coming up with the Taliban's No. 2 guy.

There is an interesting article at Asia Times Online, entitled War and peace: A Taliban view, by Syed Saleem Shahzad, dated March 26, 2010. In it, a spokesman for the Taliban denied the back-channel peace talks:

Mullah Baradar was part of the Taliban and there was no trust deficit between him and Mullah Omar. However, it is entirely false that he was part of any reconciliation process or that he held any talks with anybody.

Hmmm... no back-channel peacetalks?

Part 2 has some interesting information:

I switch topics. "Do you think the conflict in Afghanistan will just go on, and that there is no point in talks?"

The Taliban leader looks into my eyes for a while before answering.

"This all comes from real intentions. They want our defeat, not reconciliation. This talks issue is not a new one. The Taliban talked to the Americans, the Saudis and to the Pakistanis even before 9/11. The Taliban wanted to avoid the war [on Afghanistan in 2001] but we felt that the Americans were bent on a war and wanted to dislodge the Taliban government, and they were looking for some excuse.

"They made an issue of Osama bin Laden's presence in Afghanistan and tightened the noose around the Taliban government. We said that Osama bin Laden was just an individual. For argument's sake, say that tomorrow he died. Would the Taliban government then be acceptable to you? The Americans responded with other issues, women's rights and human rights in Afghanistan, as well as education.

"We replied, 'OK, we will work on mechanisms under which we will take steps for women's education and the improvement of human rights.' What then? The Americans raised another issue, about holding elections. At this point we realized the Americans were only concerned about waging war on Afghanistan for whatever reason. Had 9/11 not happened, they would have found any old excuse to wage war," says Abdullah.

Hmmm... "'any old excuse to wage war,' says Abdullah."

A series entitled "Genesis" was done at another blog based on official US government documents, and the series, with some analysis, led to the conclusion that Pakistan, likely with US support, established the Taliban to stabilize Afghanistan, with an eye towards building a pipeline through the country from Central Asian gas fields to the Pakistani port of Gwadar.

Looking back decades before, to another war and another part of the world, there's a debate about whether the United States had really been caught off-guard at Pearl Harbor, or whether some people high in government had information about an attack, but allowed it to occur so there would be reason for the United States to enter the war, and provide badly needed help in defeating the Axis.

Of course, that could never have happened, and it SURE could never have happened again!

:)

One of the problems with conspiracy theories (there are usually many problems) is that they tend to overestimate the competence of governments.

:|

From 'I Saw Papers That Show US Knew al-Qa'ida Would Attack Cities With Airplanes', dated April 2, 2004:

A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened.

She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie".

Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".

She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."

She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used ­ but not specifically about how they would be used ­ and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities with skyscrapers."

FBI and other government documents, officially released in the course of the Moussaoui trial, specifically and strongly support the assertion that the US government was aware of the danger prior to the attack.

You know, the Taliban were getting in the way of our petroleum deals.

And, in 2001, they had just cracked down on opiate production.

According to information in the Sibel Edmonds case, some of which has now come out through depositions, heroin money was being channeled through Turkish contacts to bribe US government officials, both elected and appointed, from both parties, in the years prior to 9/11. (The Sibel Edmonds case tells us a great deal about this; you can start learning about it here.) Word of the coming terrorist attacks was coming through counternarcotics and counterespionage channels - and, had word gotten out, a lot of US politicians would have been caught with their fingers in a poppy pie!

However, on the other fingers on the other hand, there was no poppy pie, but plenty of fossil fuels: a major terrorist attack on the US would galvanize public opinion to attack Al Qaeda's sponsors, the Taliban. This would pave the way for the pipeline deal to go through. And, for those in the US government receiving bribes from foreign organized crime, it would also allow US troops to protect opiate production from Taliban interference as part of a strategy to win the hearts and minds of Afghan farmers, while blaming resurgent opiate production on Al Qaeda (who, incidentally, does in fact play a role in opiate production and shipment).

From War and peace: A Taliban view, Part 2:

"Once [Mullah Omar] asked Mullah Baradar to meet him, but Baradar replied that he operated in the field and might one day be arrested, and that would compromise Mullah Omar's position. Remember, nobody can isolate Mullah Omar. Everything in the Taliban starts and ends with Mullah Omar's orders," Abdullah says.

Mullah Omar, "commander of the faithful" - the weak link in the Taliban?

Or, The Taliban - fly in the ointment?

Okay, as long as I'm off in the direction of the loony bin, let's go all the way - in for a penny, in for a pound! For conspiracy kooks, there is a series of posts that has to be the Grand Unified Theory of conspiracies. From The Twilight Zone, Part 1, dated February 22, 2008:

The War on Terror is a charade: scratch it once, it comes up Big Oil; scratch it twice, it comes up Big Heroin.

Speaking of conspiracies, the first commentator at the end of The Twilight Zone, Part 1 wrote to the post author:

This is high explosive, YD! Take very good care of yourself.

And now that blogger, the author of that "high explosive" post, has stopped blogging, leaving behind a mysterious comment on how his (or her) email had been subpoenaed:

Another fly in somebody's ointment?

The Sibel Edmonds Deposition

Here are the vids from the Sibel Edmonds deposition, borrowed from a blog I link to in the sidebar.

If you are unfamiliar with the Sibel Edmonds case, you need to watch these, and then keep digging!

Sibel Edmonds Deposition, 8/8/09: PART 1 of 5 from Velvet Revolution on Vimeo.

Sibel Edmonds Deposition, 8/8/09: PART 2 of 5 from Justice Through Music on Vimeo.

Sibel Edmonds Deposition, 8/8/09: PART 3 of 5 from Justice Through Music on Vimeo.

Sibel Edmonds Deposition, 8/8/09: PART 4 of 5 from Justice Through Music on Vimeo.

Sibel Edmonds Deposition, 8/8/09: PART 5 of 5 from Justice Through Music on Vimeo.

Around the Blogosphere

While I am researching and working on new posts, may I suggest that you take a moment and check out some of the other blogs out there?

One of my commentators, J. Michael Kearney, left some very interesting commentary at my previous post. As you can tell from the links, he is quite a thinker and writer. The most recent post at his blog is well worth reading and consideration.

Helmand Blog is updated frequently, telling us the story of British troops in Afghanistan. Please swing by and thank them for what they do and wish them well. The posts there are quite interesting.

Sibel Edmonds can be found at her new location, Boiling Frogs. Great podcast interviews can be found there, as well.

There are plenty of other good links in the sidebar - check 'em out!

Meanwhile, thanks for stopping in, and I'll have some new material up soon.

The Burden on Society, Part 2

We ended Part 1 having established with a quote that "All that is required of the experts is that they should tell us how to ration health care fairly and effectively", and my comment that "Rationing healthcare fairly and effectively means deciding who lives, and who dies."

Currently, the insurance companies essentially decide, for many of us in the US, who lives and who dies -- though with enough money, you can decide these questions yourself.

But with their new "healthcare" program, the Obamanistas and their Clintonite retreads will need to appoint experts to do that now.

Ah, but don't take my word for it. From Health-Care Rationing Is Inevitable, by Knight Kiplinger, Editor in Chief, Kiplinger publications, February, 2010:

Rationing remains the ultimate taboo in the health-care debate. Nobody -- including me -- likes to be told by a health-care funder, whether private or public, that it won't pay for treatment. But I believe that formal rationing will someday take hold in the U.S., regardless of whether pending health-care legislation is enacted. It's a matter of simple affordability. The high cost of wonderful new medical treatments will far exceed our nation's ability to pay for them.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that, at its recent rate of annual growth, the cost of Medicare and Medicaid -- not including privately funded health care in the U.S. -- will triple from 4% of the nation's gross domestic product in 2007 to 12% in 2050, then surge again by half to 19% of GDP in 2082. That 19% would be about the same share of our economy that Washington spends today on all functions of government -- pensions, defense, education and so on.

More ominously, the biggest factor in this crisis won't be the increasing number of Americans on the Medicare and Medicaid rolls. It will be the ever-higher per capita consumption of health care -- people seeking more miracle drugs, more replacement of joints and organs, more of everything. Curbing wasteful medical practices, squeezing doctors and hospitals, and controlling drug prices won't save nearly enough. If unchecked, this situation portends higher taxes and premiums for private insurance, plus the starvation of other societal needs.

Someday, the parties that pay for health care in the U.S. -- rarely the individual patient, most often an employer, its insurer or the government -- will have to create carefully considered cost-benefit analyses for every kind of medical care that might be sought by patients at every stage of life, from prenatal to old age.

These analyses will be crafted by knowledgeable experts -- doctors, economists, bioethicists and actuaries

So, a patient and a doctor will not be making life-or-death decisions, with the patient having the freedom to go to another doctor if she or he does not like the answers of the current doctor. Instead, the government-assigned doctor will consult with economists and other experts as to what is best for society.

Who should live and who should die? What is best for society? Isn't this how the Holocaust really got started?

Ah, but pardon me for interrupting:

These analyses will be crafted by knowledgeable experts -- doctors, economists, bioethicists and actuaries -- with all of us looking over their shoulders and kibitzing. They will decide which therapies are effective or ineffective. They will decide whether society's limited resources should be concentrated -- as now -- on the last stages of long lives or focused on improving the health of children and young adults, who have many more years ahead of them.

The very way that polemic is phrased kind of gives you an idea what answer has already been decided, doesn't it?

(Sorry, Grandpa & Grandma!)

The process will be contentious, but from it will emerge standardized, rational policies for approving or denying payment for a wide variety of medical procedures and drugs, based on the patient's prognosis and age. That's rationing, and most other nations do it now. Patients who want to undergo a procedure that has not been approved will be free to do so in an open, global health-care market -- and pay for it themselves, if they can.

"That's rationing, and most other nations do it now."

So now, instead of trying to be the greatest nation on earth (which every country should seek to do!), we're going to run with the herd, aiming to be no better than Castro's Cuba.

They do (with a note of hope) point out that patients can go to the "global health-care market", and pay for it themselves.

But, they already explained how most other countries ration healthcare, so where can you go? Oh, I forgot -- Cuba.

And, in any case, how can they pay for it on the "open" (socialized) world market, if the government is taking even more of their wealth to pay for an economist to tell them that it is not economical for the government doctor to try to cure them?

Yes, some of our perceived medical needs -- and many of our wants -- won't be met under rationing. Knowing that in advance, perhaps more of us will change the way we live now to reduce our future demand for scarce resources.

Change the way you live now to reduce your future demand for scarce resources.

That's what this is really about!

Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.

And if you choose to smoke, drink, etc., then your demand for scarce resources will go unaddressed.

For the record, I am pro-life, anti-abortion, and undeterred.

However, to those of you who want abortion on demand, consider the following:

Fertility treatment and "social" abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.

Through socialized healthcare, Obama will stab you "pro-choice" people in the back on the abortion issue -- again!

(By the way -- why should we be "pro-choice" when deciding whether a child is born, but not "pro-choice" when deciding what doctor we want to go to?)

It is not medical care that is immediately at stake here. First to go will be your freedom, as they start dictating what doctor you go to, and what lifestyles are unacceptable for those who receive mandatory government medical care.

Next the quality of medical care will go, as medical staff have their salaries cut by the government which employs them, to keep costs down, and as the government decides what treatments you can receive, and what treatments are too costly.

As all this happens, the yearly deficit will skyrocket, and the federal debt will skyrocket (even more so than now) as much of the economy which currently pays taxes will instead be supported by taxes: fewer tax dollars in, and greater expenditures out. This program will be an enormous burden on our society, far greater than any war we've ever fought, far greater than the current welfare state... but wait, there's more!

These skyrocketing costs will lead us to Step Three, when government experts decide who should receive healthcare, and who should just be euthanized -- ah, excuse me, "allowed to commit assisted suicide".

The first victims of the Holocaust were the incurably insane, people suffering from dementias, and so on; they were never going to get better, and they were deemed a "burden on society": why should resources be devoted to them, which could be used to feed healthy Nazi supermen?

And that is what Obamacare will really lead us to: deciding who is a "burden on society", and getting rid of those people. And they have already set the stage for the elderly to line up among the first victims.

America's Holocaust has begun this week -- and it began on our watch.

And that history will be the burden on American society.

So Far From God, Part 1

To begin with, please look over the photos from Boston.com entitled Mexico's drug war.  What you will see there is an increasingly violent, increasingly militarized fight along our southern border.

The situation is in the news more so than usual due to the deaths of three people tied to the US Consulate in Juarez, even though the FBI has said there is no evidence U.S. victims were specifically targeted.  However, there is the conflicting view that the three were killed by a drug gang to send a message to both the Mexican and United States governments.

If this was intended to send a message, then the question arises whether Mexico is losing the war on drugs:

What message did the gunmen intend to send with the murder of the consulate workers? It is a message easily recognized by students of irregular warfare. Insurgents competing with the government for influence over the population have pain as one of the principal tools in their toolbox. Apply the pain in a terrifying manner against even the most imposing symbols of authority -- in this case the U.S. government -- and political results may follow.

Is this the case?

Let's back up to January, 2008:

One year into President Felipe Calderon's crackdown on drug cartels, police and soldiers are confronting heavily-armed commando-style units of gangsters on an almost daily basis. In the first weeks of January, the two sides clashed in deadly firefights in Tijuana, Ciudad Juarez, Rio Bravo and Reynosa on the U.S. border, and even in quaint tourist towns in the heart of Mexico such as Valle del Bravo. The gangsters have also carried out a wave of ambushes and assassinations on security officials, slaying one Tijuana policeman in his home along with his wife and 9-year old daughter. In total, more than 20 police officers, a state judge, dozens of alleged traffickers and at least 10 civilians have been killed in the fighting since the New Year. The violence has also spilled into the U.S., with Mexican police this week arresting an alleged drug trafficker for using a Hummer to run over and kill a Border Patrol Agent in Arizona.

Anti-drug officials believe the uptick in clashes between the police and gunmen of the cartels is a sign that Mexico's long-running drug violence has entered a new phase. Until recently, most fighting had involved rival traffickers battling over turf, but today most of the violence is between the federal government and the gangsters. The year-long government crackdown has seriously rattled the cartels, the officials say, and they are making an orchestrated attempt to get the government to back off.

"When you see the killings, the cartels are trying to make a statement to the authorities not to interfere with their enterprises. And they are also trying to send a message to the public saying they are in control," said a U.S. anti-drug official, who asked that his name be withheld for security reasons. "It's a P.R. campaign. But it's not going to work. Because, quite frankly, this country has a new sheriff."

So, a little over two years ago, we were being told that the Mexican government was the "new sheriff."  But, is that changing?  In other words, is the strategy of the cartels - to gain political results through terrorism - paying off?

Back to This Week at War: Is This the Week Mexico Lost the Drug War?:

In Juárez, this tactic might be working. Despite Calderón's addition of 10,000 federal troops, Juárez has already suffered 500 murders in 2010. According to articles in both the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, many residents of Juárez have had enough of Calderón's war on the cartels. The president arrived for his third visit in a month, promising a list of social programs in addition to the military campaign. But, according to the Los Angeles Times, Calderón was met with nervous and angry protesters, calling for a return to the more peaceful days before he became president.

That's just terrific. Drug cartels are killing people right and left, the government is doing its job trying to establish security, and the people blame the government!

That's so bad, I had to do a double-take: it's the kind of thing I would expect out of people on my side of the border!

Three years into Calderón's escalation, an increasing number of Mexicans may now conclude that the only path to greater peace may be accommodation with the cartels. With their ability to apply intense pain and also distribute their massive revenues within some of Mexico's neighborhoods, the cartels are in a good position to sway public opinion toward a truce. Calderón sought to establish the state's authority as supreme. Juárez could instead show him what defeat looks like.

So, surrender to narcotraffickers is becoming politically palatable.

If the government of Mexico loses Ciudad Juarez, where will it end?

In this series, we'll take a look at what is happening along our southern border, and consider the implications for US security, and for the security of our allies, most notably for Mexico.

Meanwhile, may I suggest for further information an interactive that addresses the cartels and their business, Mexican Cartels:  Drug organizations extending reach farther into US, and a series of photos with captions entitled Mexico Under Seige.

Part 2.

Size Matters

I couldn't have made this one up if I had tried.

From Saudi Arabia Refuses Pakistani Diplomat Over Vulgar Name Translation, dated February 14th:

In an unfortunate result of translation, Pakistani diplomat Akbar Zeb will not become the next Pakistani ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Zeb's credentials seem in order: He is the former ambassador to the United States, India and South Africa. He held the post of High Commissioner Designate of Pakistan to Canada and is the former director general of Pakistan's Foreign Ministry.

But despite Mr. Zeb's impressive career, the 55-year-old diplomat's name proved to be the immovable hurdle. When translated into Arabic, Akbar Zeb means "Biggest Dick." In a region that stresses modesty, particularly in public, this could not stand.

You know, at least in English, the translation could be taken in more than one way.

Fox News carried the story, too:

A high-ranking Pakistani diplomat reportedly cannot be appointed ambassador to Saudi Arabia because in Arabic his name translates into a phrase more appropriate for a porn star, referring to the size of male genitals, Foreign Policy reported.

The Arabic transaltion of Akbar Zeb to "biggest d**k" has overwhelmed Saudi officials who have refused to allow his post there.

Zeb has run into this problem before when Pakistan tried to appoint him as ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, where he was rejected for the same reason, according to Foreign Policy.

Ah - but then the story turned out not to be true:

I wrote last week about Pakistan's High Commissioner to Canada Akbar Zeb's reported rejection as ambassador to Saudi Arabia due to the unfortunate Arabic translation of his name as "biggest dick." Alas, the story turns out to be false: Mr. Zeb has responded, saying that the press reports are nothing more than "a practical joke someone played on the Internet." Zeb denies that he was ever considered for an ambassadorial position in Saudi Arabia; lending credence to his account, he has only been stationed in Ottawa for nine months of a planned three-year assignment, and Pakistan's ambassador to Saudi Arabia is only four months into his tenure.

Maimoona Amjad, the press counsellor for Pakistan's High Commission in Ottawa, also confirmed to FP that the story was untrue. There is "no question that he will accept a post anywhere but Canada," she said, referring to the rumor as "completely baseless" and "rubbish."

The story seems to have originated with this Arab Times article, and spread like wildfire throughout the English-language press from there. Let this be a lesson: Don't believe everything you read in print. Sometimes, the press gets hold of a story and, before checking all the facts, goes off half-cocked.

________

"half-cocked"?

________

Do you get it?

________

You know, we could pick some obscure language -- or better yet, pick a constructed language (like Esperanto) -- and say that "Barack Obama" means thus-and-such, or "Nancy Pelosi" really means this-and-that, and see how much mileage we get from the story.

________

Klingon! That's it! Klingon!!

Did you know that "Hillary Clinton" means "Corrupt, incompetent she-devil" in Klingon?

________

And, did you know that "Joe Biden" means "Second-fiddle to somebody's puppet" in Glossolalian?

________

Did you know that in Jibberishese, "Barack Hussein" means "Big change bigger problem"?

And, "Obama" means "One big-ass mistake, America"!

No, really!

________

Big change, bigger problem, bi-i-i-ig mistake!

(And, after all, size matters!)

The Burden on Society, Part 1

The healthcare system in the US sucks.

To understand why, let us review excerpts from The paradox of US healthcare by Andrew Kennis, found in Al Jazeera from November 9, 2009, interspersed with my comments.

For nearly two decades, Wendell Potter led a very comfortable life as a public relations health insurance executive.

However, while flying on a corporate jet and being served lunch on gold-rimmed china with gold-plated cutlery, Potter had an epiphany of sorts.

He realised that the reason why millions of Americans were without health insurance or under-insured was because: "Our Wall Street-driven healthcare system has created one of the most inequitable healthcare systems on the planet."

This June, Potter left his well-paid and secure job at CIGMA, one of the US's largest health insurance companies, and has spoken out in favour of healthcare reform.

'Killing thousands'

With almost 50 million people living without any health insurance and another 25 million people under-insured during a recession, the debate about how to reform the US healthcare system has been underway for many months in Washington and is expected to continue through to the end of the year.

Since leaving CIGMA Potter become a whistleblower and is now speaking out against industry abuses on national television news shows.

He does not mince words when telling Al Jazeera that if a strong "public option" is not passed by Congress, healthcare executives would be effectively allowed to continue policies that "literally kill thousands of Americans every year, through denied coverage, as a result of relentless pressure coming from Wall Street".

Americans are not dying from lack of healthcare insurance.

Americans are dying from lack of adequate medical care (among other things).

There is a difference between paying an insurance company, and getting adequate medical care when needed. However, Americans seem to have forgotten this.

It used to be that Americans had more buying power, which came from higher-paying jobs, for example, in manufacturing. These jobs have been globalized, and sent overseas. Why pay an American worker dollars an hour, when you can pay de facto slave laborers in a foreign country cents an hour? Also, as the tax system has become more and more oppressive, Americans keep less and less of the fruits of their labor.

Oh, some people might say that they actually get back everything from the IRS, or that they don't pay taxes, but this misses the point. There would be more jobs, and the jobs there are would pay more, if the government weren't sucking the life blood out of the business sector. People who don't have a job and who get a government check for not working pay the ultimate income tax, as they are denied the self-esteem (not to mention the chance to build a better tomorrow) by being locked into a government program which will never allow them to get ahead. So, they take the narcotic of a government check, and wait for their next fix.

Back in the day, if, in a family, there were two jobs being worked, it was so the family could get ahead -- maybe buy a vacation home, or send a kid to college. Now, it is not uncommon for both a husband and a wife to be working, just to keep the family's collective head above water. A situation where the two people work three jobs between them is hardly rare. And, difficult indeed is the situation for a family with only one adult working -- say, a working mom supporting a child.

When people had more money, they paid doctors, nurses and some receptionists/administrators directly -- low overhead. Now, though, there are big buildings full of insurance company bureaucrats and administrators, all of whom need a cubicle to sit at, a computer to work on -- oh, and health care insurance! -- which gets paid for by our healthcare dollars. On top of that, the government has other such buildings, and dollars that could go to pay for medical care has to pay for all these guys, too.

That is why Americans are...

Paying more, getting less

About 50 million Americans are without health insurance. In the meantime, the US continues to be the country with the highest proportion of uninsured people in the developed world. It also has the distinction of spending a greater portion of its total economic output on healthcare than any other developed country - just over 17 per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP) last year.

On average, the US spends twice as much as other developed countries on healthcare.

But even though US citizens pay more for healthcare, they get less of it, resulting in a lowly 37th place ranking among healthcare systems in the world, according to a study by the World Health Organization based on quality and fairness.

What the socialists in Washington are giving us is more of the problem: more bureaucrats, more administrators, more insurance... most emphatically not more doctors and nurses.

The Al Jazeera article goes on to extol the benefits of socialized medicine.

The fact of the matter is that this is everything that was wrong with the Soviet Union, this is everything that is still wrong with Cuba....

Wait until the problem gets worse, and they begin to....

But wait, wait! I cannot divulge what the future holds.

Let us instead consider the past:

The NHS cannot, and never has been able to, offer every treatment to everyone who needs it.

The NHS is funded from taxes, and it spends more than £42bn every year - £779 for every person in the UK. But it is not a bottomless pit of funds and some treatments have to be restricted.

Raising taxes to pay for every possible need is politically unthinkable, as it would require a massive increase in income tax to raise enough revenue to make a significant difference to spending.

This means some treatments have to be restricted, or rationed.

Rationed healthcare?

But of course!

The healthcare climate in the United Kingdom is insular. It lives in a storm zone of its own creation: the National Health Service. Everything revolves around the myth of the NHS. In politics, openly expressed doubts about its absolute and eternal validity will cast a politician into outer darkness. Even the Thatcher government—the most radical in the UK since the Attlee government of 1945-50 which set up the NHS—had to struggle desperately to prove to an incredulous electorate in the 1980s that 'The NHS is safe in our hands'. Belief in a myth will permit the faithful to discount reality. That is not being flippant. The rationing climate in the UK is tied to the myth of the NHS, its inviolability, and its ultimate sanctity in the eyes of the people and of health experts alike. The myth dictates that rationing is worth enduring if it will help to keep the NHS virginally 'intact'. Of course, everybody knows that the NHS is underfunded and that rationing is therefore inevitable. All that is required of the experts is that they should tell us how to ration health care fairly and effectively.

Rationing healthcare fairly and effectively means deciding who lives, and who dies.

After Us The Dominoes

Here's an interesting video, which has been widely viewed.



Jingoistic? Propagandistic?

Call it what you want, important ideas are communicated.

America is an exceptional nation.

We were the first colony to declare its independence from Europe. After us the dominoes started to fall; we led they way.

We were the first nation to establish a new form of government, a republic which protected the rights of its citizens, with democratic principles, so the people could participate in government through representatives. With the birth of our nation, the absolute powers of kings and tyrants began to be relegated to the trashheap of history. After us the dominoes started to fall; we led they way.

Together with our allies, we led the way toward the defeat, first of fascism, then of communism.

We have led in technology, industry, and science; we have led in human rights, finance and space exploration.

Ours is a country "of the people, by the people and for the people", where WE THE PEOPLE are in charge of our own government.

But, we are only people, and people are not perfect.

Our country has made many mistakes. There have been times when we have led, but going the wrong way.

Tomorrow's history is being made today.

Today's decisions determine whether our children will have an economic future worth having, or continue to be born deep in debt with opportunities limited through excessive taxation, socialism and globalization of our economy.

Today's decisions determine whether our nation will continue to be one where the people have inalienable rights, where an individual accused of crimes by the government may count on a presumption of innocence and a fair trial, or whether rendition and torture will become the norm.

Today's decisions determine whether our government officials will be responsible for upholding our Constitution and abiding by the law themselves, or whether they and their cronies will impose their will upon us, making us live in a draconian and corrupt police state, with them invading our privacy and asserting their privilege to not have to hear our complaints.

The day will come, and may indeed come sooner than we think, when Humanity in general, and America in particular, will be judged; and make no mistake about it, that judgement will be based on the actions of each and every one of us.

The day will come when each and every one of us will have to answer for our actions -- and for our inactions.

"I have created you, and I have endowed you with certain inalienable rights, and among these have been life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have offered you the sure mercies of My servant David, and, like him, I have established you as a witness to the people, a leader and a commander for the people. What have you done with this opportunity?"

Choose a direction, then lead.

Decide and act wisely, because after America, the dominoes will start to fall.

Islam, Not Extremism, Is The Problem

Family Security Matters has a post which links to a video produced by Americans for Peace and Tolerance.

The video is fairly short, and very interesting.



My thoughts after viewing it:

1. This jihadism isn't happening by accident. There are links between the terrorists here in the US, and the terrorists overseas. These people run in the same circles, and they have a common ideology.

2. Too many of our "religious" establishments that advocate the "Religion of Peace" are tied to organizations that have advocated the destruction of everything America has ever stood for.

This post is not a blanket condemnation of all Muslims. I know there are good people who are Muslims, and who really believe that theirs is a religion of peace. In fact, Americans for Peace and Tolerance, the organization which made the above video, apparently includes such people.

But Islam is not a "religion of peace". Islam is an expansionist political/philosophical doctrine, an ideology of totalitarianism and armed conquest.

Muslims who are "radical", "militant" or "extremist" are only symptoms; the disease is the Islam.

The situation is very much a parallel with Nazism. There were people who joined the Nazi party because of positive things they thought they heard the Nazis advocating. Not every Nazi had a personal hand in organizing the Holocaust. But, the Nazi Party itself, and the people who founded it and ran it, were the problem.

In the same way, Islam is a dangerous ideology, and these mullahs that preach death and destruction and the fire for us brothers and sisters of apes and pigs are not holy men the way a Buddhist monk is a holy man.

As soon as their brothers come to power, those good people who are Muslims that I mentioned above will either change their viewpoint, or they will share in our fate -- just like what happened to too many good people in Germany in the Nazi era. Their brothers have a name for good people who are Muslims: Takfir.

Let's get our heads out of our asses and call a spade "a spade": Islam is a totalitarian ideology of armed conquest, seeking complete domination of the body and mind in the here-and-now, and of the soul in the hereafter; in other words, Islam sucks.

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

(From Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad), Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220)

Important Movie at Atlas Shrugs

Don't waste your time here. Go over to Pam's blog and watch this movie. Watch the whole thing. It takes about two hours. It's pretty important.

Please comment on it over there, but give me a heads-up here to check there for comments.

Forced Conversion to Islam in UK Prisons

There is a post over at Tea and Politics linking to an article at the Times of India:

Muslim gangs imposing sharia law in UK prisons

LONDON: Radical Muslim gangs are imposing a form of sharia law inside some of Britain’s prisons, a BBC investigation has found.

According to one former prison officer, younger prisoners are particularly targeted for forced conversion to Islam by these gangs. The officer believes that they go along out of fear and intimidation.

He says that one Catholic prisoner who refused to convert was seriously assaulted after being repeatedly threatened by the gang. The officer's testimony is consistent with findings by the official prison watchdog, the chief inspector of prisons.

In a report last year, the inspector, Anne Owers, quoted a number of prisoners at Long Lartin about the increasing dominance of Muslim gangs in the jail. According to The Telegraph, two Muslim former prisoners claimed in the BBC programme that Muslims "run" some London jails and describe how they watched al-Qaida videos in their cells, brought in by corrupt prison officers.

Basically, a gang culture is being established in UK prisons, much like that which exists in many American prison systems. A big difference, however, is that it is the Religion of Peace that is becoming the dominant gang.

Read about this at BBC, Freethinker, and The Telegraph.

Just another example of how the indigenous population of the UK is being replaced. Read my previous post, and the linked information there, and tell me if these prisoners' human rights as defined by the UN aren't being violated in the UK prison system.

UK: Population Replacement in England Protested

An interesting post over at Gates of Vienna prompted me to begin following the story of population replacement in some parts of the UK.

First, please review this excerpt from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (emphasis added):

Article 5

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.
Article 6

Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality.
Article 7

1. Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person.

2. Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly removing children of the group to another group.
Article 8

1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.

2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:

(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;

(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;

(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;

(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;

(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.

Now, please watch the following movie, and see if there is any evidence of violations of this declaration:



The British National Party (BNP) is controversial, to say the least. In the media, they are painted as right-wing extremists -- as opposed to the "moderates" in British society.

But, do they represent an indigenous population (English or Welsh, for example) which is being relegated to minority status in its own homeland? And, if so, do they not have a right to peacefully publicize this, and perhaps even peacefully protest it?

Perhaps the "moderates" are in fact racists, Anglophobes, bent on the destruction of English culture by a deliberate program of population replacement, a policy of immigration of ethnically distinct populations with an imperialist religious and political ideology the very name of which means "submission"?

Here are excerpts from Dozens arrested as anti-Muslim English Defence League protestors battle rivals, which covers an event from today in Bolton, Lancashire:

Riot police have been battling to control thousands of rival demonstrators taking part in an ill-tempered city centre protest organised by a controversial right-wing group.

Hundreds of officers, some horse-mounted and armed with batons, were separating supporters the English Defence League (EDL) and members of Unite Against Fascism (UAF).

A number of officers have been injured in ugly clashes and two members of the public were taken to a shop for treatment after being caught up in the trouble. A series of smoke bombs were also set off as UAF groups chanted "fascist scum off our streets".

A police helicopter has been dispatched to assist the officers on the ground.

The EDL organised the rally in Bolton, Lancashire, to protest against "radical Muslims" and Sharia law, but so far they have been out-numbered by more than 2,000 anti-fascist UAF supporters who organised a counter-protest.

So, the EDL showed up, and was outnumbered and shouted down by the UAF.

The comments at the end of the article are perhaps more interesting. Many of them are anti-EDL, but not all; here are two that were not:

Carl Clarkson wrote:
It seems that the majority of the violence is (once again) coming solely from the UAF, with over 33 UAF members being arrested in Bolton including the UAF leader who organised the protest. The UAF state on their website "The EDL are violent racist hooligans", yet the violence is being generated by the UAF in order to provoke violence from the EDL.
This tactic being used by the UAF of provoking violence from the EDL then enables the UAF to sustain the myth of "The EDL are violent racist hooligans". This is parallel to the fact that the UAF also infiltrated the EDL with subversives who where spamming the Nazi salute.
As proven the UAF are hypocrites. Yet the EDL continually promote peaceful protesting. Protesting against radical and extreme Muslims who infiltrate England and send out terror messages by attacking innocent people within England on the buses, tubes and airports.
The EDL are HERO'S for standing up and saying, 'Enough is Enough'. If the Government would have taken action when asked to do so in the beginning then no protesting would be necessary. These demonstrations will only get bigger, stronger and louder until the Government has no option but to listen.
March 20, 2010 4:27 PM GMT

Rick Raider wrote:
We the English have the right to demonstrate on our streets about the Islamification of our land. That is neither fascist or racist it is a genuine concern and must be addressed. We do not want swathes of our homeland turned over to religious zealots who have no respect for us or our culture. No other country in the world would put up with this. The sooner we show the Islamists that they are not welcome in this country the safer we all will be. Weyman Bennett the leader of the UAF the real fascists here is a communist agitator not some unbiased concerned individual, so I wish the media would stop interviewing him, as he is certainly not credible.
March 20, 2010 4:24 PM GMT

This one was interesting, as it seems to condemn both sides:

Mike McKenna wrote:
While I was at university last year, I signed up to the 'Hope not Hate' campaign, but have swiftly become disillusioned with it.

Like many others, I have scratched beneath the surface of the EDL and been appalled by what I have found (undeniable links to the NF for a start), and along with the rise of the BNP, I felt the need to take a stand. However, any democracy MUST be based on freedom of speech.

Unfortunately, the UAF and similar groups seem to want drown out anybody with an opinion they don't agree with, which stemmed back to Griffin going on QT.

The way to defeat the Far Right is simply to let them open their mouths, and then anihilate their argument. They aren't exactly reknowned for their intelligence, are they?

But the comments here in defence of the EDL are wide of the mark. Some of the chants you hear from their marches are right out of the old NF reportoire.
March 20, 2010 4:21 PM GMT

Here is a comment that received a great deal of approval:

Common Sense wrote:
The left are the real fascists in this country, deceitful and hypercritical. It always seems to be the rent a mob UAF that causes the trouble. At least with the right, you generally know what they stand for and can make a reasonable decision to disagree with them. The lines of extremism are becoming blurred, I'm no racist but I would not condone extremist Islam or Sharia law, and last time I checked, a religion was not a race, so where does racism come into it. You have to ask the question though, why are other immigrant 'races' not being 'targeted' in such marches?...perhaps because they have made an effort to be British in Britain.
March 20, 2010 4:51 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (42)

Islam is not a race. It is said to be a religion, but it is most emphatically an ideology of armed conquest with an ultimate goal of world domination -- not just in the here-and-now, but in the hereafter, as well.

Meanwhile, peaceful people in the UK, be they descendents of people who settled those islands long ago -- the indigenous people -- or be they more recent immigrants, are being bullied into submission amid violence, crime and officialized oppression; while more and more immigrants arrive to further the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Great Britain, more and more of the indigenous people leave their homeland.

Please read Pamela Geller's article about this event.

Lebensraum, ethnic cleansing -- population replacement by any other name is still a crime against humanity.