H/T De Telegraaf(NL)
COPENHAGEN - Denmark has, because of the commotion surrounding the Mohammed cartoons, rescinded an announced debt relief package for Sudan. The Danish Minister for Development Cooperation said Thursday on national television that it involved an amount of over 370 million dollars.
Denmarks reaction is the result of a boycott of Danish products in Sudan. The Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir made known Wednesday that no Dane may set foot on Sudanese soil. He had already prohibited the import of Danish products.
An estimated 10,000 Sudanese protested Wednesday in the capital Khartum against the republication in Denmark of the controversial of the Mohammed cartoons.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts
And I thought it was just me who thought liberals were irrational and hypocritical as hell.
Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts
Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder
Posted: February 15, 2008
3:40 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.
"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."
For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.
Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.
"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."
Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
* creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
* satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
* augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
* rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
Emphasis is mine, Liberal psychopathology courtesy of Trudeau.
Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts
Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder
Posted: February 15, 2008
3:40 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.
"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."
For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.
Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.
"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."
Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
* creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
* satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
* augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
* rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
Emphasis is mine, Liberal psychopathology courtesy of Trudeau.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Life's a gas(explosion) apparently!
Gasexplosie in Lyon: 1 dead and 36 injured
H/T De Pers
By: Peter van der Ploeg / Novum
Published: 19:11 today(GMT)
Update: 20:48 today(GMT)
A gas explosion Thursday in the centre of the French city of Lyon have left one person dead and 36 injured. This is what the local authorities said.
The explosion was caused by road repairs in the Cours Lafayette; A repair crew accidentally hit a gas pipeline. The fire department was working to evacuate a nearby building when the building burst into flames as a result of the explosion. One of the firefighters in the building was killed. Among the wounded are five officers and fourteen firefighters. Of the injured, two are in critical condition. Minister of Internal Affairs Michèle Alliot-Marie went to the site of the accident and spoke with the wounded.
Alliot-Marie told the French newspaper Le Monde that gas had accumulated in a parking garage. She said it also regretted that not all security measures were taken. The minister wants to see how the security of the pipelines can be improved. Especially because in October 2007 in Seine-Saint-Denis there was similar accident.
Meanwhile in Chicago
Explosion injures six and wrecks stores in Illinois
H/T De Pers
By: Peter van der Ploeg / Novum
Published: 19:11 today(GMT)
Update: 20:48 today(GMT)
A gas explosion Thursday in the centre of the French city of Lyon have left one person dead and 36 injured. This is what the local authorities said.
The explosion was caused by road repairs in the Cours Lafayette; A repair crew accidentally hit a gas pipeline. The fire department was working to evacuate a nearby building when the building burst into flames as a result of the explosion. One of the firefighters in the building was killed. Among the wounded are five officers and fourteen firefighters. Of the injured, two are in critical condition. Minister of Internal Affairs Michèle Alliot-Marie went to the site of the accident and spoke with the wounded.
Alliot-Marie told the French newspaper Le Monde that gas had accumulated in a parking garage. She said it also regretted that not all security measures were taken. The minister wants to see how the security of the pipelines can be improved. Especially because in October 2007 in Seine-Saint-Denis there was similar accident.
Meanwhile in Chicago
Explosion injures six and wrecks stores in Illinois
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Another Enemy Propagandist (CTV Journalist) Detained by U.S. Forces?
H/T The Jawa Report
I'm shocked,..SHOCKED I TELL YOU, that a Left-wing, liberal humping Canadian TV network would have a Taliban sympathizer in its employ. How could this have happened? DUH!!
The U.S. military confirmed yesterday that it was holding an Afghan reporter, Jawad Ahmad [pictured right], because of his extensive ties to the Taliban. Jawad was a stringer for Canadian Television (CTV).
Apparently his cell phone had Taliban phone numbers on them and indicated that the journalist had done extensive interviews with them. He also was in possession of Taliban propaganda videos.
Have we just met the Afghani Bilal Hussein?
Reporters Without Borders, of course, is outraged that a journalist--a journalist!--is being detained. After all, aren't all journalist--journalists!--immune from any and all suspicion?
To be honest, this may be one time (finally) that Reporters Without Borders has something intelligent to say (maybe). I have Taliban phone numbers and plenty of Taliban propaganda on my computer. Granted, I've never actually given Zahidullah Mujahid or Qari Mohammad Yousuf a phone call, but still I have them. Our friends at the NEFA Foundation have. They certainly aren't rooting for the Taliban.
I'm not a fan of media types doing interviews with the Taliban, but it's common practise. AP, AFP, & Reuters routinely quote Qari Mohammed Yousef.
Read more...
Brrrrrrrrrrr!
H/T Daily Express
21.02.08, 1:14am
Brrr!
Steve Forbes 03.10.08, 12:00 AM ET
Bill Clinton recently brought up the idea that we might have to slow down the U.S. economy to cut back on greenhouse emissions in order to save the planet from global warming. Less prosperity will be our salvation! Putting aside the former President's preposterous proposition and despite all the concern over rising temperatures, even Bill Clinton's heated rhetoric won't spare us from a more likely threat: abnormally cold weather.
Astonishingly, a growing body of research has found that changes in sunspot activity directly correlate with temperature changes on Earth. Solar cycles usually fluctuate every 11 years. Alas, sunspot activity has been rather quiet recently. If it doesn't pick up in a couple of years we could be in for a long-term cooling the likes of which has not been experienced since the so-called Little Ice Age more than 300 years ago. That period was marked by frigid bouts of weather that devastated crops and led to periodic famines. Back then, for instance, London's Thames River often froze, whereas today that body of water gets ice only when it's spilled overboard by revelers on boating excursions. And guess what? The last big freeze came after the kind of sunspot abnormality that may be unfolding now.
In contrast, a proved correlation between temperature changes and carbon dioxide is almost nonexistent. Turns out that the sun has been quite active in the last half-century or so, hence the slight rise in global temperatures.
Other factors in temperature changes include changes in the Earth's axis, in ocean currents and in the salinity of the Arctic Ocean. Volcanoes can also have a dramatic short-term impact on temperatures. But carbon dioxide? No way.
Hurting Us for Nothing:
All of which should make congress pause before doing real economic damage in the name of saving us from Al Gore's hallucinations. One of the most damaging proposals is a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The idea is that each year the government will mandate an overall amount of permissible emissions. This cap will gradually be reduced, which, in turn, will pressure businesses to reduce their output of greenhouse gases. A company, such as a utility plant, that cuts back its emissions could sell its credits to an outfit that wants to build a facility that would emit the gases.
Apart from the fact there's no proof carbon dioxide has any impact on global temperatures, a cap-and-trade system will create an economic disaster. The government--i.e., politics--will decide how quotas are allocated. Already a bevy of companies like DuPont and Duke Energy are proffering ideas on how to do this--ideas that just happen to have particular benefits for them. The artificial scarcity cap-and-trade creates will increase the cost of energy and electricity, making U.S. companies less competitive at a time of intensifying global competition. The EU has had a cap-and-trade system since 2005, and it has already boosted power prices between 5% and 10%.
Fraud will become a fact of life. Plants in developing countries that claim they've reduced emissions are selling credits, but in many cases the reductions are fictions.
Moreover, a cap-and-trade program doesn't work. In 2006 emissions in EU countries participating in the cap-and-trade program went up while U.S. emissions went down. In other words, free-market pricing leads to fewer outputs of carbon. EU bureaucrats are busily revising their scheme. It turns out they set their cap too high. But revamping the project has raised a storm of protest from European industrialists--they fear the extra costs will force them to move facilities elsewhere.
Cap-and-trade is one European import we should do without
21.02.08, 1:14am
Brrr!
Steve Forbes 03.10.08, 12:00 AM ET
Bill Clinton recently brought up the idea that we might have to slow down the U.S. economy to cut back on greenhouse emissions in order to save the planet from global warming. Less prosperity will be our salvation! Putting aside the former President's preposterous proposition and despite all the concern over rising temperatures, even Bill Clinton's heated rhetoric won't spare us from a more likely threat: abnormally cold weather.
Astonishingly, a growing body of research has found that changes in sunspot activity directly correlate with temperature changes on Earth. Solar cycles usually fluctuate every 11 years. Alas, sunspot activity has been rather quiet recently. If it doesn't pick up in a couple of years we could be in for a long-term cooling the likes of which has not been experienced since the so-called Little Ice Age more than 300 years ago. That period was marked by frigid bouts of weather that devastated crops and led to periodic famines. Back then, for instance, London's Thames River often froze, whereas today that body of water gets ice only when it's spilled overboard by revelers on boating excursions. And guess what? The last big freeze came after the kind of sunspot abnormality that may be unfolding now.
In contrast, a proved correlation between temperature changes and carbon dioxide is almost nonexistent. Turns out that the sun has been quite active in the last half-century or so, hence the slight rise in global temperatures.
Other factors in temperature changes include changes in the Earth's axis, in ocean currents and in the salinity of the Arctic Ocean. Volcanoes can also have a dramatic short-term impact on temperatures. But carbon dioxide? No way.
Hurting Us for Nothing:
All of which should make congress pause before doing real economic damage in the name of saving us from Al Gore's hallucinations. One of the most damaging proposals is a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The idea is that each year the government will mandate an overall amount of permissible emissions. This cap will gradually be reduced, which, in turn, will pressure businesses to reduce their output of greenhouse gases. A company, such as a utility plant, that cuts back its emissions could sell its credits to an outfit that wants to build a facility that would emit the gases.
Apart from the fact there's no proof carbon dioxide has any impact on global temperatures, a cap-and-trade system will create an economic disaster. The government--i.e., politics--will decide how quotas are allocated. Already a bevy of companies like DuPont and Duke Energy are proffering ideas on how to do this--ideas that just happen to have particular benefits for them. The artificial scarcity cap-and-trade creates will increase the cost of energy and electricity, making U.S. companies less competitive at a time of intensifying global competition. The EU has had a cap-and-trade system since 2005, and it has already boosted power prices between 5% and 10%.
Fraud will become a fact of life. Plants in developing countries that claim they've reduced emissions are selling credits, but in many cases the reductions are fictions.
Moreover, a cap-and-trade program doesn't work. In 2006 emissions in EU countries participating in the cap-and-trade program went up while U.S. emissions went down. In other words, free-market pricing leads to fewer outputs of carbon. EU bureaucrats are busily revising their scheme. It turns out they set their cap too high. But revamping the project has raised a storm of protest from European industrialists--they fear the extra costs will force them to move facilities elsewhere.
Cap-and-trade is one European import we should do without
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
So Much for Global Warming
Ht FrontPage Magazine Magazine
By Phil Brennan
NewsMax.com | Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?
Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.
Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of sceptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.
The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.
Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.
As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the sceptics.
Read more...
If global warming gets any worse we'll all freeze to death.
By Phil Brennan
NewsMax.com | Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?
Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.
Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of sceptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.
The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.
Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.
As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the sceptics.
Read more...
If global warming gets any worse we'll all freeze to death.
Danish Cartoonist of Muhammad Fame Now Homeless
H/T Spiegel Online
Two years ago Kurt Westergaard was in his Copenhagen home drawing pictures. One of them was of the Muslim prophet, Muhammad. Now Westergaard is homeless.
Draw a picture offencive to Muslim extremists, and you might find yourself without a roof. Ask Kurt Westergaard, one of the twelve Danish cartoonists whose autumn 2005 Muhammad caricatures lead to violent protests throughout the Muslim world. He was booted from his police-protected hotel room on Feb. 15 for being "too much of a security risk." And now the 73-year-old cartoonist and his wife are without a place to live.
Westergaard was forced to leave his actual residence in November after the Danish security and intelligence agency, PET, informed him of a "concrete" plan to murder him, according to the paper that originally published the cartoons, Jyllands-Posten. Westergaard and his wife have been living under police protection since.
Read more...
This is yet another tactic of islamists, namely the threats. By threatening anyone who speaks out, they are creating a situation that eventually becomes unbearable to those around the victim and to the state who has to protect them(security is very expensive) from radical islam. Hirshi Ali is a perfect example in that she is with out a permanent home and virtually bankrupt as governments have withdrawn their security from her, essentially leaving her open to muslim attack.
Two years ago Kurt Westergaard was in his Copenhagen home drawing pictures. One of them was of the Muslim prophet, Muhammad. Now Westergaard is homeless.
Draw a picture offencive to Muslim extremists, and you might find yourself without a roof. Ask Kurt Westergaard, one of the twelve Danish cartoonists whose autumn 2005 Muhammad caricatures lead to violent protests throughout the Muslim world. He was booted from his police-protected hotel room on Feb. 15 for being "too much of a security risk." And now the 73-year-old cartoonist and his wife are without a place to live.
Westergaard was forced to leave his actual residence in November after the Danish security and intelligence agency, PET, informed him of a "concrete" plan to murder him, according to the paper that originally published the cartoons, Jyllands-Posten. Westergaard and his wife have been living under police protection since.
Read more...
This is yet another tactic of islamists, namely the threats. By threatening anyone who speaks out, they are creating a situation that eventually becomes unbearable to those around the victim and to the state who has to protect them(security is very expensive) from radical islam. Hirshi Ali is a perfect example in that she is with out a permanent home and virtually bankrupt as governments have withdrawn their security from her, essentially leaving her open to muslim attack.
Islamic Multiculturalism
H/T Europe News
AINA February 11 2008
By Jamie Glazov
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Abul Kasem, an ex-Muslim who is the author of hundreds of articles and several books on Islam including, Women in Islam. He was a contributor to the book Leaving Islam – Apostates Speak Out as well as to Beyond Jihad: Critical Views From Inside Islam.
FP: Abul Kasem, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Kasem: Thank you for having me back Jamie.
FP: There is the reality and policy of Western multiculturalism. There is also the agenda of Islamic multiculturalism. Introduce the concept to us.
Kasem: Many western governments have a lofty ideal—to create a society, where people of different race, religion, culture, and tradition live together in peace and harmony, without losing their root identity. For many years, this policy has sprouted large-scale migration from many impoverished Islamic nations to wealthy countries, such as the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, New Zealand, and a few European nations.
Happily adopting this Kafir (Islamic term for non-Muslim) multiculturalism, many migrants have successfully integrated with the host nation. This has enhanced their life style, quality of living, and a good perception of human bondage. They are pleased to practice their respective religions with full freedom, and maintain their tradition and culture without encroaching on others’ freedom to do so. There is, however, one exception—Islam. Islam is at odds with this Kafir Multiculturalism, even though Muslims use this policy to their advantage.
The Kafir Multiculturalism promotes religious tolerance, freedom of expression, and democracy. It accords equal opportunity for all, irrespective of race religion, ethnic origin, gender, and sexual orientation. In this policy of Kafir Multiculturalism, the Islamists have found a great opportunity to advance their agenda—to create a pan Islamic world. All the cardinal principles of Kafir Multiculturalism are working in favor of the Islamists. That is why all Islamists are in full support of Kafir Multiculturalism.
But Islamists’ support of Kafir Multiculturalism is just a deceptive ploy to hide their real motives. Behind the veneer of their broad smile, talk of peace, love for freedom and interfaith understanding, there is a vicious plan. This plan is the design to replace the Kafir Multiculturalism with Islamic Multiculturalism. This is similar to the Islamists’ attempt to replace the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 with the 1981 Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. We should have no delusion that the Islamists are right on target with Islamic Multiculturalism, and they are advancing uncompromisingly, confidently, and stealthily towards their goal. Their weapon—it is none other than Kafir Multiculturalism—exactly the same way they had used UDHR as a weapon in the past.
FP: Ok, so what exactly does Islamic Multiculturalism entail?
Kasem: As I have noted, Islamists simply love the western concept of multiculturalism. It suits them perfectly to press on with their agenda of Islamization of western societies, by using the concepts of western democracy, freedom of expression, secularism, and respect for diverse culture, religion, language, and tradition. The Islamists cleverly use these noble ideals and good intentions to defeat the western policy makers in their own game.
We must comprehend that the Islamists have a totally different idea of multiculturalism. The foundation of Islamic Multiculturalism is solidly based on the supremacy of Islam, primacy of the Arabs, and the global Islamic Ummah. They find the western concept of multiculturalism too easy to use to their advantage.
For example, when Australia organizes ‘interfaith dialogue,’ the Islamists find in it an unparallelled opportunity to espouse the ‘beauty’ of Islam. Mainly funded by the infidel tax payers, the ‘interfaith dialogue’ has become the best platform to advance Islam in the west. Thanks to those Westerners who are ignorant about Islam and are gullible useful idiots, the Islamists are laughing all the way to the mosques, knowing full well that Islam is totally safe in the hands of western politicians. The Islamists have nothing to worry about in terms of their agenda to eventually impose Islam on the infidel lands. The politicians of the infidel territories are doing the job for them (i.e., promoting Islam). These politicians even appoint the Islamists as advisors or consultative group in tackling Islamic terrorism. What could be more ironic than this?
Read More...
AINA February 11 2008
By Jamie Glazov
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Abul Kasem, an ex-Muslim who is the author of hundreds of articles and several books on Islam including, Women in Islam. He was a contributor to the book Leaving Islam – Apostates Speak Out as well as to Beyond Jihad: Critical Views From Inside Islam.
FP: Abul Kasem, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Kasem: Thank you for having me back Jamie.
FP: There is the reality and policy of Western multiculturalism. There is also the agenda of Islamic multiculturalism. Introduce the concept to us.
Kasem: Many western governments have a lofty ideal—to create a society, where people of different race, religion, culture, and tradition live together in peace and harmony, without losing their root identity. For many years, this policy has sprouted large-scale migration from many impoverished Islamic nations to wealthy countries, such as the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, New Zealand, and a few European nations.
Happily adopting this Kafir (Islamic term for non-Muslim) multiculturalism, many migrants have successfully integrated with the host nation. This has enhanced their life style, quality of living, and a good perception of human bondage. They are pleased to practice their respective religions with full freedom, and maintain their tradition and culture without encroaching on others’ freedom to do so. There is, however, one exception—Islam. Islam is at odds with this Kafir Multiculturalism, even though Muslims use this policy to their advantage.
The Kafir Multiculturalism promotes religious tolerance, freedom of expression, and democracy. It accords equal opportunity for all, irrespective of race religion, ethnic origin, gender, and sexual orientation. In this policy of Kafir Multiculturalism, the Islamists have found a great opportunity to advance their agenda—to create a pan Islamic world. All the cardinal principles of Kafir Multiculturalism are working in favor of the Islamists. That is why all Islamists are in full support of Kafir Multiculturalism.
But Islamists’ support of Kafir Multiculturalism is just a deceptive ploy to hide their real motives. Behind the veneer of their broad smile, talk of peace, love for freedom and interfaith understanding, there is a vicious plan. This plan is the design to replace the Kafir Multiculturalism with Islamic Multiculturalism. This is similar to the Islamists’ attempt to replace the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 with the 1981 Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. We should have no delusion that the Islamists are right on target with Islamic Multiculturalism, and they are advancing uncompromisingly, confidently, and stealthily towards their goal. Their weapon—it is none other than Kafir Multiculturalism—exactly the same way they had used UDHR as a weapon in the past.
FP: Ok, so what exactly does Islamic Multiculturalism entail?
Kasem: As I have noted, Islamists simply love the western concept of multiculturalism. It suits them perfectly to press on with their agenda of Islamization of western societies, by using the concepts of western democracy, freedom of expression, secularism, and respect for diverse culture, religion, language, and tradition. The Islamists cleverly use these noble ideals and good intentions to defeat the western policy makers in their own game.
We must comprehend that the Islamists have a totally different idea of multiculturalism. The foundation of Islamic Multiculturalism is solidly based on the supremacy of Islam, primacy of the Arabs, and the global Islamic Ummah. They find the western concept of multiculturalism too easy to use to their advantage.
For example, when Australia organizes ‘interfaith dialogue,’ the Islamists find in it an unparallelled opportunity to espouse the ‘beauty’ of Islam. Mainly funded by the infidel tax payers, the ‘interfaith dialogue’ has become the best platform to advance Islam in the west. Thanks to those Westerners who are ignorant about Islam and are gullible useful idiots, the Islamists are laughing all the way to the mosques, knowing full well that Islam is totally safe in the hands of western politicians. The Islamists have nothing to worry about in terms of their agenda to eventually impose Islam on the infidel lands. The politicians of the infidel territories are doing the job for them (i.e., promoting Islam). These politicians even appoint the Islamists as advisors or consultative group in tackling Islamic terrorism. What could be more ironic than this?
Read More...
Monday, February 18, 2008
Take the 5 Min quiz
take 5 min of your time and do this quiz, it's quit informative and scary at the same time when you realize who said what.
Go to quiz...
Time for an Attitude Adjustment
by Baron Bodissey
“Neither new laws nor more funding is the solution for the current week of riots.”
For the last week or so “youths” have been rioting in Denmark, burning cars, stoning ambulances, torching schools, and engaging in all the other high-spirited activities that the “youths” of Europe have become notorious for in the last few years.
Read further
“Neither new laws nor more funding is the solution for the current week of riots.”
For the last week or so “youths” have been rioting in Denmark, burning cars, stoning ambulances, torching schools, and engaging in all the other high-spirited activities that the “youths” of Europe have become notorious for in the last few years.
Read further
Nice Little Civilization You Have Here…
by Baron Bodissey
…It'd be a shame if anything happened to it.
Islam is giving us our last warning, via the OIC:
“Shape up, or we will discipline you. Enough with the cartoons and all that other blasphemous garbage. We mean business this time.”
We’re used to the thinly veiled threat that accompanies the ol’ Muslim Shakedown, but this time it’s the premier international Islamic organization doing the shaking. According to the Arab News:
OIC Warns of ‘Bigger Conflict’ Over Cartoon
The Organization of the Islamic Conference denounced yesterday the reprinting of a blasphemous Danish cartoon, warning it could lead to confrontations between Muslims and Christians. “By reprinting these cartoons we are heading toward a bigger conflict and that shows that both sides will be hostages of their radicals,” OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu told AFP in Istanbul.
“It is not a way of improving your rights and exercising your freedoms when you use these rights for insulting the most sacred values and symbols of others and inciting hatred,” he said. “This is a very wrong, provocative way — unacceptable.”
Several Danish newspapers on Wednesday republished one of 12 drawings, which had already caused bloody riots in the Muslim world in 2006, after police uncovered an alleged plot in the Scandinavian country to kill the cartoonist.
“The people who are doing this put themselves with the radicals, the fanatics and extremists who are using their beliefs as justification to hurt others,” Ihsanoglu said. “This is not the way to improve relations between East and West, between Islam and Christianity.” The drawing has triggered fresh uproar in Muslim countries.
Well, you know what, I've seen what your(islam) religion has brought upon us and it's nothing short of barbaric and I WANT NO PART OF IT. So bring it on!!
…It'd be a shame if anything happened to it.
Islam is giving us our last warning, via the OIC:
“Shape up, or we will discipline you. Enough with the cartoons and all that other blasphemous garbage. We mean business this time.”
We’re used to the thinly veiled threat that accompanies the ol’ Muslim Shakedown, but this time it’s the premier international Islamic organization doing the shaking. According to the Arab News:
OIC Warns of ‘Bigger Conflict’ Over Cartoon
The Organization of the Islamic Conference denounced yesterday the reprinting of a blasphemous Danish cartoon, warning it could lead to confrontations between Muslims and Christians. “By reprinting these cartoons we are heading toward a bigger conflict and that shows that both sides will be hostages of their radicals,” OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu told AFP in Istanbul.
“It is not a way of improving your rights and exercising your freedoms when you use these rights for insulting the most sacred values and symbols of others and inciting hatred,” he said. “This is a very wrong, provocative way — unacceptable.”
Several Danish newspapers on Wednesday republished one of 12 drawings, which had already caused bloody riots in the Muslim world in 2006, after police uncovered an alleged plot in the Scandinavian country to kill the cartoonist.
“The people who are doing this put themselves with the radicals, the fanatics and extremists who are using their beliefs as justification to hurt others,” Ihsanoglu said. “This is not the way to improve relations between East and West, between Islam and Christianity.” The drawing has triggered fresh uproar in Muslim countries.
Well, you know what, I've seen what your(islam) religion has brought upon us and it's nothing short of barbaric and I WANT NO PART OF IT. So bring it on!!
Meanwhile, back in the muslim Middle East
This is a sampling of the daily, typical fair in most arab papers. These are the milder cartoons.
In Support of Denmark!!
I republish the following cartoons as an exercise of FREE SPEECH and in support of Kurt Westergaard as well as Ezra Levant and all other Freedom loving people of the West.
Very inflammatory cartoons aren't they? B#llsh!t..
Very inflammatory cartoons aren't they? B#llsh!t..
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Some more from Dennis
The more I hear from this guy, the more I like him.
And this on the environment. An interview with Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace!
And this on the environment. An interview with Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace!
Dennis Miller On The War In Iraq
When I was younger I thought Dennis was really funny, as I got older I found his juvenile humour irritating, ultra-liberal, anti-social and grated, like he never grew up. The came 9/11 and Dennis seams to have grown up and was faced with the reality of the world as it is, not as it should be. Now I'm one of his biggest fans. I love that, for the most part, he's thrown away the illogical liberal ideology and become a true patriot and realist.
Give'm hell Dennis!
Give'm hell Dennis!
Teaching the next generation
doesn't it warm your heart when your kid comes home from school with a "A" in a subject you just can't wrap your head around. We want the best education and opportunity for our kids, so they can be successful and enjoy a better life then we had. Unless your an islamic jihadist type who their kid to blow themselves up or kill "infidels"/westerners.
How sick and depraved are the people who do THIS to their kids. And, in our multicultural, PC world were supposed to believe this culture is equal to ours, sorry but I just don't believe it and, neither should you.
How sick and depraved are the people who do THIS to their kids. And, in our multicultural, PC world were supposed to believe this culture is equal to ours, sorry but I just don't believe it and, neither should you.
Now, What If…?Now, what if our ideals destroy our sense of reality and lead us down the wrong path? What if Bush is really a great president?
H/T Gates of Vienna
By Mogens Rukow
What if Bush…? What if Islam…? Think, what if the intelligentsia…? What if multicultural…? Think, what if Arafat…? What if my a.. was…? What if you could go on forever?
Now, what if there existed the equivalent of contrafactual history writing? What if there were the equivalent of hypothesizing what the world would be like out if history hadn’t turned out the way it did?
What if Hitler had won the war? What if the Iron Curtain had never been imposed on Europe? What if the incandescent light bulb had never been invented?
What if the mind could entertain these kinds of questions, which are counterfactual to the conventional wisdom.
What if some are more concrete, others more fluid. But what if all of them now work for the sake of clarifying reality, of the facts, of the sum of what we know about reality. What if we can open up a perspectives on an alternative world of thought to the one we already agree about?
What if many of them lead us directly into paradise or hell? What if they individually put history on a knife’s edge, where it balances and where it could have fallen out differently than it did?
Contrafactual questions shake the way we, by habit, react to the course of history. They are part of history’s teaching.
Aren’t there also questions which can shake up our thinking, so that it doesn’t become habitual thinking?
What if you could ask contra-conceptual questions instead of contra-factual?
To think new thoughts one often has to change concepts. Such a change of concept lies in the contra-conceptual.
Concepts are our prisons, our direction, and our freedom. They are our dreams and our nightmares.
Contra-conceptual questions do not have to be wise, or logical, or rational. Actually, they have to be the opposite. They have to be stupid, unthinkable, to the verge of ignorance.
What if Bush was a great president?
Is that unthinkable? Reagan was called a fool too, an actor, parvenu. Nor could he read — as Bush is said not to be able to — Reagan didn’t have any experience in foreign policy, should never have been in The White House. All these kinds of things they said, our foreign policy experts, many of our politicians, the intelligentsia, the intellectuals, the writers.
Now he is called a great president. By the same people, or among the same people who have little interest in what happens around them.
In those days you where taken as a big idiot if you said anything else except that Reagan was a big idiot. People laughed at you if you didn’t laugh at Reagan. But the experts say that it was Reagan’s policy that ended the Cold War, that it was his stubbornness that won it.
The man who didn’t know anything about politics, the ridiculous fool who could not read, the actor, won the biggest political fight in modern time, after forty years of cold war.
Do you have to be illiterate to become a great politician? Do you have to be a Western politician not to understand a thing?
Read further...
By Mogens Rukow
What if Bush…? What if Islam…? Think, what if the intelligentsia…? What if multicultural…? Think, what if Arafat…? What if my a.. was…? What if you could go on forever?
Now, what if there existed the equivalent of contrafactual history writing? What if there were the equivalent of hypothesizing what the world would be like out if history hadn’t turned out the way it did?
What if Hitler had won the war? What if the Iron Curtain had never been imposed on Europe? What if the incandescent light bulb had never been invented?
What if the mind could entertain these kinds of questions, which are counterfactual to the conventional wisdom.
What if some are more concrete, others more fluid. But what if all of them now work for the sake of clarifying reality, of the facts, of the sum of what we know about reality. What if we can open up a perspectives on an alternative world of thought to the one we already agree about?
What if many of them lead us directly into paradise or hell? What if they individually put history on a knife’s edge, where it balances and where it could have fallen out differently than it did?
Contrafactual questions shake the way we, by habit, react to the course of history. They are part of history’s teaching.
Aren’t there also questions which can shake up our thinking, so that it doesn’t become habitual thinking?
What if you could ask contra-conceptual questions instead of contra-factual?
To think new thoughts one often has to change concepts. Such a change of concept lies in the contra-conceptual.
Concepts are our prisons, our direction, and our freedom. They are our dreams and our nightmares.
Contra-conceptual questions do not have to be wise, or logical, or rational. Actually, they have to be the opposite. They have to be stupid, unthinkable, to the verge of ignorance.
What if Bush was a great president?
Is that unthinkable? Reagan was called a fool too, an actor, parvenu. Nor could he read — as Bush is said not to be able to — Reagan didn’t have any experience in foreign policy, should never have been in The White House. All these kinds of things they said, our foreign policy experts, many of our politicians, the intelligentsia, the intellectuals, the writers.
Now he is called a great president. By the same people, or among the same people who have little interest in what happens around them.
In those days you where taken as a big idiot if you said anything else except that Reagan was a big idiot. People laughed at you if you didn’t laugh at Reagan. But the experts say that it was Reagan’s policy that ended the Cold War, that it was his stubbornness that won it.
The man who didn’t know anything about politics, the ridiculous fool who could not read, the actor, won the biggest political fight in modern time, after forty years of cold war.
Do you have to be illiterate to become a great politician? Do you have to be a Western politician not to understand a thing?
Read further...
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Unwarranted and Unnecessary CO2 Limiting Legislation
It is generally agreed that if greenhouse warming was occurring, the strongest warming would be in the upper atmosphere above the tropics. Recent research shows this is not occurring, which indicates that the “warming” is not being caused by greenhouse gases: [Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer. 2007. A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651.]
Everyone, from the highest government official to the lowliest taxpaying consumer, must realize that unless it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that carbon dioxide causes excessive global warming, there is no justification for imposing restrictions and costs on emitters of carbon dioxide. These burdens will pass inevitably on to the whole community and will fall most heavily on those who can least afford them and worse, once again, constitutional property rights will be under attack by another national and international environmentalist-generated crisis.
No valid, verifiable scientific proof has yet been established for man-caused global warming. All we have are hypotheses and speculations based on computer models. Governments have a duty, nay an absolute obligation, to create an opportunity for the full range of scientific evidence to be examined and evaluated. Any actions or policies instituted must not be solely political. This can best be done by establishing a joint United States-Canadian Commission on Global Warming. The new commission must not take on the flavor of the Bali conference, which purposely excluded opposing points of view.
Read in entirety
Everyone, from the highest government official to the lowliest taxpaying consumer, must realize that unless it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that carbon dioxide causes excessive global warming, there is no justification for imposing restrictions and costs on emitters of carbon dioxide. These burdens will pass inevitably on to the whole community and will fall most heavily on those who can least afford them and worse, once again, constitutional property rights will be under attack by another national and international environmentalist-generated crisis.
No valid, verifiable scientific proof has yet been established for man-caused global warming. All we have are hypotheses and speculations based on computer models. Governments have a duty, nay an absolute obligation, to create an opportunity for the full range of scientific evidence to be examined and evaluated. Any actions or policies instituted must not be solely political. This can best be done by establishing a joint United States-Canadian Commission on Global Warming. The new commission must not take on the flavor of the Bali conference, which purposely excluded opposing points of view.
Read in entirety
The Fallacy of Grievance-based Terrorism
This article, taken directly from the Winter 2008 edition of the Middle East Quarterly. Folks, I believe that this article is the benchmark required reading for all of us. This article explains in detail why we face the threat we face, and it is not what were constantly being told.
by Melvin E. Lee
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2008
Continue reading
by Melvin E. Lee
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2008
The fundamental premise of much scholarly examination and public discourse is that grievances with U.S. policies in the Middle East motivate Islamist terrorism. Such assumptions, though, misunderstand the enemy and its nature. In reality, the conflict is sparked not by grievance but rather by incompatibility between Islamist ideology and the natural rights articulated during the European Enlightenment and incorporated into U.S. political culture. Acquiescing to political grievances will not alter the fundamental incompatibility between Lockean precepts of tolerance and current interpretations of Islam: Only Islam's fundamental reform will resolve the conflict.
Many scholars mark the post-World War I partition of the Ottoman Empire as the origin of Islamist opposition to the West.[1] The idea that the Middle East would be a tolerant, prosperous contributor to the global environment today if World War I victors had left intact the Ottoman Empire is a premise in the literature accompanying the rise of twentieth-century jihadism. Historian David Fromkin argued in his influential A Peace to End All Peace that present day Muslim unrest is the direct result of Winston Churchill's early twentieth-century decisions.[2] British journalist Robert Fisk also holds British officials responsible although he prefers to blame Arthur Balfour, foreign secretary between 1916 and 1919.[3] Both authors are wrong, though, to base their theories of grievance on such arbitrary demarcation of eras. The roots of jihadism and its opposition to the United States as part of the non-Muslim West were cast long before World War I erupted. The interaction between the United States and Muslim states and societies dates back to American independence.[4] Contemporary jihadism is not the result of accumulated grievance; rather it has for cultural reasons been an integral factor in Islamic societies' interaction with the United States.
The Die is Cast
Almost immediately after independence, the U.S. government found itself in conflict with the Barbary sheikdoms of Morocco, Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli. For centuries, these states filled their coffers by piracy, stealing cargoes, enslaving crew, and collecting ransom. European sea-going nations often entered into treaty and tribute arrangements with the Barbary leaders in order to buy immunity and curtail competition.[5] In 1784, Moroccan pirates hijacked the U.S. merchant ship Betsy in the Mediterranean and enslaved her crew. A year later, Algerine pirates seized two more vessels, the Maria from Boston and the Dauphin from Philadelphia. The U.S. ministers to England and France, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson oversaw a peace treaty with Morocco, but the Algerine leadership refused any accommodation. In 1796, President George Washington ordered construction of six warships to form a U.S. navy and to protect U.S. shipping from Barbary pirates. In 1801, in the wake of an upsurge in piracy, President Thomas Jefferson entered into war with Tripoli, bombarding the city three years later and winning the release of American hostages.[6] Peace did not last. With the U.S. military embroiled in the War of 1812, Algerine pirates again began terrorizing American crewmen and disrupting U.S. trade. They miscalculated. In 1815, President James Madison dispatched a squadron of U.S. Navy frigates, which defeated the pirate fleet and won reparations from Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli.[7]
Continue reading
Joke of the morning
H/T Free Dominion
Dying Priest’s Last Request
The old priest lay dying in the hospital. For years he had Faithfully served the people of the nation’s capital. He motioned for his nurse to come near.
‘Yes, Father?’ said the nurse.
‘I would really like to see Ex prime-ministers, Jean Chretien and Brian Mulroney, before I die,’ whispered the priest.
‘I’ll see what I can do, Father,’ replied the nurse.
The nurse sent the request to the Prime ministers office and waited for a response. Soon the word arrived, former prime-ministers would be delighted to visit the priest. As they went to the hospital, Jean commented to Brian, ‘I don’t know why the old priest wants to see us, but it will certainly help our images and might even get me re-elected someday.’ Brian, agreed that it was a good thing.
When they arrived at the priest’s room, the priest took Brian’s hand in his right hand and Jean’s hand in his left. There was silence and a look of serenity on the old priest’s face. Finally Brian Mulroney spoke. ‘Father, of all the people you could have chosen, why did you choose us to be with you as you near the end?’
The old priest slowly replied, ‘I have always tried to pattern my life after our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.’
‘Amen,’ said Brian.
‘Amen,’ said Jean.
The old priest continued, ‘Jesus died between two lying thieves. I would like to do the same.’
Dying Priest’s Last Request
The old priest lay dying in the hospital. For years he had Faithfully served the people of the nation’s capital. He motioned for his nurse to come near.
‘Yes, Father?’ said the nurse.
‘I would really like to see Ex prime-ministers, Jean Chretien and Brian Mulroney, before I die,’ whispered the priest.
‘I’ll see what I can do, Father,’ replied the nurse.
The nurse sent the request to the Prime ministers office and waited for a response. Soon the word arrived, former prime-ministers would be delighted to visit the priest. As they went to the hospital, Jean commented to Brian, ‘I don’t know why the old priest wants to see us, but it will certainly help our images and might even get me re-elected someday.’ Brian, agreed that it was a good thing.
When they arrived at the priest’s room, the priest took Brian’s hand in his right hand and Jean’s hand in his left. There was silence and a look of serenity on the old priest’s face. Finally Brian Mulroney spoke. ‘Father, of all the people you could have chosen, why did you choose us to be with you as you near the end?’
The old priest slowly replied, ‘I have always tried to pattern my life after our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.’
‘Amen,’ said Brian.
‘Amen,’ said Jean.
The old priest continued, ‘Jesus died between two lying thieves. I would like to do the same.’
Speaking of Islam - Liberty and grievance in Canada.
H/T The Weekly Standard
Read the entire article
Lee Harris is the author, most recently, of The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam's Threat to the West.
For here's the rub. If the Canadian government were using its "kangaroo courts" as a deliberate ploy to syphon off Muslim rage or to guide it into proper bureaucratic (and happily nonviolent) channels, then we could perhaps admire it for its prudence and cunning. But suppose these commissions and tribunals are not a cunning charade, designed to hoodwink ill-tempered Muslims into becoming good litigious Anglo-Saxons? What if the Canadian government actually thought that it could help matters by cracking down on writers like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, by fining them or by throwing them into prison, silencing those who have the courage to speak of Islam, while encouraging Muslim immigrants to feel that they can manipulate weak-kneed governments into stifling any criticism of their religion and culture? Obviously this naive approach would backfire disastrously, and would end by endangering the very domestic tranquillity that it was trying to preserve.
Of one thing we can have no doubt: Short of a firing squad, there is nothing that the Canadian government can do that will have any effect on what Ezra Levant or Mark Steyn will say and write in the future. You couldn't have picked worse people to try to cow. But unfortunately, it is the nature of the nanny state to bring up citizens who have been trained not to rock the boat. Under a nanny regime, the good citizen is one who is reluctant to speak his mind merely out of fear of what other people might think. For people already this cowed, even the threat of a minor bureaucratic hassle would be a powerful argument for keeping one's mouth shut, and for standing by while our hard-won liberty of discussion is steadily eroded. Canada still has uncowable men like Levant and Steyn; but where will such men come from a generation hence?
Even worse, the threat of ongoing legal action, carried out in a number of different Canadian provinces, might be more than enough to keep less well-known writers and smaller news outlets from exposing themselves to the risk of legal costs that a magazine like Maclean's can afford to take. When faced with the threat of an endless hassle, draining away limited personal resources, many writers will simply take the safer course of not saying anything offencive about Islam. But since it is difficult to say in advance what will be offencive to men like Soharwardy, the safest course will be to say nothing at all. In short, gagging Canadians may not take a generation. It may work in a matter of a few months.
And is it just Canada that we are talking about? After all, if enough Muslims continue to react with violence to criticism of their religion and culture, all the other nations of the West will eventually be forced to make a tragic choice between two of our highest values. Either we must clamp down on critics of Islam, mandating a uniform code of political correctness, or else we must let the critics say what they wish, regardless of the consequences, and in full knowledge that these consequences may include the death of innocents. This is not a choice that the West has had to face since the end of our own furor theologicus several centuries ago, but, like it or not, it is the choice that we are facing again today.
Read the entire article
Lee Harris is the author, most recently, of The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam's Threat to the West.
THE BEST COMEBACK LINE for 2007...
H/T The World at War
This has got to be one of the most honest and forthright, anti-PC statements I've heard in a long time. Go General Cosgrove!!
THE BEST COMEBACK LINE for 2007...
This has got to be one of the most honest and forthright, anti-PC statements I've heard in a long time. Go General Cosgrove!!
THE BEST COMEBACK LINE for 2007...
For those that don't know him, Major General Peter Cosgrove is an "Australian treasure!" General Cosgrove was interviewed on the radio recently. You'll love his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children. Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you gotta love this! This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of an ABC interview between a female broadcaster and General Cosgrove who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military headquarters.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL COSGROVE:
We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL COSGROVE:
Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?
The radio went silent and the interview ended
Another one bites the dust
H/T Jawa Report
This video may offend some viewers(graphic scenes), TOO BAD. May cause great joy to others though.
This video may offend some viewers(graphic scenes), TOO BAD. May cause great joy to others though.
Revealed: British plan to build training camp for Taliban fighters in Afghanistan
H/T The Independent/UK
If this is accurate, it is another in a string of recent extremely disturbing trends coming out of Britain in the last week or so. It would appear that the new British PM is hell bent on capitulating to the defacto new Islamic rulers of Britain.
By Jerome Starkey in Kabul
Monday, 4 February 2008
Read the rest...
If this is accurate, it is another in a string of recent extremely disturbing trends coming out of Britain in the last week or so. It would appear that the new British PM is hell bent on capitulating to the defacto new Islamic rulers of Britain.
By Jerome Starkey in Kabul
Monday, 4 February 2008
Britain planned to build a Taliban training camp for 2,000 fighters in southern Afghanistan, as part of a top-secret deal to make them swap sides, intelligence sources in Kabul have revealed. The plans were discovered on a memory stick seized by Afghan secret police in December.
The Afghan government claims they can prove British agents were talking to the Taliban without permission from the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, despite Gordon Brown's pledge that Britain will not negotiate. The Prime Minister told Parliament on 12 December: "Our objective is to defeat the insurgency by isolating and eliminating their leaders. We will not enter into any negotiations with these people."
The British insist President Karzai's office knew what was going on. But Mr Karzai has expelled two top diplomats amid accusations they were part of a plot to buy-off the insurgents.
The row was the first in a series of spectacular diplomatic spats which has seen Anglo-Afghan relations sink to a new low. Since December, President Karzai has blocked the appointment of Paddy Ashdown to the top UN job in Kabul and he has blamed British troops for losing control of Helmand.
It has also soured relations between Kabul and Washington, where State Department officials were instrumental in pushing Lord Ashdown for the UN role.
President Karzai's political mentor, Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, endorsed a death sentence for blasphemy on the student journalist Sayed Pervez Kambaksh last week, and two British contractors have been arrested in Kabul on, it is claimed, trumped up weapons charges. The developments are seen as a deliberate defiance of the British.
An Afghan government source said the training camp was part of a British plan to use bands of reconciled Taliban, called Community Defence Volunteers, to fight the remaining insurgents. "The camp would provide military training for 1,800 ordinary Taliban fighters and 200 low-level commanders," he said.
The computer memory stick at the centre of the row was impounded by officers from Afghanistan's KGB-trained National Directorate of Security after they moved against a party of international diplomats who were visiting Helmand.
A ministry insider said: "When they were arrested, the British said the Ministry of the Interior and the National Security Council knew about it, but no one knew anything. That's why the President was so angry."
Details of how much President Karzai was told remain murky. Some analysts believe Afghan officials were briefed about the plan, but that it later evolved.
The camp was due to be built outside Musa Qala, in Helmand. It was part of a package of reconstruction and development incentives designed to win trust and support in the aftermath of the British-led battle to retake the stronghold last year.
Read the rest...
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
"Honour" crimes bring anything but
H/T The Telegraph
I'm shocked the Britain's have noticed the plight in their midsts, as they have been working furiously as of late not to see the pile of dung they've hoisted themselves into in appeasing the unappeasable.
I'm shocked the Britain's have noticed the plight in their midsts, as they have been working furiously as of late not to see the pile of dung they've hoisted themselves into in appeasing the unappeasable.
Today sees the publication of a devastating report on the rise of "honour-based" violence against women from immigrant communities in the UK. It is devastating not just because it reveals the complicity of some "community leaders" in killings, attempted murder and beatings, but also because its sources are so authoritative.
Crimes of the Community, by a new non-political think tank called the Centre for Social Cohesion, is based on the testimony of Asian women's groups, which have bravely decided to speak out against a growing assault on women made possible by an alliance of religious fundamentalism and state-funded political correctness.
The report also has the backing of Nazir Afzal, director of the West London Crown Prosecution Service and the CPS expert on honour killings. According to the CPS, one woman a month dies in this way.
advertisement
Not all these atrocities are carried out by Muslims: the Hindu and Sikh communities also suffer from - and are implicated in - the ghastly practises of honour killings, religiously inspired beatings and forced marriages. But Islamic traditionalists are the prime offenders, and their leaders quickest to dismiss allegations.
The UK Sharia Council describes forced marriage as a "media exaggeration"; mosques turn away representatives from Asian women's groups; when Mohammed Arshad, chairman of the Dundee Mosque and a religious adviser to the NHS, tried to arrange the murder of his son-in-law, the Tayside Islamic and Cultural Education Society asked for his seven-year jail sentence to be reduced to community service because he was so "respected and honoured".
Crimes of the Community describes societies that are scarcely recognizable as part of 21st-century Britain. According to a women's refuge in Derby, some Asian taxi firms will take threatened girls "straight back to the place they've just escaped from".
In many cases, says the report, "women fleeing domestic violence or forced marriage have been deliberately returned to their homes or betrayed to their families by policemen, councillors and civil servants of immigrant origin".
The Pennines Domestic Violence Group accuses Asian councillors in Huddersfield of blocking their activities, with the support of white councillors. Most shockingly of all, Asian women's groups say they do not trust Asian police officers not to deliver girls back to their abusive families.
Clearly, honour crimes in closed communities pose a daunting challenge to police forces. Yet it must be met. Mr Afzal makes the disturbing point that areas of Islamist terrorism and honour crimes coincide almost exactly: we are dealing here with a threat to security as well as freedoms.
Meanwhile, as this study concludes, politicians who turn a blind eye to these crimes are denying basic human rights to women simply because they come from a foreign culture. They are, in short, racists.
Wikipedia defends its right to publish Muhammad images
H/T Europe News
Wikipedia taking a stand against the vulnerable sensitivities of muslims? Is the tide maybe turning??
Please note that discussion on this talk page has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article and any removal of the pictures without discussion here first will be reverted on sight.
Wikipedia taking a stand against the vulnerable sensitivities of muslims? Is the tide maybe turning??
Please note that discussion on this talk page has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article and any removal of the pictures without discussion here first will be reverted on sight.
Epidemic of young girls falling off balconies, in Sweden
While the Swedes don't report on nationality or ethnicity
Epidemic of young girls falling off balconies, in Sweden
While the Swedes don't report on nationality or ethnicity, it doesn't take a rocker scientist to figure it out.
A sharp increase in teenage muslim girls falling off balconies, I wonder how that could happen??
Read more...
Update: two male relatives arrested
A sharp increase in teenage muslim girls falling off balconies, I wonder how that could happen??
Read more...
Update: two male relatives arrested
Shadow Warriors on WMD in Iraq
Shadow Warriors on WMD in Iraq
From Human Events.
Kenneth Timmerman’s new book, Shadow Warriors: The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender, is a potent assault on the enemy within. The late great U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeanne Kirkpatrick once reflected upon her role in the war against the Communist bloc and its sycophants by remarking, “We understood that our words were weapons.” Now, in a world where ubiquitous Internet-bound words penetrate every private salon from Tehran to Manhattan’s Upper East Side, Timmerman has detonated a rhetorical bunker buster.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks to an unprecedented four-year propaganda offensive, most Americans have concluded that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had no relationship with al Qaeda and that it had no programs aimed at developing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Timmerman easily eviscerates this version of conventional wisdom by quoting King Abdullah II of Jordan, who, on April 17, 2004, informed the world that his intelligence agency foiled a plot by al Qaeda to bring in from Syria 20 tons of Iraqi-made sarin gas and detonate it in the capital city of Amman. Estimates were that it would have killed 20,000 people, seven times 9/11, and eliminated the American embassy as well. It was stunning evidence that Iraq had not only moved stockpiles of WMD to Syria before the invasion but that the remnants of Saddam’s regime retained an operational link to al Qaeda. “It was a major, major operation,” King Abdullah said. “It would have decapitated the government.”
Some passages in Shadow Warriors take on the aspect of a John LeCarre Cold War thriller. For example, the book makes public for the first time reports that were sent to Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John Straw (one of the book’s few good guys) by a British spy, Stephen, a self-styled “Lawrence of Arabia,” who was on the ground inside Iraq in the weeks prior to the U.S.-led invasion and who saw the evacuation, cleanup and transportation of WMD stockpiles and production equipment. Stephen was able to observe the operation being conducted by non-uniformed Russian special forces (Spetsnatz) who loaded the drums of chemicals and biotoxins on huge 18-wheelers and shipped them to destinations inside Syria and Lebanon. Amazingly, Stephen’s network was so good that he was able to track the shipments to specific villages in Syria or to hospitals in Beirut and, in some cases, even to the specific doctor who received the drums. Straw also got corroborating reports of the Russian evacuation operation directly from the Ukrainian head of intelligence, Gen. Ihor Smeshko, whose agency refused to work with the CIA or any conventional U.S. intelligence agencies for fear of leaks that would, in turn, result in great political peril. The Ukrainians reported to Straw that the former head of the KGB, Yevgeny Primakov, who had a long-standing business relationship with Saddam Hussein, headed up the WMD evacuation operation and even learned its code name, Sarandar (Russian for emergency exit).
While the true import of the Amman interdiction and the King’s statements went largely underreported by the Western media, it gives extra gravity to Timmerman’s thesis because it demonstrates just how treacherous are the shadow warriors—the Bush enemies who, for much of this decade, have sought to undermine the administration’s war effort from their shadowy positions inside the CIA, State Department, Justice Department, the media, congressional staffs and even the Pentagon. Among other things, the book makes clear that these shadow warriors have no moral standing, because they have been guilty of working to undermine a legitimate war, a war in which Iraq is only one theater and in which the West is pitted against a very lethal enemy.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Someone noted that running U.S. foreign policy has a level of difficulty roughly equal to that of playing chess in three dimensions. Many of Timmerman’s readers will likely wonder why Bush did not make use of the reports sent from the British spy Stephen, documenting the Russian WMD evacuations, or the reports from Gen. Georges Sada, the former head of the Iraq air force, who, after the fall of Baghdad, returned to his native land and interviewed numerous pilots who flew WMD’s into Syria.
Why would President Bush have wanted the information to be buried when it could have vindicated him after suffering such a massive propaganda offensive waged by the media and their allies, the shadow warriors? The question might be answered definitively only by future historians, but Shadow Warriors poses a chilling and timely theory—Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney thought the reason was Iran. “With Iran moving faster than anyone thought in its nuclear programs, the administration needed the Russians, the Chinese and the French, and was not interested in information that would make them look bad.”
Read More...
From Human Events.
Kenneth Timmerman’s new book, Shadow Warriors: The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender, is a potent assault on the enemy within. The late great U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeanne Kirkpatrick once reflected upon her role in the war against the Communist bloc and its sycophants by remarking, “We understood that our words were weapons.” Now, in a world where ubiquitous Internet-bound words penetrate every private salon from Tehran to Manhattan’s Upper East Side, Timmerman has detonated a rhetorical bunker buster.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks to an unprecedented four-year propaganda offensive, most Americans have concluded that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had no relationship with al Qaeda and that it had no programs aimed at developing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Timmerman easily eviscerates this version of conventional wisdom by quoting King Abdullah II of Jordan, who, on April 17, 2004, informed the world that his intelligence agency foiled a plot by al Qaeda to bring in from Syria 20 tons of Iraqi-made sarin gas and detonate it in the capital city of Amman. Estimates were that it would have killed 20,000 people, seven times 9/11, and eliminated the American embassy as well. It was stunning evidence that Iraq had not only moved stockpiles of WMD to Syria before the invasion but that the remnants of Saddam’s regime retained an operational link to al Qaeda. “It was a major, major operation,” King Abdullah said. “It would have decapitated the government.”
Some passages in Shadow Warriors take on the aspect of a John LeCarre Cold War thriller. For example, the book makes public for the first time reports that were sent to Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John Straw (one of the book’s few good guys) by a British spy, Stephen, a self-styled “Lawrence of Arabia,” who was on the ground inside Iraq in the weeks prior to the U.S.-led invasion and who saw the evacuation, cleanup and transportation of WMD stockpiles and production equipment. Stephen was able to observe the operation being conducted by non-uniformed Russian special forces (Spetsnatz) who loaded the drums of chemicals and biotoxins on huge 18-wheelers and shipped them to destinations inside Syria and Lebanon. Amazingly, Stephen’s network was so good that he was able to track the shipments to specific villages in Syria or to hospitals in Beirut and, in some cases, even to the specific doctor who received the drums. Straw also got corroborating reports of the Russian evacuation operation directly from the Ukrainian head of intelligence, Gen. Ihor Smeshko, whose agency refused to work with the CIA or any conventional U.S. intelligence agencies for fear of leaks that would, in turn, result in great political peril. The Ukrainians reported to Straw that the former head of the KGB, Yevgeny Primakov, who had a long-standing business relationship with Saddam Hussein, headed up the WMD evacuation operation and even learned its code name, Sarandar (Russian for emergency exit).
While the true import of the Amman interdiction and the King’s statements went largely underreported by the Western media, it gives extra gravity to Timmerman’s thesis because it demonstrates just how treacherous are the shadow warriors—the Bush enemies who, for much of this decade, have sought to undermine the administration’s war effort from their shadowy positions inside the CIA, State Department, Justice Department, the media, congressional staffs and even the Pentagon. Among other things, the book makes clear that these shadow warriors have no moral standing, because they have been guilty of working to undermine a legitimate war, a war in which Iraq is only one theater and in which the West is pitted against a very lethal enemy.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Someone noted that running U.S. foreign policy has a level of difficulty roughly equal to that of playing chess in three dimensions. Many of Timmerman’s readers will likely wonder why Bush did not make use of the reports sent from the British spy Stephen, documenting the Russian WMD evacuations, or the reports from Gen. Georges Sada, the former head of the Iraq air force, who, after the fall of Baghdad, returned to his native land and interviewed numerous pilots who flew WMD’s into Syria.
Why would President Bush have wanted the information to be buried when it could have vindicated him after suffering such a massive propaganda offensive waged by the media and their allies, the shadow warriors? The question might be answered definitively only by future historians, but Shadow Warriors poses a chilling and timely theory—Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney thought the reason was Iran. “With Iran moving faster than anyone thought in its nuclear programs, the administration needed the Russians, the Chinese and the French, and was not interested in information that would make them look bad.”
Read More...
Candidates Accused of 'Linking Islam with Terrorism'
H/T Human Events.com
by Robert Spencer
Posted: 02/05/2008
Last week, a reporter of the Kuwait News Agency accused Sen. John McCain and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee of “linking Islam with terrorism as a tool to scare up support among US voters, an election style experts describe as ‘shameful.” But in her story, Heather Yamour invokes only one “expert” -- a Far-Left professor.
Shameful style? Yes, if measured by Islamic standards and not those of American politics and free speech. Last Monday it was reported that the British government has drawn up a new handbook for government officials that forbids them to use phrases like “Islamist extremism” or “jihadi-fundamentalist” -- instead, police and others must refer to “violent extremism” and “criminal murderers or thugs,” so as to avoid giving the impression that anything Islamic is involved in, er, Islamic terrorism.
But over on this side of the pond, some of the presidential candidates haven’t gotten the message. They somehow still think their First Amendment rights exist.
Mitt Romney has referred to “jihadism” and “violent, radical Islamic fundamentalism” as “this century’s nightmare,” and has warned that the jihadists want to “unite the world under a single Jihadist caliphate.” Yamour took exception to Mike Huckabee’s (“an ordained Baptist minister”!) statement that Islamo-fascism was “the greatest threat this country has ever faced.” She even bristled at John McCain’s declaration that “I’m not interested in trading with Al-Qaeda.” Apparently the PC police, eager as they are to accommodate easily wounded Muslim sensibilities, will soon have us referring to Osama bin Laden’s network as the “anti-Islamic group,” in the spirit of UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s recent designation of, uh, Islamic terrorism as “anti-Islamic.”
So why would Romney, Huckabee and McCain buck “expert” opinion on this? Are they that desperate for votes, that they would recklessly demonize an entire innocent population? Yamour thinks so: Republicans, she fulminates, are “fiercely attacking Islam as a religion interwoven with terrorism,” and are “targeting evangelical churches and conservative Americans seeking to preserve the strict Christian faith in the government and fear the possibility that the future president may open the door wider for Muslims to enter mainstream society.”
Horror of horrors! But it’s worth asking: where did the candidates get this idea in the first place? Where could these desperate, cynical men have gotten the idea that Islam had anything to do with terrorism? Let’s see. Could it have been from Osama bin Laden, who has praised Allah for the Qur’an’s “Verse of the Sword” (9:5), which instructs Muslims to “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”? Or maybe it was from Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, who once thundered: “Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you!...There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”
Maybe it was from the British Muslim Omar Brooks, who said in 2005 that it was imperative for Muslims to “instill terror into the hearts of the kuffar” and added: “I am a terrorist. As a Muslim of course I am a terrorist.” Or maybe it was from the Qur’an itself, which tells Muslims to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (8:60). Maybe it was from the perpetrators of the 10,000-plus terror attacks committed in the name of Islam since 9/11.
read more...
by Robert Spencer
Posted: 02/05/2008
Last week, a reporter of the Kuwait News Agency accused Sen. John McCain and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee of “linking Islam with terrorism as a tool to scare up support among US voters, an election style experts describe as ‘shameful.” But in her story, Heather Yamour invokes only one “expert” -- a Far-Left professor.
Shameful style? Yes, if measured by Islamic standards and not those of American politics and free speech. Last Monday it was reported that the British government has drawn up a new handbook for government officials that forbids them to use phrases like “Islamist extremism” or “jihadi-fundamentalist” -- instead, police and others must refer to “violent extremism” and “criminal murderers or thugs,” so as to avoid giving the impression that anything Islamic is involved in, er, Islamic terrorism.
But over on this side of the pond, some of the presidential candidates haven’t gotten the message. They somehow still think their First Amendment rights exist.
Mitt Romney has referred to “jihadism” and “violent, radical Islamic fundamentalism” as “this century’s nightmare,” and has warned that the jihadists want to “unite the world under a single Jihadist caliphate.” Yamour took exception to Mike Huckabee’s (“an ordained Baptist minister”!) statement that Islamo-fascism was “the greatest threat this country has ever faced.” She even bristled at John McCain’s declaration that “I’m not interested in trading with Al-Qaeda.” Apparently the PC police, eager as they are to accommodate easily wounded Muslim sensibilities, will soon have us referring to Osama bin Laden’s network as the “anti-Islamic group,” in the spirit of UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s recent designation of, uh, Islamic terrorism as “anti-Islamic.”
So why would Romney, Huckabee and McCain buck “expert” opinion on this? Are they that desperate for votes, that they would recklessly demonize an entire innocent population? Yamour thinks so: Republicans, she fulminates, are “fiercely attacking Islam as a religion interwoven with terrorism,” and are “targeting evangelical churches and conservative Americans seeking to preserve the strict Christian faith in the government and fear the possibility that the future president may open the door wider for Muslims to enter mainstream society.”
Horror of horrors! But it’s worth asking: where did the candidates get this idea in the first place? Where could these desperate, cynical men have gotten the idea that Islam had anything to do with terrorism? Let’s see. Could it have been from Osama bin Laden, who has praised Allah for the Qur’an’s “Verse of the Sword” (9:5), which instructs Muslims to “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”? Or maybe it was from Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, who once thundered: “Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you!...There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”
Maybe it was from the British Muslim Omar Brooks, who said in 2005 that it was imperative for Muslims to “instill terror into the hearts of the kuffar” and added: “I am a terrorist. As a Muslim of course I am a terrorist.” Or maybe it was from the Qur’an itself, which tells Muslims to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (8:60). Maybe it was from the perpetrators of the 10,000-plus terror attacks committed in the name of Islam since 9/11.
read more...
Norway drops the gauntlet - No prayers at work!
H/T Islam in Europe
Monday, February 04, 2008
Norway: Praying during work-time
Abdullahi Mohamed Yabarow and Mustafa Ali Hussein got an ultimatum from their employer: stop praying during work hours or lose your job.
The two friends Abdullahi Mohamed Yabarow (32) and Mustafa Ali Hussein (30), originally from Somalia, felt they had no choice. Hussein and Yabarow say they are believing Muslims and that it's very important for them to pray five times a day. It takes them 10 minutes of work time to pray and it's Islamophobia that they don't get permission to do so.
For close to two years Mustafa Ali Hussein got 314.70 kroner (~$58) less in pay a month for praying during work time. That was the agreement between him and his employer. Workplace laws allow an employer not to pay a salary for the time an employee does other things, such as prayer.
Hussein and Yabarow worked for Nor Tekstil in Drammen, which rents and washes textiles for companies and institutions all over Norway.
Operations manager Edith Støa says the two quit voluntarily and that they were allowed to pray at work but only during the lunch break. Støa says that she understand that not allowing Muslims to pray during work hours might look discriminating but she also has employees who smoke and they don't get breaks either.
The reason the company had chosen to ban prayers during work time after several years of allowing it for a reduction in salary is that they now have more clients.
Støa says they have an assembly line and she can't have employees suddenly disappearing. In the past they've been considerate of Muslims but now there are so many that they can't continue to allow prayer during work time.
Hussein and Yabarow know more employees in the same situation, where the employers doesn't allow prayer or reduces their pay.
Hussein says his problem isn't in finding a new job but to accept that he's not getting the possibility to practise his religious rituals during work-time, despite going down in salary. He feels religiously discriminated. He has never gotten complaints about his work.
Akhenaton Oddvar de Leon of the council of immigrant organizations in Oslo thinks that prayer has never been socially accepted among Norwegian employers, equal to smoking breaks and small-talk. Leon says it's not about discriminating but about morality. Employers should have more tolerance and be a little practical when it comes to such challenges in the workplace.
The equality and discrimination ombudsman says that generally employees can't demand to pray during work-time and that it isn't automatically discriminating to prevent prayer during work hours. Margrethe Søbstad of the equality and discrimination ombudsman says that they can't rule out in concrete cases that there's an objective reason to refuse an employee to pray during work-time. The ombudsman asks all employers allow Muslims and others to pray during work-time as much as it's practically possible.
Abdullahi and Mustafa are currently looking for a job and hope they'll find one that allows them to pray during work. Hussein says he's not interested in praying in hiding at work. He's chosen to be faithful to his religion and he's proud of that.
Source: Dagsavisen (Norwegian)
Monday, February 04, 2008
Norway: Praying during work-time
Abdullahi Mohamed Yabarow and Mustafa Ali Hussein got an ultimatum from their employer: stop praying during work hours or lose your job.
The two friends Abdullahi Mohamed Yabarow (32) and Mustafa Ali Hussein (30), originally from Somalia, felt they had no choice. Hussein and Yabarow say they are believing Muslims and that it's very important for them to pray five times a day. It takes them 10 minutes of work time to pray and it's Islamophobia that they don't get permission to do so.
For close to two years Mustafa Ali Hussein got 314.70 kroner (~$58) less in pay a month for praying during work time. That was the agreement between him and his employer. Workplace laws allow an employer not to pay a salary for the time an employee does other things, such as prayer.
Hussein and Yabarow worked for Nor Tekstil in Drammen, which rents and washes textiles for companies and institutions all over Norway.
Operations manager Edith Støa says the two quit voluntarily and that they were allowed to pray at work but only during the lunch break. Støa says that she understand that not allowing Muslims to pray during work hours might look discriminating but she also has employees who smoke and they don't get breaks either.
The reason the company had chosen to ban prayers during work time after several years of allowing it for a reduction in salary is that they now have more clients.
Støa says they have an assembly line and she can't have employees suddenly disappearing. In the past they've been considerate of Muslims but now there are so many that they can't continue to allow prayer during work time.
Hussein and Yabarow know more employees in the same situation, where the employers doesn't allow prayer or reduces their pay.
Hussein says his problem isn't in finding a new job but to accept that he's not getting the possibility to practise his religious rituals during work-time, despite going down in salary. He feels religiously discriminated. He has never gotten complaints about his work.
Akhenaton Oddvar de Leon of the council of immigrant organizations in Oslo thinks that prayer has never been socially accepted among Norwegian employers, equal to smoking breaks and small-talk. Leon says it's not about discriminating but about morality. Employers should have more tolerance and be a little practical when it comes to such challenges in the workplace.
The equality and discrimination ombudsman says that generally employees can't demand to pray during work-time and that it isn't automatically discriminating to prevent prayer during work hours. Margrethe Søbstad of the equality and discrimination ombudsman says that they can't rule out in concrete cases that there's an objective reason to refuse an employee to pray during work-time. The ombudsman asks all employers allow Muslims and others to pray during work-time as much as it's practically possible.
Abdullahi and Mustafa are currently looking for a job and hope they'll find one that allows them to pray during work. Hussein says he's not interested in praying in hiding at work. He's chosen to be faithful to his religion and he's proud of that.
Source: Dagsavisen (Norwegian)
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Charles Adler: Canada is becoming a tyranny of politeness
H/T National Post/Canada
Charles Adler
It's a strange country we live in. For all the talk we hear about how brave men fought and died to keep Canada a free country, we sure don't act like a free people. In Toronto there is a problem with violence in schools - more in some than others, more in those with underprivileged than others, more in those with poor black kids than others... and a so called human rights lawyer is charged with doing a very thick report on what the problems are and what the solutions are and as it turns out the problem was Mike Harris, a premier who ran the government of Ontario for six years, and has been out of power for the last six years.
Does anybody really think that the issues Toronto is dealing with on the very important subject of young black boys and young black men doing poorly in school is about Mike Harris? Does anybody have the moral courage to talk back to this kind of larceny, this kind of deceit, this kind of rhetorical manure? Are we really a free people?
Wouldn't a free people simply refuse to accept what they know in their hearts is nonsense, nonsense that is masking the real issues? I know we don't want to discuss problems in terms of colour, in terms of ethnicity, in terms of country of origin. We want to keep saying what the government and all agents of contemporary want us to say, that all people are the same, that all individuals are the same, that all groups are the same and when there is a problem, when that problem involves low outcomes in education, low outcomes in family unity and domestic harmony, higher rates of criminal behaviour, drug addiction and violence.
When there is a problem, we must not point any fingers at the people who have the problem. If we are going to point, we must point at ourselves. We are the problem. We are the village raising the child...and if this country were a tyranny, run by a dictator, I could understand how we could just feel we have no choice but to keep sucking on this multicultural lollipop until we gag.
But I thought as a young child growing up in Canada that we a choice on speaking the truth or not speaking it. I thought that's what separated us from all those other countries where societies are under the thumb of
the evil man with his evil secret police force and corrupt judges and lying media lapdogs.
Now if I were still a child, I could still buy into the idea we are the country that I thought we were, and I guess I could go along with the idea that the troubles in certain cultural communities in this country are everybody's fault. I could swallow the idea that the family of the murder victim is as responsible for the murder as the murderer himself. If I were a child I guess I could swallow that. But as an adult I have had it up to here with the idea that I have to murder my own mind in order to fit in with a chattering class in this country that is betraying this country by chattering around issues, around problems and
participating in avoidance instead of confrontation.
Confronting people and their lies is impolite in a country that worships politeness. When did politeness conquer freedom. I don't know. There was no newspaper headline declaring this. No radio or TV bulletin. No big lunged broadcaster saying “Breaking News in Canada: Freedom of speech has been replaced by the Tyranny of politness.”
In a contest today between polite speech and freedom of speech, politeness won, freedom lost and we now return you to regular programming. Play nice my fellow Canadians especially with those who are never nice and never have to be. You made them that way. It's your fault.
Earlier this week a Toronto school board voted to have Toronto's first Afrocentric school. It's considered a solution. The premise is simple. Too many black kids have been forced into classrooms taught by white people in schools that have white principals. Sure the faces sometimes aren't white. They may be brown or yellow or black for that matter. But it's a white dominated system. White. White. Say it like you mean it.
Say it like it's a mean word a bad word.
On a native reserve in Saskatchewan, a young native father takes his two babies out doors. No coats no boots no chance of surviving minus 50C weather and they die. Within 24 hours we are told that the
white dominated society has not provided enough money for enough native reserves and so while we must deal with the actions of the young native father in this obscene story of child neglect, we are told that we must not be harsh or judgmental because after all, it's our fault that those children were frozen to death.
We stole their land, removed their opportunity, distilled the liquor, poured the liquor again and again and again until it resulted in death by exposure. If we weren't living in a free country, it would make sense for us to swallow that swill. It would make that sense that we could liquor up our minds and believe it and pass it on to our children. But in a free society why can't we talk back to the lie. Why do we continue to behave like some dictator has taken over the country? We know that in dictatorships there is only one emotion that needs to mastered in order turn the people into sheep. FEAR.
Fear of losing your personal freedom, your family, your life. Fear of losing everything because you said something. That's the emotion that becomes your personal tyrant.
It's the evil landlord who is demanding way too much rent. Maybe you haven't noticed? Or maybe you would rather not think about it. Not thinking is probably best way to avoid a problem. But there is only one problem with that theory. As long as your mind is functioning. Unless it has been damaged by the force of a lead pipe, the smoke from a crack pipe , or the ingestion of a vast and fascinating menu of things we use to avoid reality, unless you're out of it, your mind will continue to observe that many things that are said about the issues that matter most in this country are just bald faced lies that go unchallenged by people
who are supposed to be leading you. Where are they leading you to? Apparently into the desert of dictatorship.
You can salute now. It's the polite thing to do.
adleronline@gmail.com
Charles Adler
It's a strange country we live in. For all the talk we hear about how brave men fought and died to keep Canada a free country, we sure don't act like a free people. In Toronto there is a problem with violence in schools - more in some than others, more in those with underprivileged than others, more in those with poor black kids than others... and a so called human rights lawyer is charged with doing a very thick report on what the problems are and what the solutions are and as it turns out the problem was Mike Harris, a premier who ran the government of Ontario for six years, and has been out of power for the last six years.
Does anybody really think that the issues Toronto is dealing with on the very important subject of young black boys and young black men doing poorly in school is about Mike Harris? Does anybody have the moral courage to talk back to this kind of larceny, this kind of deceit, this kind of rhetorical manure? Are we really a free people?
Wouldn't a free people simply refuse to accept what they know in their hearts is nonsense, nonsense that is masking the real issues? I know we don't want to discuss problems in terms of colour, in terms of ethnicity, in terms of country of origin. We want to keep saying what the government and all agents of contemporary want us to say, that all people are the same, that all individuals are the same, that all groups are the same and when there is a problem, when that problem involves low outcomes in education, low outcomes in family unity and domestic harmony, higher rates of criminal behaviour, drug addiction and violence.
When there is a problem, we must not point any fingers at the people who have the problem. If we are going to point, we must point at ourselves. We are the problem. We are the village raising the child...and if this country were a tyranny, run by a dictator, I could understand how we could just feel we have no choice but to keep sucking on this multicultural lollipop until we gag.
But I thought as a young child growing up in Canada that we a choice on speaking the truth or not speaking it. I thought that's what separated us from all those other countries where societies are under the thumb of
the evil man with his evil secret police force and corrupt judges and lying media lapdogs.
Now if I were still a child, I could still buy into the idea we are the country that I thought we were, and I guess I could go along with the idea that the troubles in certain cultural communities in this country are everybody's fault. I could swallow the idea that the family of the murder victim is as responsible for the murder as the murderer himself. If I were a child I guess I could swallow that. But as an adult I have had it up to here with the idea that I have to murder my own mind in order to fit in with a chattering class in this country that is betraying this country by chattering around issues, around problems and
participating in avoidance instead of confrontation.
Confronting people and their lies is impolite in a country that worships politeness. When did politeness conquer freedom. I don't know. There was no newspaper headline declaring this. No radio or TV bulletin. No big lunged broadcaster saying “Breaking News in Canada: Freedom of speech has been replaced by the Tyranny of politness.”
In a contest today between polite speech and freedom of speech, politeness won, freedom lost and we now return you to regular programming. Play nice my fellow Canadians especially with those who are never nice and never have to be. You made them that way. It's your fault.
Earlier this week a Toronto school board voted to have Toronto's first Afrocentric school. It's considered a solution. The premise is simple. Too many black kids have been forced into classrooms taught by white people in schools that have white principals. Sure the faces sometimes aren't white. They may be brown or yellow or black for that matter. But it's a white dominated system. White. White. Say it like you mean it.
Say it like it's a mean word a bad word.
On a native reserve in Saskatchewan, a young native father takes his two babies out doors. No coats no boots no chance of surviving minus 50C weather and they die. Within 24 hours we are told that the
white dominated society has not provided enough money for enough native reserves and so while we must deal with the actions of the young native father in this obscene story of child neglect, we are told that we must not be harsh or judgmental because after all, it's our fault that those children were frozen to death.
We stole their land, removed their opportunity, distilled the liquor, poured the liquor again and again and again until it resulted in death by exposure. If we weren't living in a free country, it would make sense for us to swallow that swill. It would make that sense that we could liquor up our minds and believe it and pass it on to our children. But in a free society why can't we talk back to the lie. Why do we continue to behave like some dictator has taken over the country? We know that in dictatorships there is only one emotion that needs to mastered in order turn the people into sheep. FEAR.
Fear of losing your personal freedom, your family, your life. Fear of losing everything because you said something. That's the emotion that becomes your personal tyrant.
It's the evil landlord who is demanding way too much rent. Maybe you haven't noticed? Or maybe you would rather not think about it. Not thinking is probably best way to avoid a problem. But there is only one problem with that theory. As long as your mind is functioning. Unless it has been damaged by the force of a lead pipe, the smoke from a crack pipe , or the ingestion of a vast and fascinating menu of things we use to avoid reality, unless you're out of it, your mind will continue to observe that many things that are said about the issues that matter most in this country are just bald faced lies that go unchallenged by people
who are supposed to be leading you. Where are they leading you to? Apparently into the desert of dictatorship.
You can salute now. It's the polite thing to do.
adleronline@gmail.com
Multiple wives will mean multiple welfare benefits
If this isn't pandering to the lowest of the low and, capitulating to the islamic overlords, I don't know what is. This only applies to muslim men, what a panty-waist society.
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones/Telegraph(UK)
Last Updated: 2:36am GMT 03/02/2008
Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal.
advertisement
The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record.
The decision has been condemned by the Tories, who accused the Government of offering preferential treatment to a particular group, and of setting a precedent that would lead to demands for further changes in British law.
New guidelines on income support from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) state: "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate ... The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65."
Read more...
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones/Telegraph(UK)
Last Updated: 2:36am GMT 03/02/2008
Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal.
advertisement
The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record.
The decision has been condemned by the Tories, who accused the Government of offering preferential treatment to a particular group, and of setting a precedent that would lead to demands for further changes in British law.
New guidelines on income support from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) state: "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate ... The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65."
Read more...
Asian Police Constables "blocking crackdown on honour killing"
H/T DailyMail/UK
I've believed for a long time, that having members of "The Religion of Peace" employed in positions of responsibility could be a bad mistake. Aside from the obvious things like the disappearing Social Insurance cards and blank passports that have gone missing, having the enemy employed in authority positions in Government could be a fatalistic endeavour, and apparently this is turning out to be true after all. Read the entire article, it'll make your stomach turn.
Read More...
Whole communities are involved in assisting and covering up "honour violence" in Britain, a new study says.
Informal networks of taxi drivers, councillors and sometimes even police officers track down and return women who try to escape, researchers claim.
and here...
I've believed for a long time, that having members of "The Religion of Peace" employed in positions of responsibility could be a bad mistake. Aside from the obvious things like the disappearing Social Insurance cards and blank passports that have gone missing, having the enemy employed in authority positions in Government could be a fatalistic endeavour, and apparently this is turning out to be true after all. Read the entire article, it'll make your stomach turn.
Some Asians(muslims) in the police and in Government jobs have been accused of blocking the crackdown against so-called honour killings.
It is alleged they are not only failing to help desperate women trying to flee abuse and arranged marriages but are actively encouraging punishment for those they believe are breaking traditional taboos.
Terrified victims who seek official help are even being tracked down by a network of Asian men working in Government departments and social services, according to a study written by the think-tank Social Cohesion.
One woman was found by her family after she signed on at a Jobcentre where a member of the Asian community was working.
Read More...
Whole communities are involved in assisting and covering up "honour violence" in Britain, a new study says.
Informal networks of taxi drivers, councillors and sometimes even police officers track down and return women who try to escape, researchers claim.
and here...
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Oh Dhimmi Canada
This is another of Pat Condells rants in which he rightfully goes off on the so-called Human Rights Commissions and the state of free speech in the west. Go Pat! While I don't agree with him on everything, he does make a lucid and eloquent point.
Friday, February 1, 2008
The Lost Art of War
Hollywood’s anti-American war films don’t measure up to the glories of its patriotic era.
Andrew Klavan writes a very articulated article about the demise of patriotic movies. Read the article in it's entirety as it's a fascinating read about the mind of the cultural left.
read in it's entirety:
The Lost Art of War
Andrew Klavan writes a very articulated article about the demise of patriotic movies. Read the article in it's entirety as it's a fascinating read about the mind of the cultural left.
Liberals often argue that in criticizing American actions and culture, artists are actually defending American principles by holding the nation to its own standards. That argument would make sense in an atmosphere of contending visions that showed both America’s greatness and its imperfections. But when the arts purvey only a consistently anti-patriotic and anti-military message, it seems clear that they have in fact detached the ethos from the country that embodies it. In doing so, American artists are adopting European-style cosmopolitanism, which leaves them virtually incapable of depicting warriors as heroes. “International society has ideas to defend—ideas of universal justice—but little actual ground,” the political thinker Robert Kaplan wrote recently. “And without ground to defend, it has little need of heroes.”
read in it's entirety:
The Lost Art of War
First They Came for the Gays
Ht Pajamas Media
by Bruce Bawer
One day last month, I gave a talk in Rome about how the supposedly liberal ideology of multiculturalism has made possible the spread in Europe of the highly illiberal ideology of fundamentalist Islam, with all its brutality and – among other things – violent homophobia. When I returned to my hotel, I phoned my partner back home in Oslo only to learn that moments earlier he had been confronted at a bus stop by two Muslim youths, one of whom had asked if he was gay, started to pull out a knife, then kicked him as he got on the bus, which had pulled up at just the right moment. If the bus hadn’t come when it did, the encounter could have been much worse.
Not very long ago, Oslo was an icy Shangri-la of Scandinavian self-discipline, governability, and respect for the law. But in recent years, there have been grim changes, including a rise in gay-bashings. The summer of 2006 saw an unprecedented wave of them. The culprits, very disproportionately, are young Muslim men.
It’s not just Oslo, of course. The problem afflicts most of Western Europe. And anecdotal evidence suggests that such crimes are dramatically underreported. My own partner chose not to report his assault. I urged him to, but he protested that it wouldn’t make any difference. He was probably right.
The reason for the rise in gay bashings in Europe is clear – and it’s the same reason for the rise in rape. As the number of Muslims in Europe grows, and as the proportion of those Muslims who were born and bred in Europe also grows, many Muslim men are more inclined to see Europe as a part of the umma (or Muslim world), to believe that they have the right and duty to enforce sharia law in the cities where they live, and to recognize that any aggression on their part will likely go unpunished. Such men need not be actively religious in order to feel that they have carte blanche to assault openly gay men and non-submissive women, whose freedom to live their lives as they wish is among the most conspicuous symbols of the West’s defiance of holy law.
Multiculturalists can’t face all this. So it is that even when there are brutal gay-bashings, few journalists write about them; of those who do, few mention that the perpetrators are Muslims; and those who do mention it take the line that these perpetrators are lashing out in desperate response to their own oppression.
Never mind that Europe, far from oppressing Muslims, offers personal freedoms and welfare-state benefits far beyond those available in any Muslim country. Never mind that few if any Europeans – certainly not gay people – are doing any Muslim-bashing. Never mind that Hindu and Buddhist immigrants, or immigrants from South America or China, feel no compulsion to react violently against their “oppression.” No, assaults by Muslims always have to be construed as defensive – as expressions not of power but of weakness, not of aggression but of helplessness. To suggest that the culprits, far from being fragile, sensitive flowers who’ve been pushed over the line by something we did, are in fact bullies driven by an overweening sense of superiority and a deep-seated malice – both of which they’ve been carefully taught at home, at school, and, yes, in the mosque – is verboten.
Read the rest
by Bruce Bawer
One day last month, I gave a talk in Rome about how the supposedly liberal ideology of multiculturalism has made possible the spread in Europe of the highly illiberal ideology of fundamentalist Islam, with all its brutality and – among other things – violent homophobia. When I returned to my hotel, I phoned my partner back home in Oslo only to learn that moments earlier he had been confronted at a bus stop by two Muslim youths, one of whom had asked if he was gay, started to pull out a knife, then kicked him as he got on the bus, which had pulled up at just the right moment. If the bus hadn’t come when it did, the encounter could have been much worse.
Not very long ago, Oslo was an icy Shangri-la of Scandinavian self-discipline, governability, and respect for the law. But in recent years, there have been grim changes, including a rise in gay-bashings. The summer of 2006 saw an unprecedented wave of them. The culprits, very disproportionately, are young Muslim men.
It’s not just Oslo, of course. The problem afflicts most of Western Europe. And anecdotal evidence suggests that such crimes are dramatically underreported. My own partner chose not to report his assault. I urged him to, but he protested that it wouldn’t make any difference. He was probably right.
The reason for the rise in gay bashings in Europe is clear – and it’s the same reason for the rise in rape. As the number of Muslims in Europe grows, and as the proportion of those Muslims who were born and bred in Europe also grows, many Muslim men are more inclined to see Europe as a part of the umma (or Muslim world), to believe that they have the right and duty to enforce sharia law in the cities where they live, and to recognize that any aggression on their part will likely go unpunished. Such men need not be actively religious in order to feel that they have carte blanche to assault openly gay men and non-submissive women, whose freedom to live their lives as they wish is among the most conspicuous symbols of the West’s defiance of holy law.
Multiculturalists can’t face all this. So it is that even when there are brutal gay-bashings, few journalists write about them; of those who do, few mention that the perpetrators are Muslims; and those who do mention it take the line that these perpetrators are lashing out in desperate response to their own oppression.
Never mind that Europe, far from oppressing Muslims, offers personal freedoms and welfare-state benefits far beyond those available in any Muslim country. Never mind that few if any Europeans – certainly not gay people – are doing any Muslim-bashing. Never mind that Hindu and Buddhist immigrants, or immigrants from South America or China, feel no compulsion to react violently against their “oppression.” No, assaults by Muslims always have to be construed as defensive – as expressions not of power but of weakness, not of aggression but of helplessness. To suggest that the culprits, far from being fragile, sensitive flowers who’ve been pushed over the line by something we did, are in fact bullies driven by an overweening sense of superiority and a deep-seated malice – both of which they’ve been carefully taught at home, at school, and, yes, in the mosque – is verboten.
Read the rest
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
