Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Cassandra foresaw the destruction of Troy (she warned the Trojans about the Trojan Horse, the death of Agamemnon, and her own demise), she was unable to do anything to forestall these tragedies since they did not believe her.
In my online book, "The White Rose" a fascist Administration and Congress are overthrown by General Conway who becomes "First Citizen" of the authoritarian Commonwealth of America which suspends the U.S. Constitution for a period of ten years. Conway then conducts a ruthless destruction of fascists in the federal bureaucracies, Congress, courts, academia, media and entertainment industry centered in Hollywood with the result that millions of "Enemies of the America" are imprisoned, exiled, or executed.
I modeled my character of General Conway on a general officer like Petraeus, because only the U.S. military has the guts, brains and ruthlessness to root out and kill the Leftist fascists who have reduced the once mighty United States to a pathetic Weimar Republic standing on the edge of nation destroying Depression and hyperinflation.
It is interesting that Gore Vidal thinks a military dictatorship, a "Commonwealth of America," is in the cards for this country as well. I understand, as Rush Limbaugh points out below, that Vidal is insane. I'm sure if Rush knew me he'd say pretty much the same thing about me, but it must be admitted that even the Cassandras to whom no one pays attention are often right about things to come.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: I don't think that's naivete. It is certainly ego. But, folks, we're dealing with a guy who is out to destroy the whole concept of the West, western civilization, the West in terms of a geopolitical organization of nations, out to destroy it. We've never seen anything like this. Gore Vidal even says that we're headed toward a dictatorship soon in the United States of America and this is in the UK Times. He voted for Obama. Now, Gore Vidal himself is insane, but this nevertheless is quite instructive. Gore Vidal famously switched allegiance from Hillary to Barack Obama during the nomination process, and now in this interview he regrets his change of heart. "How’s Obama doing? 'Dreadfully. I was hopeful. He was the most intelligent person we’ve had in that position for a long time. But he’s inexperienced. He has a total inability to understand military matters. He’s acting as if Afghanistan is the magic talisman: solve that and you solve terrorism.'
"Another notable Obama misstep has been on healthcare reform. 'He [screwed] it up. I don’t know how because the country wanted it.' … America has 'no intellectual class' and is 'rotting away at a funereal pace. We’ll have a military dictatorship fairly soon, on the basis that nobody else can hold everything together. Obama would have been better off focusing on educating the American people.'" Now, this is in the women's section of the UK Times, the life and style section. But Gore Vidal, who himself is a left-wing lunatic, despite his lunacy is seeing the lunacy he's looking at when he looks at the White House. I guess it takes a lunatic to see a lunatic, to know one. See, the problem is, if Obama had more experience in the public or private sector, he never would have been elected president in the first place. The more we know, the more the myth of Obama fades. It was Obama's inexperience and platitudes that got him elected. It's his inexperience that's going to do great harm to the country and the world that we used to lead.
JEEZ! The stats say Leftard Media are going out of business at a slower rate and this is good news? I suppose when the last Old Media outlet bites the dust this will be twisted into good news as well. Actually, that REALLY would be good news and for once they'd be in the "no spin zone."
Newspaper Cancellations Drop
September 30, 2009
A new study by the National Newspaper Association has found that subscriber cancellations have dropped from previous levels.
In an effort to survive their recent economic struggles, newspapers across the country have increased home delivery and single copy prices.
But a recent study by the Newspaper Association of America has revealed that despite increased prices, fewer subscribers are canceling their subscriptions.
According to data from the the NAA's 2009 Circulation Facts, Figures and Logic study, the percentage of subscribers who have canceled their subscriptions fell to 31.8 percent last year, compared to 54.5 percent several years ago in 2000.
NAA President and CEO John F. Sturm attributed this lack of churn to newspapers' focus on retaining readers in prime markets in order to give advertisers the most for their money. The study's data also revealed that readers were drawn in through new business models and multi-platform content, the NAA said.
Well, at least the industry is doing something right. And readers are staying loyal and sticking by their papers even as sub prices rise. It's heartening news.
Is the glass half empty of half full. Yes the cancellations have slowed but they are also working on a much lower base which has been pinching the papers. The fact that nearly 32% of subscribers have cancelled their papers is nothing to cheer about.
How does the newspaper benefit if they raise their subscription prices 25% but lose 30% of their base? The day of the $10 Sunday New York Times is probably not far off but there will be few buyers at that price.
Well, Glad We Cleared That Up
Andy Levy of Fox News’ Red Eye show tweets, “Shocking: Woody Allen signs petition demanding Polanski’s release.”
The Guardian adds the following names to the list:
Woody Allen, David Lynch and Martin Scorsese today added their names to a petition demanding the immediate release of Roman Polanski from detention in Zurich. The director was arrested on Saturday over a three-decade-old underage sex case when he arrived to receive a lifetime achievement award at the city’s film festival.
“Film-makers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision,” says the petition, which is co-ordinated by the Société des Auteurs et Compositeurs Dramatiques (SACD), a film industry organisation which also represents performance and visual artists.
“It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary film-makers, is used by police to apprehend him,” it adds.
The petition has now been signed by more than 70 film industry luminaries, including Polanski’s fellow directors Michael Mann, Wim Wenders, Pedro Almodóvar, Darren Aronofsky, Terry Gilliam, Julian Schnabel, the Dardenne brothers, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Wong Kar-Wai, Walter Salles and Jonathan Demme. Actors Tilda Swinton, Monica Bellucci and Asia Argento, as well as producer Harvey Weinstein, have also put their names on the petition. Yesterday, Weinstein stated he was “calling on every film-maker we can to help fix this terrible situation”.
The five members of the jury at the Zurich film festival, headed by the actor Debra Winger, yesterday released a statement protesting that the event “had been exploited in an unfair fashion”.
At least one jury member, producer Henning Molfenter, has now boycotted the festival, with others expected to follow suit. “There is no way I’d go to Switzerland now. You can’t watch films knowing Roman Polanski is sitting in a cell 5km away,” he told the Hollywood Reporter.
France’s Society of Film Directors joined in the chorus of disapproval, voicing concern that the arrest “could have disastrous consequences for freedom of expression across the world”.
Yes! It could mark the slippery slope back to the horrible days of the Hays Office — that neanderthal period when Hollywood made its best movies.
And as “the Arquette Sisters”, also members of the vast Gutfeldian media empire ask, “It raises the question what else do these people believe in if Polanski’s crime is defensible?”
Update: Related thoughts from the Anchoress and Fausta Wertz; meanwhile, film critic/blogger Christian Toto is disapointed that Martin Scorsese is defending Polanski:
Hollywood’s penchant for moral relativism can be tough to swallow, especially for an unabashed movie lover.
As much as I adore Woody Allen’s best films, I’m aghast at how he segued from dating Mia Farrow to stepping out with her step-daughter, Soon Yi. It never stopped actors from signing up to star in Allen’s films, and even taking a pay cut for the honor.
So when some Hollywood heavy hitters signed a petition demanding the release of director Roman Polanski, I knew what to expect. I also guessed a few of the names on said list. (hat tip: Ed Driscoll)
And as PunditReview notes on Twitter, “Diane Sawyer’s hubby, director Mike Nichols, is cool with raping a 13-year old.”
Since, as that left likes to say, “silence equals consent” (or worse), at this point, I sort of assume that anyone in Hollywood who hasn’t spoken up in outrage over Polanski’s crime supports him, at least tacitly.
Something to keep in mind the next time Hollywood slips into one of its frequent puritanical phases.
Related: Would President Obama’s “safe school czar” be cool with Polanski? Certainly sounds that way, if the information in this Washington Times op-ed is correct.
Update: Welcome Big Hollywood readers clicking in from the site’s headlines — the most complete list of Polanski supporters in the Hollywood and European film communities seems to be this one. It’s also linked in the above post, but I wanted to make it a bit easier to find.
Also chiming in was The View’s Sherri Shepherd.
“Whew…long day at The View…two shows today…hot debate over the Statutory Rapist Polanski. 45 year old man plies a 13yr old w/drugs & Liquor and anally & orally penetrates her w/o her consent is a RAPIST,” she tweeted. “We hunt down 75 year old Nazis. We must protect our children.”
Sadly, Whoopi doesn’t agree.
So what does it take to be shunned in Hollywood? the “Trogolopundit” offers photographic evidence of the quickest route to becoming a Tinseltown pariah.
Update: After fleeing the US in the mid-1970s, Polanski would of course arrive in Paris, where he quickly resumed his film career, complete with A-list Hollywood stars at his beck and call. It was all part of the, “horrible, soul-wrenching price for the infamy surrounding his actions”, as the L.A. Times recently wrote. In 1979, he told one interviewer:
Yes, but you allow the socialist Labour rats to live to fight another day. What is needed in Britain - as in America - are revolutionists to follow the socialist parasites into their rat holes and kill them, burn the bodies and burn the ashes so that socialism is completely destroyed.
TWELVE years ago, Britain was crying out for change from a divided, exhausted Government. Today we are there again.
In 1997, "New" Labour, shorn of its destructive hard-Left doctrines and with an energetic and charismatic leader, seemed the answer. Tony Blair said things could only get better, and few doubted him. But did they get better? Well, you could point to investment in schools and shorter hospital waiting lists and say yes, some things did - a little.
But the real story of the Labour years is one of under-achievement, rank failure and a vast expansion of wasteful government interference in everyone's lives.
Who do YOU want to lead the country?
Nobody can doubt the dedication of Gordon Brown - or the love and loyalty of his wife Sarah, who delivered a moving plea on his behalf yesterday.
But nor can they disguise the failures of Labour in Government over the last 12 years, many of them embarrassingly laid bare by the PM's own words yesterday.
Britain feels broken . . . and the Government is out of excuses.
Blair took office with bulging coffers, an invincible majority and weak opposition, and he and Gordon Brown could have worked miracles.
But they FAILED on law and order, their mantra "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" becoming a national joke. Knife murders are soaring. Smirking criminals routinely walk free in the name of political correctness, while decent people live in a virtual police state of snooping cameras and petty officials empowered to spy and to punish.
Labour FAILED on schools. Yes, facilities improved - but four in 10 kids leave those shiny classrooms still unable to read, write or add up properly. We are plummeting down international league tables for maths and literacy, but every year "grade inflation" ensures record GCSE and A-level passes to fuel Government propaganda.
Labour FAILED on health - spending billions on clipboard-ticking target managers instead of on frontline care.
Labour FAILED on immigration, opening our borders without any regard to the consequences. Illegal migrants and bogus asylum seekers poured in.
Labour FAILED the children they claimed to have made their priority. After 12 years of Blair and Brown, Britain is officially the WORST country in the developed world in which to grow up.
Most disgracefully of all, Labour FAILED our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving them to die through chronic under-funding and the shambolic leadership of dismal Defence Secretaries like Bob Ainsworth.
More promises ... Gordon Brown after his speech at the Labour Party conference in Brighton
As our forces in two war zones suffered, the scale of Government waste at home was mind-boggling and tragic:
Billions blown employing a useless layer of public service middle-managers like those who condemned Baby P to die.
Billions more spent, insanely, making benefits more lucrative than a pay cheque - creating a huge, idle underclass for whom work is a dirty word. And all along the Government has had one overriding concern: Itself.
Blair and Brown's puerile feud has long been a cancer at the heart of New Labour, their divisions often paralysing the country.
Labour's driving ambition has not been to improve Britain. It has been to retain power at all costs - with no lie judged too great in its ruthless and relentless self-promotion.
They promised a referendum on Europe. They claimed they had ended "boom and bust". They tried to con the public with promises of endless investment, when they knew they would have to cut.
At the 2005 election, we and our readers believed Labour had many failings but gave them one last chance over a lacklustre Tory party.
They have had that chance and failed.
That is a fact Gordon Brown cannot escape, for all his rhetoric yesterday - his rewriting of history, his absurd caricature of the "heartless" Tories, his tired promises to solve problems he has had 12 years to solve.
Britain needs a brave and wise Government to restore our self-respect, our natural entrepreneurship and the will of every family to improve its lot through its own efforts, without depending on handouts.
We need a Government that will cut the red tape strangling businesses, that will make affordable tax cuts to stimulate growth, that will reform wasteful public services.
We need a Government with a genuine will to win the war in Afghanistan and the commitment to give our forces whatever they need to do it.
This will not be a Government that merely talks the talk, as Labour has. It will ACT.
We hope, and pray, that the next Government will have the guts and the determination to do these things. And we believe David Cameron should lead it.
Between now and the election Cameron's Conservatives must earn voters' trust by setting out their promising policies in detail.
If elected, Cameron must use the same energy and determination with which he reinvigorated the Tory Party to breathe new life into Britain.
That means genuine, radical change to encourage self-improvers, not wasting time on internal party wrangling or pandering to the forces of political correctness. It also means an honesty and transparency of Government that we have not seen for years.
We are still a great people and, put to the test, will respond to the challenges we face.
The Sun believes - and prays - that the Conservative leadership can put the great back into Great Britain.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Why did I post this article? Well because I think the words written for the United States of America by Jefferson are the greatest words ever written and today, we in the country founded in liberty have a corrupt, degenerate and fascist government that ignores and abuses the people and therefore, it becomes the duty of the people to overthrow that government.
If it is possible to have a favorite out of so many brave, great men as the Declarations signatories, mine would be Thomas Jefferson and below are a few of my favorite quotations by him.
The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
I have the consolation of having added nothing to my private fortune during my public service, and of retiring with hands clean as they are empty.
ALSO...this gives a new meaning to the term ASSassination
(CBS) Al Qaeda has developed a new tactic that allows suicide bombers to breach even the tightest security, as CBS News correspondent Sheila MacVicar reports.
Inside a Saudi palace, the scene was the bloody aftermath of an al Qaeda attack in August aimed at killing Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef, head of Saudi Arabia's counter terrorism operations.
To get his bomb into this room, Abdullah Asieri, one of Saudi Arabia's most wanted men, avoided detection by two sets of airport security including metal detectors and palace security. He spent 30 hours in the close company of the prince's own secret service agents - all without anyone suspecting a thing.
How did he do it?
Taking a trick from the narcotics trade - which has long smuggled drugs in body cavities - Asieri had a pound of high explosives, plus a detonator inserted in his rectum.
This was a meticulously planned operation with al Qaeda once again producing something new: this time, the Trojan bomber.
The blast left the prince lightly wounded - a failure as an assassination, but as an exercise in defeating security, it was perfect.
The bomber persuaded the prince he wanted to leave al Qaeda, setting a trap.
Al Qaeda has an animated movie showing the meeting between the bomber and the prince. Asieri says more senior al Qaeda figures want to surrender and convinces the prince to talk to them on a cell phone.
In the conversation recorded by al Qaeda, you hear a beep in the middle of two identical phrases that are repeated by the bomber and his handler.
Explosives experts tell CBS News that beep was likely a text message activating the bomb concealed inside Asieri.
The Trojan bomber hands the phone to Prince Mohammed. He's standing next to him, and 14 seconds later, he detonates.
"This is the nightmare scenario," said Chris Yates, an aviation security consultant.
On a plane at altitude, the effects of such a bomb could be catastrophic. And there is no current security system that could stop it.
"Absolutely nothing other than to require people to strip naked at the airport," said Yates.
And al Qaeda says it will share its new technique via the Internet very soon. There is nothing that can stop that either.
THANK GOD OBAMA WON THE ELECTION
Dominick G. Spadea
September 29, 2009
The time for optimism is at hand.We conservatives must understand that the Obama Presidency is not our Winter of Discontent but a magnificent historical opportunity to roll back the forces of Progressive Liberalism that have for over a century watered down and diminished the liberty of the individual American citizen. We must understand clearly what the election of Barack Obama really means for our nation in this time of crisis so that we can seize the opportunity and make it serve our cause of restoring liberty to this great nation. It might seem odd for me to say that Obama's election should be a cause for optimism given the potential for damage to our nation from this man of the Left. But consider this.
We are facing unprecedented, even catastrophic, economic and social disruption due to the fiscal and monetary policies instituted by the United States Government under both political parties since the creation of the Federal Reserve System and the ratification of the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) in 1913. And that is not just my opinion. From the great economist Ludwig von Mises, who warned in his seminal work, Human Action, that “there is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion”, to many contemporary observers like Professor Nouriel Roubini, Robert Prechter, Gereld Celente and Peter Schiff the message is the same. Massive government debt and fiat money creation cannot be sustained. The financial center of our modern economy that was created in 1913, the core of which is fiat money created by the Federal Reserve Board, cannot hold.
We must heed these warnings and prepare for the worst economic and social crises of our lives. It is just around the corner. And let me be blunt. It is our job as free market conservatives to see that Barack Obama and Progressive Liberalism get the blame for what is coming.
And they should. The Progressive Liberal ideology that has metastasized in other countries into Fascism and Communism has been here in the US a somewhat slow growing cancer that has finally reached critical mass. From Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson through FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society, and the RINO Hall of Famers; Nixon, Ford, Bush I and Bush II, the Federal Reserve monopoly to create fiat money has fueled the massive growth of the national government. And as government power has grown the rights and liberties of individuals, private companies, and all the other institutions of a free and productive country, have been squeezed out.
But our good fortune today is that Obama has made it crystal clear that he is hell bent on bringing to fruition a form of American fascism grounded in the principles of Progressive Liberalism at the precise time the whole edifice is starting to implode. Talk about good timing!
The first consequence of Obama’s stern, uncompromising, and rather humorless advance towards his goal is the awakening of the American people to the threat. Does anyone really believe that if John McCain had been elected instead of Obama and pursued similar policies, albeit with a sweet chaser of GOP platitudes about freedom, ala George Bush II, that the Tea Parties, the rising dominance of FOX news, Glenn Beck and those kids destroying ACORN, would have occurred? To even ask the question is to answer it. The great tectonic plates of American history are starting to move once more.
“THE REVENUE OF THE STATE IS THE STATE.” Edmund Burke. Reflections on the Revolution in France.
So how do conservatives go about getting back control of our government during and after the coming collapse? First we need to understand, as Burke pointed out over two hundred years ago, that the power of the government rests on its revenue. When the government has unlimited power to create it’s own revenue it will become a consuming beast devouring every independent power base in the nation. What Burke called the little platoons of freedom and independence IE: the States; the Schools and Universities; the Churches; the Shops and Factories; the Clubs; the Arts; and that last great bulwark against tyranny; the Family itself, have all, in one way or another, fallen under the smothering dead hand of the national government.
I am not an intellectual or an economist. I am a production man rooted in reality. I deal in hard, cold cause and effect. I live in a world of concrete things. To cut steel and produce a good machined part you need sharp tools, proper lubricant, the right machine, and a skilled operator. There is no wishful thinking or ideology in manufacturing. It is not a virtual world. Real results flow directly from what the real components bring to the task. Flawed components mean flawed results. It is an unforgiving world where A is A. All the time, whether one likes it or not. So I look at things from a perspective of how they actually are produced. What is the real cause for any given effect? How are things actually done? Not theoretically done. Not hopefully done. Actually done. And when I observe the growth of the power of this government I ask the question: How did this happen? What are the hard, cold means by which this entity known as “government” has amassed such staggering power in this society? What is the concrete source of its power? What real components went into the formation of this power? And I conclude it is the authority and ability to CREATE MONEY. Not 'make' money by creating value as in productive enterprises. Not 'getting' money from the earned wealth of the people through taxation. Not even 'borrowing' it from others who have produced something of value. No. Pure and simple the hard cold fact is this. It is the revenue gained from the creation of Federal Reserve Notes that gives the government its immense power over our lives. A power so all encompassing, so all enveloping, that it is as ambient as the air we breath. But unlike life sustaining air this power is as toxic as poison gas. It is precisely what our Founding Fathers warned against: The concentration of power in the hands of a few.
Ask yourself these questions:
Is not this power to create and spend any monies they think necessary what lies at the root of Obama’s power to control banks and take over car companies? Is not this power to create and spend any monies they think necessary behind the corruption we see in Washington? The very buying and selling of influence is made manifest by all the fiat money at the disposal of the politicians. And is it not this power to create and spend any monies they think necessary the real reason the American people have lost control of their government. Taxes do not support this beast. Fiat money created by the Fed does.
I maintain that the system which gives some men a monopoly to create money out of thin air, at their will, unbounded by any link with a physical, concrete entity, has given the national government such immense power over this society that nothing; not our Constitution, not new laws, not even new leaders, can give us back our independence as a free people as long as this system of Federal Reserve created money exists. That this system is evil is self-evident. But like all parasitical systems it eventually dies after devouring the host. The bad news is we are the host! And the American people are still not aware of the danger they face. And its cause. That is where we conservatives come in.
For as this evil system dies it is incumbent upon us to give a good explanation of the cause of this catastrophe and an honest and workable plan to repair the damage brought about by the Federal Reserve System and fiat money creation. To make sure that safeguards are put in place that will prevent this curse from ever again harming our people. And to punish the guilty.
Our enemies will blame the free market. They already do. They will blame private property. They already do. And they will blame not having enough power in the very institution that is the cause of all our woes. Even as I write these words they are already saying that we need to give the Federal Reserve Board more power to control our economy! Are they mad to ask? Or are we mad to even consider it?
But politically speaking we have an advantage precisely because Obama and the Democrats won the last election. Because the Democrats control both Houses of Congress and the White House they will not escape blame. For even though Republicans are just as guilty over the last 100 yrs in putting in place this vile system that now is dying, when the music finally stops on this musical chairs dance of death it will be the Democrats and Obama himself who will be in want of a chair. It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.
On July 10, 1832 President Andrew Jackson issued his veto of the Federal Reserve Bank of his day with the following words that even today cut to the heart of the matter. Monopoly, special privilege, and unjust advantage to a few, are anti-American, unconstitutional and ultimately doomed to failure.
"It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles" It appears old Andy Jackson will have the last laugh!
The next president of the United States - the patriotic, intelligent, gutsy, proud, aggressive and Lone Wolf Sarah Palin will shortly publish her book, which I'll wager was actually written by her.
YOU GO GIRL! WE NEED A MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE
Palin finishes memoir, 'Going Rogue,' out Nov. 17
By HILLEL ITALIE (AP)
NEW YORK — Sarah Palin (PAY'-lin) has finished her memoir just four months after the book deal was announced. Her publisher says the release date has been moved up from the spring to Nov. 17.
Harper publisher Jonathan Burnham says the former Alaska governor invested herself deeply and passionately in the project. He says the book contains fascinating detail.
The 400-page book is the first for Palin, who has been an object of fascination since Republican Sen. John McCain chose her as his running mate during his 2008 presidential bid. The book will be called "Going Rogue: An American Life."
A huge first printing of 1.5 million copies has been commissioned by Harper, an imprint of HarperCollins.
Palin allies report rising camp tension
By: Ben Smith
October 25, 2008
Even as John McCain and Sarah Palin scramble to close the gap in the final days of the 2008 election, stirrings of a Palin insurgency are complicating the campaign's already-tense internal dynamics.
Four Republicans close to Palin said she has decided increasingly to disregard the advice of the former Bush aides tasked to handle her, creating occasionally tense situations as she travels the country with them. Those Palin supporters, inside the campaign and out, said Palin blames her handlers for a botched rollout and a tarnished public image — even as others in McCain's camp blame the pick of the relatively inexperienced Alaska governor, and her public performance, for McCain's decline.
"She's lost confidence in most of the people on the plane," said a senior Republican who speaks to Palin, referring to her campaign jet. He said Palin had begun to "go rogue" in some of her public pronouncements and decisions.
"I think she'd like to go more rogue," he said.
The emergence of a Palin faction comes as Republicans gird for a battle over the future of their party: Some see her as a charismatic, hawkish conservative leader with the potential, still unrealized, to cross over to attract moderate voters. Anger among Republicans who see Palin as a star and as a potential future leader has boiled over because, they say, they see other senior McCain aides preparing to blame her in the event he is defeated.
"These people are going to try and shred her after the campaign to divert blame from themselves," a McCain insider said, referring to McCain's chief strategist, Steve Schmidt, and to Nicolle Wallace, a former Bush aide who has taken a lead role in Palin's campaign. Palin's partisans blame Wallace, in particular, for Palin's avoiding of the media for days and then giving a high-stakes interview to CBS News' Katie Couric, the sometimes painful content of which the campaign allowed to be parceled out over a week.
"A number of Gov. Palin's staff have not had her best interests at heart, and they have not had the campaign's best interests at heart," the McCain insider fumed, noting that Wallace left an executive job at CBS to join the campaign.
Wallace declined to engage publicly in the finger-pointing that has consumed the campaign in the final weeks.
"I am in awe of [Palin's] strength under constant fire by the media," she said in an e-mail. "If someone wants to throw me under the bus, my personal belief is that the most graceful thing to do is to lie there."
But other McCain aides, defending Wallace, dismissed the notion that Palin was mishandled. The Alaska governor was, they argue, simply unready — "green," sloppy and incomprehensibly willing to criticize McCain for, for instance, not attacking Sen. Barack Obama for his relationship with his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Palin has in fact performed fairly well in the moments thought to be key for a vice presidential nominee: She made a good impression in her surprise rollout in Ohio and her speech to the Republican National Convention went better than the campaign could have imagined. She turned in an adequate performance at a debate against the Democratic Party's foremost debater.
But other elements of her image-making went catastrophically awry. Her dodging of the press and her nervous reliance on tight scripts in her first interview, with ABC News, became a national joke — driven home to devastating effect by "Saturday Night Live" comic Tina Fey. The Couric interview — her only unstaged appearance for a week — was "water torture," as one internal ally put it.
Some McCain aides say they had little choice with a candidate who simply wasn't ready for the national stage, and that Palin didn't forcefully object. Moments that Palin's allies see as triumphs of instinct and authenticity — the Wright suggestion, her objection to the campaign's pulling out of Michigan — they dismiss as Palin's "slips and miscommunications," that is, her own incompetence and evidence of the need for tight scripting.
But Palin partisans say she chafed at the handling.
"The campaign as a whole bought completely into what the Washington media said — that she's completely inexperienced," said a close Palin ally outside the campaign who speaks regularly to the candidate.
"Her strategy was to be trustworthy and a team player during the convention and thereafter, but she felt completely mismanaged and mishandled and ill advised," the person said. "Recently, she's gone from relying on McCain advisers who were assigned to her to relying on her own instincts."
Palin's loyalists say she's grown particularly disenchanted with the veterans of the Bush reelection campaign, including Schmidt and Wallace, and that despite her anti-intellectual rhetoric, her closest ally among her new traveling aides is a policy adviser, former National Security Council official Steve Biegun. She's also said to be close with McCain's chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, who prepared her for the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate.
When a McCain aide, speaking anonymously Friday to The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, suggested that Palin's charge that Obama was "palling around with terrorists" had "escaped HQ's vetting," it was Scheunemann who fired off an angry response that the speech was "fully vetted" and that to attack Palin for it was "bullshit."
Palin's "instincts," on display in recent days, have had her opening up to the media, including a round of interviews on talk radio, cable and broadcast outlets, as well as chats with her traveling press and local reporters.
Reporters really began to notice the change last Sunday, when Palin strolled over to a local television crew in Colorado Springs.
"Get Tracey," a staffer called out, according to The New York Times, summoning spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt, who reportedly "tried several times to cut it off with a terse 'Thank you!' in between questions, to no avail." The moment may have caused ulcers in some precincts of the McCain campaign, but it was an account Palin's admirers in Washington cheered.
Palin had also sought to give meatier policy speeches, in particular on energy policy and on policy for children with disabilities; she finally gave the latter speech Friday, but had wanted to deliver it much earlier.
She's also begun to make her own ad hoc calls about the campaign's direction and the ticket's policy. McCain, for instance, has remained silent on Democrats' calls for a stimulus package of new spending, a move many conservatives oppose but that could be broadly popular. But in an interview with the conservative radio host Glenn Beck earlier this week, Palin went "off the reservation" to make the campaign policy, one aide said.
"I say, you know, when is enough enough of taxpayer dollars being thrown into this bill out there?" she asked. "This next one of the Democrats being proposed should be very, very concerning to all Americans because to me it sends a message that $700 billion bailout, maybe that was just the tip of the iceberg. No, you know, we were told when we've got to be believing if we have enough elected officials who are going to be standing strong on fiscal conservative principles and free enterprise and we have to believe that there are enough of those elected officials to say, 'No, OK, that's enough.'"
(A McCain spokeswoman said Palin's statement was "a good sentiment.")
But few imagine that Palin will be able to repair her image — and bad poll numbers — in the eleven days before the campaign ends. And the final straw for Palin and her allies was the news that the campaign had reported spending $150,000 on her clothes, turning her, again, into the butt of late-night humor.
"She never even set foot in these stores," the senior Republican said, noting Palin hadn't realized the cost when the clothes were brought to her in her Minnesota hotel room.
"It's completely out-of-control operatives," said the close ally outside the campaign. "She has no responsibility for that. It's incredibly frustrating for us and for her."
Between Palin's internal detractors and her allies, there's a middle ground: Some aides say that she's a flawed candidate whose handling exaggerated her weak spots.
"She was completely mishandled in the beginning. No one took the time to look at what her personal strengths and weaknesses are and developed a plan that made sense based on who she is as a candidate," the aide said. "Any concerns she or those close to her have about that are totally valid."
But the aide said that Palin's inexperience led her to her own mistakes:
"How she was handled allowed her weaknesses to hang out in full display."
If McCain loses, Palin's allies say that the national Republican Party hasn't seen the last of her. Politicians are sometimes formed by a signal defeat — as Bill Clinton was when he was tossed out of the Arkansas governor's mansion after his first term — and Palin would return to a state that had made her America's most popular governor and where her image as a reformer who swept aside her own party's insiders rings true, if not in the cartoon version the McCain campaign presented.
"There are people in this campaign who feel a real sense of loyalty to her and are really pleased with her performance and think she did a great job," said the McCain insider. "She has a real future in this party."
September 29, 2009
Are We Witnessing the Collapse of Liberalism?
By J. Robert Smith
Less than a year into his presidency, Barack Obama's world grows bleaker. Liberalism's world is bleaker. At home and abroad, liberalism, as advanced by the President, is failing. Are we witnessing the beginnings of another historic event, loosely comparable to the fall of communism twenty years ago? Now the fall of liberalism?
Remember, at the beginning of the 1980s, no one would have predicted that by the decade's close the Berlin Wall would fall, communism would be discredited and the Soviet Union would be less than a couple of years away from dissolution.
Though no conservative worth his salt is surprised by liberalism's shortcomings, the rapidity of its failure is surprising. More importantly, it's alarming, for though the effects of liberalism's failure are damaging to us at home, they may prove terrible to us abroad.
Step back to consider. What's working for Mr. Obama and the Democrats?
Despite the Democrats' interventions, an anemic economy promises nothing more than a tepid recovery, if that. Democrats are indebting the nation to the tune of trillions of dollars. The greenback has been debased. Serious inflation is coming, and that inflation will trigger another economic downturn, one that might be sharper and deeper than we're now experiencing.
What commonsense American believes that mountains of debt and looming inflation are good for a struggling economy? More to the point, if a party has a sober worldview and a solid grasp of recent history, how can it possibly legislate policies and spending that must have disastrous consequences?
Well, it can't. But Democrats can. They long ago raised liberalism to dogma. Reality is off-limits to the faithful.
The economic policies of Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter were disasters, culminating in bitter years of stagflation. Rather than learning from those calamitous years, and from the subsequent Reagan years, when the damage was undone and the economy righted, liberals stubbornly insist on another go, as if their earlier failures were simply a matter of flawed execution.
Today, President Obama flirts with protectionism. He recently slapped sanctions on Chinese tires to appease union bosses. Free trade agreements with Colombia and other nations shamefully languish in Congress. Protectionism not only hurts consumers and producers, but could spark conflict abroad.
Evidently, currying favor with a key constituency -- unions -- is of greater importance to Mr. Obama than the economic and national security ramifications of protectionism. The Smoot-Hawley Act, which built the economic equivalent of the Berlin Wall around the American economy, is increasingly understood as the trigger for the Great Depression.
History points to the advantages of open trade, not a closed economy. Oddly, on this score, liberals are embracing Herbert Hoover.
The President's advocacy of government-controlled healthcare is another testament to belief over reality. In Canada and Great Britain, socialized medicine has proven to be expensive, inefficient, deficient (rationing) and, at best, mediocre. Proposals for it here are proving to be broadly and intensely unpopular. Yet, the President forges ahead.
In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid threatens to invoke an arcane budget resolution rule to pass healthcare reform if he can't round up sixty votes to end debate to move the matter to a final vote. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), who authored the budget resolution rule, has flatly stated that using it to pass healthcare reform would be a gross misapplication and a disturbing precedent.
But this is what liberals are down to: ignoring the will of the majority and bending rules to impose a takeover of healthcare on Americans.
A political party with principles and ideas that resonate with voters doesn't need to ignore the people, nor does it need to resort to parliamentary chicanery to win a result. It speaks tellingly of the weakness, not the strength, of modern liberals that they're willing to end-run the popular will.
But it's overseas where liberalism, as expressed through Mr. Obama's foreign policy, poses great dangers to the Republic. In truth, the question now isn't will the United States pay a terrible price for the President's policies, but when.
Mr. Obama took to the world stage in January sporting sackcloth and ashes. His public confessions for alleged American misdeeds and arrogance were designed to win the absolution of offended allies and enemies alike.
The United States will no longer lead, Mr. Obama all but declared. Instead, it will step down to join the crowd. Good will and fellowship, dialogue and negotiation, accommodation and consensus, shall bring civility and peace to a fractious world.
But reality, that cruel lover, has other ideas. The President's bended knee and olive branches are being met with sneers and cold contempt by rogues. His measure has been taken, and he's deemed weak. And, by extension, so is liberalism, which governs his actions.
The President unilaterally withdrew elements of missile defense from the Poles and Czechs. His gesture was met immediately by the Russians with cool disdain. The Russians, historically a brutal people with a taste for domination, see the President's action as craven; it will embolden them to push for more concessions, perhaps concerning Georgia or even the Ukraine. The Chinese are no less likely to test the President's mettle. Taiwan could be in China's crosshairs.
Mr. Obama's pledge to shut down Gitmo -- someday -- met with plenty of applause from leftists here and overseas. Yet the nation's enemies were unmoved. To their eyes, Gitmo was already Club Med. Their enemies don't get kid-glove treatment. Yet another sure sign to them of presidential timidity.
And this past week, President Obama managed a two-fer. He waffled on his commitment to fight the "necessary war" in Afghanistan and, after his gauzy U.N. speech, was greeted with brazen defiance by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose nation, we've learned, has a secret second uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom. Still more evidence that the Iranians plan on building unholy nuclear bombs.
In response, all the President could do was retreat into legalism. He said this:
"The Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law."
What any fair-minded observer sees is that the Iranians are demonstrating through deeds their intention to create nuclear weapons. Their missile test over the weekend has nothing to do with "Atoms for Peace." Given their persistence, they don't seem greatly deterred by the threat of slaps on the wrist in international courts or U.N. censure. The mullahs are playing a tough game of chicken, one Mr. Obama and liberals are ill-equipped to play and win.
In less than nine months time, the time of Mr. Obama's tenure, a bad economy remains bad, with the prospect of getting worse. Overseas, the nation's enemies, who only a short time ago feared us, now scheme to overtly or surreptitiously challenge us. Our allies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, some of whom resent our power, must confront an ugly question: What happens in a world absent sufficient projections of American power?
But make no mistake. This is not only the faults and failings of a man, Barack Obama, but of the worldview and philosophy he embodies. Liberalism in action is again proving to be a dismal and dangerous failure. This time, though, its margin for error is greatly diminished. Hence, the nation faces greater risks.
The only way for liberalism to work is if it stops being liberalism. What are the odds of that happening?
RUSH LIMBAUGH: There is an Undeniable Truth of Life, ladies and gentlemen, written by me back in the 1980s. I forget what number this is. There were 35 Undeniable Truths of Life and one of them is going to be one of the themes of the program today and that Undeniable Truth of Life is "ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force." It is not words, doctors, nurses, clean water, environmental policy that has determined and will determine the shape of the world in the future. As is always been the case, ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force. And we have a namby-pamby wimp in the White House leading us in exactly the opposite direction, and he's being made a fool of. Greetings, folks, and welcome. It's Rush Limbaugh and we got a brand-new week of broadcast excellence.
Truth number six of the Undeniable Truths of Life, 35 total, number six: Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force. Now, I can see some people frowning at that. I'm looking at Wendy over there. Wendy is frowning, "What does that mean?" I'm going to explain it and I'm going to illustrate just exactly how dangerously at risk we are with the leadership of President Obama. The National Post in Canada has published some comments that the French President Sarkozy made about Obama's United Nations speech that I have not seen anywhere else, and they are blistering. They basically take Obama to task for being a sophomoric, wishy-washy, unrealistic boob. Imagine being told that by a leader of France, of all places.
Monday, September 28, 2009
INTERESTING THAT THE U.S. SECRET SERVICE (SS) NEVER LOOKED INTO THE MANY THREATS POSTED ON THE INTERNET AGAINST PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, BUT I SUPPOSE THE LEFTARD DOMINATED LEADERSHIP OF THE SS WOULD NEVER ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. AS IS WELL KNOWN IN SS HIGH COMMAND CIRCLES, ONLY PATRIOTIC AND VETERAN AMERICANS LIKE RONBO ARE A THREAT TO OUR GRAND AND GLORIOUS DEAR LEADER OBAMA.
The poll, posted Saturday on Facebook, was taken off the popular social networking site quickly after company officials were alerted to its existence.
Monday, September 28, 2009
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Secret Service is investigating an online survey that asked whether people thought President Obama should be assassinated, officials said Monday.
The poll, posted Saturday on Facebook, was taken off the popular social networking site quickly after company officials were alerted to its existence. But, like any threat against the president, Secret Service agents are taking no chances.
"We are aware of it and we will take the appropriate investigative steps," said Darrin Blackford, a Secret Service spokesman. "We take of these things seriously."
The poll asked respondents "Should Obama be killed?" The choices: No, Maybe, Yes, and Yes if he cuts my health care.
The question was not created by Facebook, but by an independent person using an add-on application that has been suspended from the site.
"The third-party application that enabled an individual user to create the offensive poll was brought to our attention this morning," said Barry Schnitt, Facebook's spokesman for policy.
Because the application was disabled, the responses to the nonscientific polls are not available.
"We're working with the U.S. Secret Service, but they'll need to provide any details of their investigation," Schnitt said.
Some twisted soul posted a Facebook poll yesterday asking whether or not President Obama should be assassinated. Obviously that's a big no-no, and now Facebook and the Secret Service have joined forces to form an elite crime fighting team.
Well, it's probably not as swash-buckling as it sounds, but Facebook did take down the poll and a Secret Service spokesman confirmed the site's cooperation in finding the perp: "We worked with Facebook to take it down, and we are currently investigating the matter."
Facebook, meanwhile, insists it will do everything in its power to find the pollster, and the company's policy spokesman used the occasion to distance the all powerful site from any and all responsibility, because polls are organized by a third-party:
People contact us all the time if they see things that are inappropriate. And we investigate all those reports. We take action by taking it down, by issuing a warning or by reporting it to law enforcement. At the same time, we want Facebook to be open to discuss ideas. We don't pre-approve postings.
As for the poll's results, those aren't being released.
Let me get this straight - Dear Old Deutschland kicks its Leftard Brownshirts into the gutter while in the USA - "The Land of the Free" - a Neo-Nazi Obama Administration increases its power over the U.S. Constitution daily by presidential decrees.
The world has been turned upside down....
German Chancellor Angela Merkel won a resounding reelection in today’s balloting in Germany. That was mostly expected. What wasn’t expected was the absolute drubbing suffered by SPD, the labor/left party. Until this election, Merkel’s conservatives were in an uneasy, ‘grand coalition’ with the SPD. Those days are over. Now Merkel’s conservatives will form a government with the pro-free market (libertarian) FPD party.
Together with the FDP, Mrs Merkel is expected to push for a new era of deeper economic reforms and tax cuts for Europe’s biggest economy. Mrs Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the FDP benefited from dissatisfaction over spiralling national debt and stagnant income levels.
The CDU retained its position as Germany’s largest party with 33.5 per cent and the Free Democrats jumped to 15 per cent.
The result marked a humiliating blow for Germany’s venerable Social Democratic Party, which took just 22.5 per cent.
Predictions of a tight outcome were confounded by frustrated voters embracing Mrs Merkel’s case for a stronger hand to deal with Germany’s long-term financial problems.
Chancellor Merkel’s party support actually dropped slightly from the last election. However, the FDP, the pro-market, libertarianish party almost doubled their support. And, the labor/left collapsed. Totally.
More of that please.
LOTS OF LEFTARD PARASITES support the U.S. going after Roman Polanski, but I must ask, what's the big deal?
•It's only about sex, right?
•It's nobody's business, right?
•It's between him & the girl (who forgave him), so drop the charges, right?
Personally, I think Roman's problem was having sex with a girl. If he was smart, he would have had sex with a young boy instead. That way, every socialist and gay rights supporter in America would be celebrating his actions and defending him until the bitter end.
And before any of you libs gasp and act all offended, I suggest you google "gerry studds" to remind yourselves that you did just that...
SAUDIS WILL LET ISRAEL BOMB IRAN NUCLEAR SITE
Sunday September 27, 2009
By Gordon Thomas and Camilla Tominey INTELLIGENCE chief Sir John Scarlett has been told that Saudi Arabia is ready to allow Israel to bomb Iran’s new nuclear site.
The head of MI6 discussed the issue in London with Mossad chief Meir Dagan and Saudi officials after British intelligence officers helped to uncover the plant, in the side of a mountain near the ancient city of Qom.
The site is seen as a major threat by Tel Aviv and Riyadh. Details of the talks emerged after John Bolton, America’s former UN ambassador, told a meeting of intelligence analysts that “Riyadh certainly approves” of Israel’s use of Saudi airspace.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband acknowledged that the danger of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East was “particularly potent” and refused to rule out military action altogether but he insisted: “We are 100 per cent focused on a diplomatic solution.”
Gordon Brown, US President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have warned Iran’s leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he must allow in weapons inspectors or face more sanctions.
The scene is set for a showdown next Thursday when Iranian officials meet representatives of the E3+3 group of Britain, France, Germany, the US, Russia and China in Geneva.
Significantly, Russia, which has previously resisted pressure for sanctions, said it also found the latest disclosures “disturbing”.
The site near Qom was detected three years ago by British, US and French intelligence agencies.
Diplomatic sources said it could hold 3,000 centrifuges, capable of making enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb each year.
The Irish Government and the Irish voters haven't noticed it yet, but what has been happening in the Czech Republic this week will make the October 2nd Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty irrelevant.
The Irish Government and the Irish ego won't like it. During these past weeks of campaigning, the Irish have allowed themselves to be convinced that the future of Europe depends on their decision.The politicians in Dublin and the rich corporatist lobbyists -- and the propagandists from the European Commission -- who have been running the Yes campaign have been insisting that the Irish overturn their No vote last year, or risk being isolated (and vilified) by other EU states.The voters have been told that a Yes vote is utterly crucial to the 27 member Europe Union. They have been told that is only their wilfully ignorant No vote last year that is holding up Europe.
Errr, not quite. There has also been the problem for the Brussels elite of the independent-minded Czech president, Vaclav Klaus. He has been delaying signing the treaty into law until after Czech elections in November. Now it appears the caretaker government will continue perhaps until as late as June. So Mr Klaus can continue to delay signing the treaty until then -- which is exactly when the general election is due in Britain. And that of course would almost certainly mean a Cameron government and a British referendum on Lisbon.
Brussels has realised all this since the Czech politicians decided earlier this week to delay the elections. What few have quite grasped, though, is what else is will mean. A new Commission is due to be appointed. The idea has been that, at the European Council meeting at the end of next month, the heads of state and prime ministers would chose a new Commission under the new Lisbon rules because the Irish would have said Yes and Klaus would have been pressured to sign.
That is clearly out now. The Irish can say Yes more often than Molly Bloom, but Klaus will not sign until next year. So the betting among Brussels insiders is that at the Council will be so fed up when they gather at the end of October that they will appoint a new Commission anyway -- but under the old rules of the Nice Treaty. That is the treaty that the Irish voters have been told over and over must be replaced by the Lisbon Treaty, or the EU institutions will come to a halt.
The irony is that the number of commissioners was due to be cut under Nice. The Irish negotiated a change in the Lisbon treaty that would ensure they and all other countries would keep their commissioners. Now it looks like, whether the Irish vote Yes to Lisbon or No to Lisbon, the treaty still will not come into force before the next commission is created. It indeed may fall altogether, but not by the Irish showing any courage and standing by their original No vote in last years referendum. It will fall because of the Czechs and maybe Cameron's Tories.
So Ireland's vote isn't so very important after all. How satisfying that all those corporate lobbyists have been spending their millions to buy an Irish vote that is now near-worthless anyway.
“We are going to the White House, so that Islam will be victorious, Allah willing, and the White House will become into the Muslim house.”
What I Saw at the (Muslim Prayer) Revolution
Friday, September 25, 2009
Visitors to Washington D.C. today got to hear what residents in Hamtramck and Dearborn, Michigan, as well as areas of London, Amsterdam and other Western cities already endure five times a day: The sound of amplified Muslim prayers lifted to Allah.
This time, the prayers reverberated over America’s front lawn as some 2,000 Muslims gathered for the Jummah Prayer on Capitol Hill: A Day of Islamic Unity. Promoters had planned for 50,000 but came nowhere near that.
Hadn’t you heard about this? If not, it’s probably because the media have been tight lipped, the better not to embarrass the One in the White House. While some women in burkas were sighted in the crowd, there was no sign of Nancy Pelosi in a hijab, which she wore on her Middle East tour.
The purpose of Friday’s event, according to its Website, was to “manifest Islam’s majestic spiritual principles” in chants echoing “off the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument and other great edifices that surround Capitol Hill.”
Well, they probably didn’t carry that far. These are not church bells, folks. This is the sound, however muted, of the world’s most aggressive religion rearing up and lyrically cooing its desire to master the world under Allah. Islam means, literally, Submission to Allah.
Author and Islam scholar Robert Spencer, who I saw at the rally, described the prayers, said in Arabic, as ultimately about Islamic superiority. While they may not sound threatening, the message they send to those who understand the language is that “our time has come.”
Another purpose for Friday’s prayer on the Mall was to show Muslims worldwide that Islam is on the advance in the U.S. Dubai-based Islamonline.com, which bills itself as “the leading and original Islamic portal on the Internet,” played up the prayer rally, giving it prominent homepage coverage.
Now, before you accuse me of lumping all Muslims in the same bowl, let me say that there are many nice, hardworking Muslims in America who mean no harm. In fact, many are here because they couldn’t stomach living under Sharia Law in the countries of their origin. They may believe that the world will someday be subdued under Islam, but America’s a fine place to be while waiting. Radical Muslims want to recruit moderate Muslims by convincing them that the day of Sharia is right around the corner, not in the distant future. Hence the more muscular approach at the Capitol. To understand why this is more than just a prayer rally, consider this:
The Prophet Mohammad divided the world into two areas: The world of Dar al-Islam, and the world of Dar al-Harb, or House of War. Everyone on Earth is therefore either a Muslim or an infidel who must convert or else. The Koran is quite clear about this.
In Muslim majority nations, such as Saudi Arabia, non-Muslims are regarded as Dhimmis, second-class people whose testimony in court is worth only a fraction of that of a Muslim and who must pay extra taxes. Forget equality under the law, and don’t even ask how they treat Dhimmi women.
Another event all but ignored by the press was a Capitol Hill press conference Thursday held by Former Muslims United, led by Nonie Darwish. She and other ex-Muslims warned that Rifqa Bary, the 17-year-old Ohio Christian convert who fled to Florida because she fears an “honor killing” is not alone. Darwish and many other experts are featured on the documentary Radical Islam on the March, which will be broadcast on The Coral Ridge Hour on Sunday, Sept. 27.
While the Muslim prayer rally sponsors insist their purpose was to show the world that America is a free land that welcomes Muslims, visitors to the Website can hear a loud Islamic greeting in Arabic. If Muslims are interested in being viewed as just another group of Americans, why the Arabic? Why not English? Not even all Muslims speak Arabic. The real message on the site is in large block letters: Our Time Has Come.
Muslims have been emboldened by President Obama’s election and apology tour and his frequent nods to Islam. Their pulses must have raced as he referred four times in Cairo on June 4 to the “Holy Koran,” while noting that the Middle East is where Islam “was first revealed.” They probably cheered when he became the first president in recent years not to host a Christian-sponsored National Day of Prayer event on May 7 at the White House but found time to preside over an Iftar dinner at the White House on Sept. 1 to mark the end of Ramadan.
Rightly or wrongly, many Muslims feel they have one of their own in the White House. Obama’s formative years were spent learning Islam. It’s not for nothing that the Bible declares, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6, KJV).
Along with Obama’s recent conduct, that might be why Moammar Gadhafi referred to Obama as “my son” in his 95-minute speech at the United Nations on Wednesday. It’s partly why Obama himself received a huge ovation as he came to the UN podium even before he took shots at Israel while gently chiding radical Muslims, and apologizing yet again for America.
A major organizer of the prayer rally is attorney Hassen Abdellah, president of the Dar-ul-Islam mosque in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Abdellah represented several terrorists, including: Mahmoud Abouhalima, who was convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and is serving a life sentence in Florence, Colorado, and Mahamed el-Atriss, who was convicted of selling fake IDs to two of the Sept. 11 hijackers. On Oct. 25, 1993, New York Times reporter Richard Bernstein described Abdellah as “by far the most aggressively combative of the lawyers in the case.”
Abdellah says he “represents all kinds of people.” Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch says that’s a fair statement, but that Abdellah’s client list is “consistent” and “interesting.”
In 1993, Abdellah spoke on behalf of Nidal A. Ayyad to The New York Times:
“’You look at Ayyad,’ he said of one of the defendants. ‘He's an American. He can practice his religion and his way of life here. Why would he blow up the World Trade Center?’"
Nidal A. Ayyad is now in the supermax federal prison in Florence, Colorado after being convicted of blowing up the garage of the World Trade Center, killing six and injuring 1,042.
Another major organizer of the prayer rally is Manhattan imam Sheihk Ahmed Dewidar, who says Muslims need to project a more moderate image in order to achieve their ultimate goals.
On June 9, 2005, during an interview translated by MEMR TV, short for the Middle East Research Institute Monitoring Project, he quoted another imam uncritically:
Dewidar: In 1995 I heard some sermons, saying that Muslims should march on the White House from some of the mosques.
Host: What do you mean by “march on the White House”?
Dewidar: One cleric said in his sermon: “We are going to the White House, so that Islam will be victorious, Allah willing, and the White House will become into the Muslim house.”
Dewidar then explained that Muslim ideas will be victorious if they lose their radical image.
Another imam, Abdul Malik, is also an organizer. His Facebook site has an interesting lecture for young people. Here are some excerpts:
I want you to hear me very clearly: we must remember as Muslims, we submit and we surrender to nothing and no one: not the government, not the police, not the FBI, not the CIA. We submit and we surrender Allah alone, nothing else. Nothing else….. It’s not gonna be easy and you don’t have time to waste believing that you’re young and that you can involve yourself in sport and play because when the enemies of truth drop the bombs on the world of Islam, their number one target, and the number one people that suffer the most, it is the children who suffer, it is the old, it is the women and that day they become widows and they poison the waters and the air, and the children upon, with cancers and other diseases … Democracy is not revelation, and democracy does not equal freedom, for in democracy...you have all of the vices that are against the spirit of truth; so no we don't want to democratize Islam, we want to Islamize democracy. That's what we want."
Indeed. As the ’60s hippies once said in a more conducive climate, “Peace, Man.”
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Fusilier Tom James, who was injured by the same blast that killed Fusilier Shaun Bush, arrives at his funeral
Just the sight of yesterday's Daily Mail lying on my doormat was enough to start the tears.
There was the picture of Fusilier Tom James so terribly injured, his right arm lost in a savage Taliban bomb blast.
He had struggled from his hospital bed, donning uniform to attend the funeral of the comrade who was fatally wounded beside him. No pain, nor fear, would stop him honouring his mate.
The night before, like many, I had watched the almost-unbearably moving BBC documentary, Wounded, which told the stories of 19-year-old Andy Allen and 24-year-old Tom Neathway, also horrifically injured in Afghanistan.
No one who witnessed the agony of these once superbly-fit young men learning how to walk on 'stubbies' (short artificial limbs) could ever forget the sight.
When Andy was first allowed the longed-for visit home to Belfast, we saw one or two people in his enthusiastic welcoming committee look away in sudden, emotional horror at the first glimpse of the young man who had lost both legs and had feared he would never regain his sight.
It struck me as a powerful metaphor that he should so long to see, whereas so many of us have turned away from the unbearable reality of war.
That is why yesterday's Mail front page was so important, and why Wounded was compulsory viewing.
It may well be that the Ministry of Defence might prefer the British public not to be made so acutely aware of the horrors of the war in Afghanistan.
We've all read the statistics - the numbers of those who have given their lives in the brutal conflict in a pitiless faraway land. Yet none of us really knows the numbers of wounded, or the extent of their injuries. It's been kept hidden.
Yesterday's film and front page helped expose the truth in all its graphic and painful detail. I believe that such moments of visualisation are essential. They bring us face-to-face with the bloody reality of a war fought in our name.
And we should see. We need these pictures. We cannot turn aside from suffering, because to witness such heroism will, in the end, make us better people, too.
This is not the place to discuss the rights and wrongs of the conflict - although, like many people, I am haunted and enraged by the evidence of what is taking place in that benighted land.
SIX months after her husband was killed fighting in Afghanistan, Breeanna Till is broke - let down by the government that promised solemnly to look after her.
Heavily pregnant with the child Sergeant Brett Till will never know, the Sydney widow fears becoming like "a single mum on the dole" when she gives birth in a few weeks.
The $905 weekly pay her husband brought home lasted just a fortnight after he died in a roadside bomb explosion. In its place, the military gave Mrs Till a compensation payment of just $305 a week.
Sgt Till, 31, was a much-respected explosive ordnance disposal technician from the Incident Response Regiment, stationed at Holsworthy.
On March 19, he was with a group of soldiers conducting "route clearance" work in southern Afghanistan when an improvised explosive device was found.
THE REST OF THE STORY
Saturday, September 26, 2009
As is well known to the students of history, Hitler first attempted to overthrow the German Republic in a putsch during 1923. This coup failed. Ten years later Hitler came to power by constitutional means in Germany and within months a Nazi government seized power from the republic at all levels. This was accomplished by means of a "shadow government" the Nazis had carefully created in the previous ten years out of power.
I believe Comrade Obama has done the same thing with his appointment of "Gauleiters" to control the most important parts of our government and economy. These individuals, mostly socialists and the enemies of the U.S. Constitution, are answerable only to the Comrade Obama and not to The People of the United States.
Thus the same technique that allowed the Nazis to seize total power in Germany within in a year of coming to office is being attempted again in the American Republic. Why do we find it surprising that school children in America sing praise to the Leader? Why do we not rise in bloody rebellion as did our ancestors in 1775 when faced with tyranny?
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Despite the 2008 electoral triumph of the Fascist Democrats, there are still a few stalwarts making the case for the use of military force to stop Iran from getting the bomb. Below is a link to a long article in the Wall Street Journal (reprinted from Commentary magazine) by Norman Podhoretz, one of the venerated founding fathers of "neoconservatism."
The article is a bit ponderous and goes over a lot of territory that will be more than familiar to readers of The Freedom Fighter's Journal, but it is generally a good overview of the case for war against Iran.
"The Case for Bombing Iran," Norman Podhoretz, Wall Street Journal, May 30 The same thing is true of Iran. As the currently main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11, and as (according to the State Department's latest annual report on the subject) the main sponsor of the terrorism that is Islamofascism's weapon of choice, Iran too is a front in World War IV. Moreover, its effort to build a nuclear arsenal makes it the potentially most dangerous one of all.
Since hope springs eternal, some now believe that the answer lies in more punishing sanctions. This time, however, their purpose would be not to force Iran into compliance, but to provoke an internal uprising against Ahmadinejad and the regime as a whole….
Once upon a time, under the influence of Bernard Lewis and others I respect, I too subscribed to this school of thought. But after three years and more of waiting for the insurrection they assured us back then was on the verge of erupting, I have lost confidence in their prediction….
I readily admit that it would be foolish to discount any or all of these scenarios [about bad effects from bombing Iran]. Each of them is, alas, only too plausible. Nevertheless, there is a good response to them, and it is the one given by John McCain. The only thing worse than bombing Iran, McCain has declared, is allowing Iran to get the bomb.
In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush made a promise:
"We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
In that speech, the president was referring to Iraq, but he has made it clear on a number of subsequent occasions that the same principle applies to Iran. Indeed, he has gone so far as to say that if we permit Iran to build a nuclear arsenal, people 50 years from now will look back and wonder how we of this generation could have allowed such a thing to happen, and they will rightly judge us as harshly as we today judge the British and the French for what they did and what they failed to do at Munich in 1938. I find it hard to understand why George W. Bush would have put himself so squarely in the dock of history on this issue if he were resigned to leaving office with Iran in possession of nuclear weapons, or with the ability to build them….
It now remains to be seen whether this president, battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory, and weakened politically by the enemies of his policy in the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel. As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will.