Friday, October 31, 2008

Dennis Prager On "changing America"

h't to Allah Pundit at HotAir

Dennis Prager doesn't want America to "change". Nor do I want America to change. I want America to stay true to what made her great in the first place: core values based on Acknowledgment of a Creator, Reason, Individual Rights - which includes the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the Pursuit of Science and Technology. Aggressive government interference is hindering the manifestation of these core values.

Thursday, October 30, 2008


h't to The Sisyphus Files

Experts affirm: Ayers wrote Obama's memoir

Scientific analyses independently find radical's mark on 'Dreams From My Father'

Obama has perjured himself to the American people. Here's the proof:

The B-Cast on Breitbart TV - Jack Cashill Analyses Obama's Book

The Fiction Fixer Evaluation of Dreams From My Father

Wednesday, October 29, 2008


Bertha Lewis, Acorn's Chief Executive Shrugs It Off. "Catch us if you can..."

Nation-wide fraud

More Voter Registration Doubts Plague Democrats

This presidential election is less and less about the candidates themselves, and more about the registration/election process itself. And that spells trouble. Should John McCain/Sarah Palin win the election, the democrats are not going to accept that their candidate lost. And Should Barack Obama win, given the accusations of nation-wide voter registration fraud, the courts will likely decide the outcome. Either way, it's going to be nasty.

Obama does not have it within himself to bring together a divided nation. But creating further racial divide, not bringing together a nation, has been his goal all along. All those years of sitting at Rev Wright's feet has forever scarred his psyche. Obama is a man who knows in his heart he is not up to the job of "leader of the free world". He is a man who was "selected" by the radical Left to be a convenient wedge in their drive to divide our nation in order to create a socialist state. But legitimacy has never been a goal of the Left. So the question becomes, not whether we can pull together as a nation, but whether we can survive as a nation.

If the power-mad who represent us in government no longer hold true to the concept of a constitutional republic, then we are a constitutional republic in name only - and the federal government becomes a sham which violates the social contract of all sovereign citizens. If a democractic majority gets to decide the fate of a nation, and they want a totalitarian system of government, then the tyrants win.


Thursday, October 23, 2008

Nope, Nothing Racial Goin' On Here

This is hilarious. Howard Stern reports on interviews with Obama's Harlem (NYC) supporters - and proves, once and for all, that Obama's followers really are issue oriented, and back him even in his excellent choice for Vice-President, er, one Sarah Palin.

Nothin' racial about these choices - strictly a matter of examining, and supporting the man's policies regarding stem-cell research, abortion, and staying the course in Iraq.

Yup, we are truly a nation of idiots.

It would have been even more interesting, had the interviewer tried to see just how far Obama's supporters could have been led down the yellow brick road of absurdity- say, by attributing (less government is the answer) libertarian views of Bob Barr to Obama...

Power to the people!

John McCain should be proud. Ah, If only he were dark-skinned. And young. And a pin-headed socialist. And
Muslim. Maybe he would have a chance with Obama supporters. Hell, they already agree with his policies. Sort of.

Newt Gingrich Excoriates Liberal Press and TV Networks

On a lighter note, NewsBusters brings us up to speed...

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

The Third Jihad: The Movie

"The Third Jihad" is a movie about the on-going cultural Islamic jihad in America. Narrated by Dr. Zudhi Jasser, it is a chilling account of radical Islamic activity, on campuses, in mosques, and prisons here in the United States.

Dr Jasser is a devout, American-born Muslim medical doctor, based in Phoenix Arizona. Jasser founded the AIFD, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, and has been out-spoken in his fight against the insideous Islamic organization known as CAIR, The Council on American-Islamic Relations. Liars, all.

If anyone would qualify as a "moderate Muslim", it would be Zudhi Jasser. But I do not believe there is even such a thing as "moderate Muslims". For speaking out against the radicalization of Islam, the Muslim community has shunned him, marginalized him. While he is on our side, being an American and sharing Western Values, his own Muslim community, if there is such a thing, is unlikely to listen to him.

We cannot afford to ignore his message.

Radical Islam will rule the day for Muslims. Western Values are antithetical to radical Islam. Saudi Arabia supplies all the financial support needed. Youthful guile in the Islamic world provides the fodder.

The question is: will it rule the day for us Americans as well? In Western Europe, aided by the Multicultural ideology of cultural relativism, a whole bloc of countries are poised to fall to the Islamists.

In spotlighting the problems and causes of radical Islam, Jasser has involved himself in a most needed wake-up call to Americans, who have no idea of the coming onslaught. This is one video everyone needs to watch, and take to heart.

"We all know about terrorism. This is the war you don't know about."

I would like to embed the video, but Blogger can't/won't do it. This is a 30-minute free version of the film. Go here to view the video.

Obama is said to be a Muslim, even though he denies it. That has to be troubling to a lot of of people. Even if he weren't a Muslim, his executive policies would be disastrous in our cultural war with Islam.


Monday, October 20, 2008

Playing The Race Card - Obama Style

As the saying goes..."Don't piss on my leg, and tell me it's raining."

Photo courtesy of the Kuwaitis


Obama's Label As Race Healer No Longer Fits

Posted Friday, October 17, 2008

Let me get this straight. A couple of agitated yahoos in a rally of thousands yell something offensive and incendiary, and John McCain and Sarah Palin are not just guilty by association — with total strangers, mind you — but worse: guilty according to The New York Times of "race-baiting and xenophobia."

But should you bring up Barack Obama's real associations — 20 years with Jeremiah Wright, working on two foundations and distributing money with William Ayers, citing the raving Michael Pfleger as one who helps him keep his moral compass (Chicago Sun-Times, April 2004) and the long-standing relationship with the left-wing vote-fraud specialist ACORN — you have crossed the line into illegitimate guilt by association.

Moreover, it is tinged with racism.

The fact that, when John McCain actually heard one of those nasty things said about Obama, he incurred the boos of his own crowd by insisting that Obama is "a decent person that you do not have to be scared (of) as president" makes no difference. It surely did not stop John Lewis from comparing McCain to George Wallace.

The search for McCain's racial offenses is untiring and often unhinged. Remember McCain's Berlin/celebrity ad that showed a shot of Paris Hilton? It was an appalling attempt to exploit white hostility at the idea of black men "becoming sexually involved with white women," fulminated New York Times columnist Bob Herbert. He took to TV to denounce McCain's exhumation of that most vile prejudice, pointing out McCain's gratuitous insertion in the ad of "two phallic symbols," the Washington Monument and the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

Except that Herbert was entirely delusional. There was no Washington Monument. There was no Leaning Tower. Just photographs seen in every newspaper in the world of Barack Obama's Berlin rally in the setting he himself had chosen, Berlin's Victory Column.

Herbert is not the only fevered one. On Tuesday night, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC and Jonathan Alter of Newsweek fell over themselves agreeing that the "political salience" of the Republican attack on ACORN is, yes, its unstated appeal to racial prejudice.

Orwell Times Two

This about an organization that is being accused of voter registration fraud in about a dozen states. In Nevada, the investigating secretary of state is a Democrat. Is he playing the race card too?

What makes the charges against McCain especially revolting is that he has been scrupulous in eschewing the race card. He has gone far beyond what is right and necessary, refusing even to make an issue of Obama's deep, self-declared connection with the race-baiting Jeremiah Wright.

In the name of racial rectitude, McCain has denied himself the use of that perfectly legitimate issue. It is simply Orwellian for him to be now so widely vilified as a stoker of racism. What makes it doubly Orwellian is that these charges are being made on behalf of the one presidential candidate who has repeatedly, and indeed quite brilliantly, deployed the race card.

How brilliantly?

The reason Bill Clinton is sulking in his tent is because he feels that Obama surrogates succeeded in painting him as a racist. Clinton has many sins, but from his student days to his post-presidency, his commitment and sincerity in advancing the cause of African-Americans have been undeniable. If the man Toni Morrison called the first black president can be turned into a closet racist, then anyone can.

Fool Me Once . . .

And Obama has shown no hesitation in doing so to McCain. Just weeks ago, in Springfield, Mo., and elsewhere, he warned darkly that George Bush and John McCain were going to try to frighten you by saying that, among other scary things, Obama has "a funny name" and "doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills."

McCain has never said that, nor anything like that. When asked at the time to produce one instance of McCain deploying race, the Obama campaign could not. Yet here was Obama firing a pre-emptive charge of racism against a man who had not indulged in it. An extraordinary rhetorical feat, and a dishonorable one.

What makes this all the more dismaying is that it comes from Barack Obama, who has consistently presented himself as a healer, a man of a new generation above and beyond race, the man who would turn the page on the guilt-tripping grievance politics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

I once believed him.


Sunday, October 19, 2008

Joe The Plumber Abducted By Aliens: Gets Dreaded Anal Probe

Correction Update: It was the Obama Camp goons, not the aliens, who administered the anal probe. My bad.

Joe was rumored to have said: "Hey, that wasn't so bad. I see much worse on the job every day."

The Left Declares War On Joe The Plumber: "It's the Obama way."

IBD Editorials

Posted Friday, October 17, 2008

Six-term Sen. Joe Biden's got some nerve going after citizen Joe the Plumber. But the entrenched politician from Delaware, who fancies himself the nation's No. 1 Ordinary Joe, had no choice.

Obama-Biden simply can't tolerate an outspoken citizen successfully painting the Democratic ticket as socialist overlords. And so a dirty, desperate war against Joe Wurzelbacher is on. Joe Wurzelbacher has been probed more deeply than Barack Obama.

The left's political plumbers are attacking the messenger, rummaging through his personal life and predictably wielding the race card once again. It's standard operating procedure for the Obama thug machine.

Wurzelbacher is the small-business man from Ohio who during a Toledo campaign swing last weekend questioned Obama about his tax plan. The revealing exchange was caught on tape and broadcast widely across the Internet and TV airwaves.

In response to Wurzelbacher's question about why he should be "taxed more and more for fulfilling the American dream," Obama sermonized that he needed to "spread the wealth around" because "it's good for everybody."

John McCain flung that chilling Marxist mantra back in Obama's face during Wednesday night's presidential debate and repeatedly cited Joe the Plumber's plight.

Obama squirmed. The dirt diggers started Googling. And the next morning, six-term Sen. Biden launched the first salvo against the Ohio entrepreneur on NBC's "Today" show," challenging the veracity of his story:

"I don't have any Joe the Plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year."

Under an Obama-Biden administration, they'll make sure no Joe the Plumbers ever earn such a salary. "It's good for everybody," after all.

Biden, as is so often the case, twisted the facts about Wurzelbacher. No surprise there. Slick Joe Biden is the one who tells fables about visiting a diner in Delaware that hasn't been open in years; spins yarns about getting "forced down" in a helicopter over Afghanistan because of perilous conditions that turned out to be weather related, not al-Qaida related; and continues to slander the family of the man involved in his wife and daughter's fatal car accident (crash investigators cleared the now-deceased driver of drunken driving, despite Biden's insinuations). But I digress.

Wurzelbacher never claimed to be making $250,000 a year. He told Obama that he might be "getting ready to buy a company that makes about $250,000, $270,000" a year. His simple point was that Obama's punitive tax proposals would make it harder to realize his dream.

Obama's followers couldn't handle the incontrovertible truth. Left-wing blogs immediately went to work, blaring headlines like "Not A Real $250k Plumber!"

Next, they falsely accused Wurzelbacher of not being registered to vote — he's registered in Lucas County, Ohio, and voted as a Republican in this year's primary.

Next, they called him a liar for identifying himself as undecided. Only registered Democrats and fake Republican tools used in mainstream media stories and YouTube debates can use that label, you see.

Next, liberal blogger Joshua Marshall cast Wurzelbacher as some kind of rabid freak for calling Social Security a "joke" — as if no working-class Americans could believe the federal government's entitlement programs were a rip-off unless they were bought and paid for by the McCain campaign.

Then, suddenly, the journalists who wouldn't lift a finger to investigate Obama's longtime relationships with Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright sprang into action rifling through citizen Joe Wurzelbacher's tax records. reported breathlessly: "Samuel J. Wurzelbacher has a lien placed against him to the tune of $1,182.92. The lien is dated from January of '07."

Press outlets probed his divorce records. The local plumbers union, which has endorsed Obama, claimed he didn't do their required apprenticeship work and didn't have a license to work outside his local township. Hang him!

After Wurzelbacher told Katie Couric that Obama's rhetorical tap dance was "almost as good as Sammy Davis Jr.," inevitable cries of "bigotry" followed. (There are now tens of thousands of Internet hits for "Joe the Plumber racist.")

Welcome to Joe the Plumber Derangement Syndrome. If you can't beat him, smear him.

It's the Obama way.


Yes, it's the Democratic way. But don't worry: what goes around, comes around. If the Leftist believe that they can force this arrogant charlatan down our throats, without payback, they truly are in a Utopian dream.

Friday, October 17, 2008

John McCain on John McCain

John McCain:

I know what fear feels like. It's a thief in the night who robs your strength. I know what hopelessness feels like. It's an enemy who defeats your will. I felt those things once before. I will never let them in again. I'm an American. And I choose to fight.

Don't give up hope. Be strong. Have courage. And fight.

Fight for a new direction for our country. Fight for what's right for America. Fight to clean up the mess of corruption, infighting and selfishness in Washington.

Fight to get our economy out of the ditch and back in the lead.

Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.

Fight for our children's future.

Fight for justice and opportunity for all.

Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.

Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. America is worth fighting for. Nothing is inevitable here. We never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.

McCain Defends Joe: Shouldn’t Be ‘Smeared’ for Asking Obama ‘Tough Question’


Fri Oct 17 2008

It's great to be here in Miami. Florida is a must-win state on November 4th, and with your help, we're going to win Florida, and bring change to Washington, DC. We had a good debate this week. You may have noticed-- there was a lot of talk about Senator Obama's tax increases and Joe the Plumber. Last weekend, Senator Obama showed up in Joe's driveway to ask for his vote, and Joe asked Senator Obama a tough question. I'm glad he did; I think Senator Obama could use a few more tough questions.

The response from Senator Obama and his campaign yesterday was to attack Joe
. People are digging through his personal life and he has TV crews camped out in front of his house. He didn't ask for Senator Obama to come to his house. He wasn't recruited or prompted by our campaign. He just asked a question. And Americans ought to be able to ask Senator Obama tough questions without being smeared and targeted with political attacks.

The question Joe asked about our economy is important, because Senator Obama's plan would raise taxes on small businesses that employ 16 million Americans. Senator Obama's plan will kill those jobs at just the time when we need to be creating more jobs. My plan will create jobs, and that's what America needs.

Senator Obama says that he wanted to spread your wealth around. When politicians talk about taking your money and spreading it around, you'd better hold onto your wallet. Senator Obama claims that wants to give a tax break to the middle class, but not only did he vote for higher taxes on the middle class in the Senate, his plan gives away your tax dollars to those who don't pay taxes.

That's not a tax cut, that's welfare. America didn't become the greatest nation on earth by redistributing wealth; we became the greatest nation by creating new wealth.

This is the choice that we face. These are hard times. Our economy is in crisis. Americans are fighting in two wars. We face many enemies in this dangerous world, and many challenges here at home.

The next President won't have time to get used to the office. He won't have the luxury of studying up on the issues before he acts. He will have to act immediately. And to do that, he will need experience, courage, judgment and a bold plan of action to take this country in a new direction. We cannot spend the next four years as we have spent much of the last eight: waiting for our luck to change. We have to act immediately. I said it at the last debate: I'm not George Bush; if Senator Obama wants to run against George Bush, he should have run for President 4 years ago. We need a new direction now. We have to fight for it. I've been fighting for this country since I was seventeen years old, and I have the scars to prove it. If I'm elected President, I will fight to take America in a new direction from my first day in office until my last. I'm not afraid of the fight, I'm ready for it.

I'm not going to spend $700 billion dollars of your money just bailing out the Wall Street bankers and brokers who got us into this mess. I'm going to make sure we take care of the people who were devastated by the excesses of Wall Street and Washington. I'm going to spend a lot of that money to bring relief to you, and I'm not going to wait sixty days to start doing it.

I have a plan to protect the value of your home and get it rising again by buying up bad mortgages and refinancing them so if your neighbor defaults he doesn't bring down the value of your house with him.

I have a plan to let retirees and people nearing retirement keep their money in their retirement accounts longer so they can rebuild their savings. I will protect Social Security so that retirees get the benefits they have earned, and I will bring both parties together to fix Social Security so that it is there for future generations.

I have a plan to hold the line on taxes and cut them to make America more competitive and create jobs here at home.

Raising taxes makes a bad economy much worse. Keeping taxes low creates jobs, keeps money in your hands and strengthens our economy.

The explosion of government spending over the last eight years has put us deeper in debt to foreign countries that don't have our best interests at heart. It weakened the dollar and made everything you buy more expensive.

If I'm elected President, I won't spend nearly a trillion dollars more of your money, on top of the $700 billion we just gave the Treasury Secretary, as Senator Obama proposes. Because he can't do that without raising your taxes or digging us further into debt. I'm going to make government live on a budget just like you do.

I will freeze government spending on all but the most important programs like defense, veterans care, Social Security and health care until we scrub every single government program and get rid of the ones that aren't working for the American people. And I will veto every single pork barrel bill Congresses passes.

If I'm elected President, I won't fine small businesses and families with children, as Senator Obama proposes, to force them into a new huge government run health care program, while he keeps the cost of the fine a secret until he hits you with it. I will bring down the skyrocketing cost of health care with competition and choice to lower your premiums, and make it more available to more Americans. I'll make sure you can keep the same health plan if you change jobs or leave a job to
stay home.

I will provide every single American family with a $5000 refundable tax credit to help them purchase insurance. Workers who already have health care insurance from their employers will keep it and have more money to cover costs. Workers who don't have health insurance can use it to find a policy anywhere in this country to meet their basic needs.

If I'm elected President, I won't raise taxes on small businesses, as Senator Obama proposes, and force them to cut jobs. I will keep small business taxes where they are, help them keep their costs low, and let them spend their earnings to create more jobs.

If I'm elected President, I won't meet unconditionally with the Castro brothers, while they keep political prisoners in jail, stifle free media and block free elections in Cuba. When I am President, we are going to pressure the Cuban government to free their people. The day is coming when Cuba will be free. I will open new markets to goods made in America and make sure our trade is free and fair.

And I'll make sure we help workers who've lost a job that won't come back find a new one that won't go away.

If I'm elected President, I won't make it harder to sell our goods overseas and kill more jobs as Senator Obama proposes. I will open new markets to goods made in America and make sure our trade is free and fair. And I'll make sure we help workers who've lost a job that won't come back find a new one that won't go away.

The last President to raise taxes and restrict trade in a bad economy as Senator Obama proposes was Herbert Hoover. That turned a recession into a depression. They say those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Well, my friends, I know my history lessons, and I sure won't make the mistakes Senator Obama will.

If I'm elected President, we're going to stop sending $700 billion to countries that don't like us very much. I won't argue to delay drilling for more oil and gas and building new nuclear power plants in America, as Senator Obama does. We will start new drilling now. We will invest in all energy alternativesÊ-- nuclear, wind, solar, and tide. We will encourage the manufacture of hybrid, flex fuel and electric automobiles. We will invest in clean coal technology. We will lower the cost of energy within months, and we will create millions of new jobs.

Let me give you the state of the race today. We have 18 days to go. We're 6 points down. The national media has written us off. Senator Obama is measuring the drapes, and planning with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to raise taxes, increase spending, take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections, and concede defeat in Iraq. But they forgot to let you decide. My friends, we've got them just where we want them.

What America needs in this hour is a fighter; someone who puts all his cards on the table and trusts the judgment of the American people. I come from a long line of McCains who believed that to love America is to fight for her. I have fought for you most of my life. There are other ways to love this country, but I've never been the kind to do it from the sidelines.

I know you're worried. America is a great country, but we are at a moment of national crisis that will determine our future. Will we continue to lead the world's economies or will we be overtaken? Will the world become safer or more dangerous? Will our military remain the strongest in the world? Will our children and grandchildren's future be brighter than ours?

My answer to you is yes. Yes, we will lead. Yes, we will prosper. Yes, we will be safer. Yes, we will pass on to our children a stronger, better country. But we must be prepared to act swiftly, boldly, with courage and wisdom.

I know what fear feels like. It's a thief in the night who robs your strength. I know what hopelessness feels like. It's an enemy who defeats your will. I felt those things once before. I will never let them in again. I'm an American. And I choose to fight.

Don't give up hope. Be strong. Have courage. And fight.

Fight for a new direction for our country. Fight for what's right for America. Fight to clean up the mess of corruption, infighting and selfishness in Washington.

Fight to get our economy out of the ditch and back in the lead.

Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.

Fight for our children's future.

Fight for justice and opportunity for all.

Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.

Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. America is worth fighting for. Nothing is inevitable here. We never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.

Now, let's go win this election and get this country moving again.


And now a word from Senator Barack Hussein Obama:



Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Michelle Obama - Still A "Victim"


WND Exclusive

Michelle Obama calls Corsi 'evil'

She tells foreign news agency 'to support Africans and African-American view'

October 14, 2008

WASHINGTON – Michelle Obama placed a surprise call to an African news agency to protest its coverage of WND investigative stories about her husband – characterizing the source of the material as "racist" and Jerome Corsi as "evil."

The call was placed to African Press International, according to a report in the publication today. It said Michelle Obama accused API of "colluding with American Internet bloggers in an effort to bring down her husband."

The report said Mrs. Obama had hoped the African media "was mature enough to be in the front to give unwavering support to her husband, a man Africans should identify themselves with."

API's account said it was "only relaying what the American bloggers and other media outlets had discovered through their investigations." This, according to the story, angered her.

WND senior staff writer Jerry Corsi

"African Press International is supposed to support Africans and African-American view," she reportedly said. "It is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband. There is no shame in being adopted by a stepfather. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband's face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband's adoption by his stepfather. The important thing here is where my husband's heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that my husband loves this country and his adoption never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner."

The Obama campaign immediately denied the telephone call happened. [naturally]

Tommy Vietor, a campaign spokesman, told Byron York on the National Review Online blog "The Corner," the conversation didn't happen.

"The answer is no, it's not real, the report is made up. She did not speak to the organization," Vietor said.

However, in an e-mail to WND, a man who identified himself as API's "Chief Editor Korikr" confirmed the exchange.

"API hereby confirms to you that the story is true and if the huge interest on this particular story continues, we will post the recording on our website in the next immediate days.

"When we published the story we did not intend to cause any chaos but we are shocked by the huge interest the story is receiving from the Americans and the American media," he continued.

"Mrs. Obama called us just to ask API to stop joining the mainstream hate online media that is trying to destroy her husband's opportunity to get the presidency," he wrote.

He said his editorial board would meet to discuss how best to release the audio.

AFI asked Michelle Obama to comment on the detention of Corsi during his visit last week to Kenya, where he was investigating the presidential candidate's links to a controversial strongman serving as prime minister.


I think Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama should just wrestle for the job. My money is on the pit bull with lipstick.

If the campaigns can't pull that together, how about a Sarah Palin/Michelle Obama debate? At Princeton. Free beernuts.


Tuesday, October 14, 2008

President Reagan On Freedom

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan

Look around you. Where will Americans get a sense of patriotism now?

Just a funny line from The Gipper...(19 secs)

I wonder what President Reagan would think about the government's latest move: nationalizing US banks

Sunday, October 12, 2008

A Black American Who Doesn't Like Obama

I noticed this video yesterday on YouTube, but passed it by because I figured it was just another 'Obama, Obama" chant. Man, was I wrong. It wasn't until I was perusing the latest post at The Breda fallacy and saw it up on her site, that I watched the video. Glad I did.

A black American, cut from the same cloth as Bill Cosby, speaks to his democratic brothers (and sisters). Why does it matter? It matters in the same way that a ray of hope dispels gloom. Or when Reason won't stand down, even under fire.

Thursday, October 09, 2008


tip o' the hat to Michelle Malkin for the Image

There ain't nothin' more powerful than the odor of mendacity...You can smell it. It smells like death. - TW


Acorn is the antithesis of "I pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the republic for which it stands."

Democrats Trying To Pull A Fast One, As Usual...

Everywhere you turn, there's the obnoxious odor of MENDACITY


Thanks also to Michelle Malkin for the La Raza connection, via Babalu

It's about time to take out the garbage.

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Obama feted By The New Party

Human Events

Obama and the New Party

by Erick Erickson
Posted 06/10/2008

Two weeks ago at RedState, we documented Obama’s 1996 endorsement by the New Party. A review of the New Party establishes that not only was the party an amalgamation of far left groups, but Barack Obama knew that when he sought the party’s endorsement.

Most of the New Party’s history has been lost in the digital age. It was established in 1992 and started to die out in 1998, well before Google and the modern web were established. But through lengthy searches of the Nexis archive and microfilm at the local university library, I’ve been able to piece this together.

The New Party was established in 1992 “by union activist Sandy Pope and University of Wisconsin professor Joel Rogers,” USA Today reported on November 16, 1992. The paper wrote that the new party was “self-described [as] ‘socialist democratic.’”

The seeds, however, had been sown all the way back in 1988. Quoting John Nichols in the March 22, 1998 issue of In These Times, “The roots of the New Party go back to the aftermath of Jesse Jackson’s run for president in 1988. At that time, Dan Cantor, who had served as labor coordinator for the Jackson campaign, and University of Wisconsin sociology professor Joel Rogers began talking about how to formulate an alternative between the increasingly indistinguishable Democratic-Republican monolith.”

Joel Rogers sought to use the idea of “fusion” as a way to get the New Party into power.

Fusion is a pretty simple concept. A candidate could run as both a Democrat and a New Party member to signal the candidate was, in fact, a left-leaning candidate, or at least not a center-left DLC type candidate. If the candidate -- let’s call him Barack Obama -- received only 500 votes in the Democratic Party against another candidate who received 1000 votes, Obama would clearly not be the nominee. But, if Obama also received 600 votes from the New Party, Obama’s New Party votes and Democratic votes would be fused. He would be the Democratic nominee with 1100 votes.

The fusion idea set off a number of third parties, but the New Party was probably the most successful. A March 22, 1998 In These Times article by John Nichols showed just how successful. “After six years, the party has built what is arguably the most sophisticated left-leaning political operation the country has seen since the decline of the Farmer-Labor, Progressive and Non-Partisan League groupings of the early part of the century …. In 1996, it helped Chicago’s Danny Davis, a New Party member, win a Democratic congressional primary, thereby assuring his election in the majority-black district …. The threat of losing New Party support, or of the New Party running its own candidates against conservative Democrats, would begin a process of forcing the political process to the left, [Joel] Rogers argued.”

Fusion, fortunately for the country, died in 1997. William Rehnquist, writing for a 6-3 Supreme Court, found the concept was not a protected constitutional right. It was two years too late to stop Obama.

On December 1, 1994, after the Gingrich revolution swept the Democrats from congress and forced Bill Clinton to triangulate, the Chicago Tribune ran an article by Steve Mills entitled “Looking for the Left: The Old Progressives and Marxists Still Breathe Idealist Fire, but They’re Too Splintered to Generate Any Heat.”

“‘The Left is in crisis, and it has been for some time,’ said Carl Davidson, the former national secretary for the radical Students for a Democratic Society. ‘I don’t know if it’s even bottomed out yet,’” he reported to Mr. Mills. Mills continued, “The Socialist Workers Party is in this corner; the International Socialist Organization is in this one. The [communist group Committee of Correspondence] is in another. The radicals, or even the liberals with some radical leanings -- so-called ‘soft radicals’ -- seem to find it hard to abandon individual issues for a broader movement.”

But, Mills reported, “It is amid this political confusion that The New Party would like to step in. ‘If there’s anything that defines the American Left, it’s fragmentation,’ said Dan Cantor, the party’s national organizer.… The New Party aims to change that. By uniting the progressives behind a cohesive ideology, one that, in theory at least, will have room for all the factions that now litter the landscape of the Left, The New Party is confident progressives can again be strong.”

In 1995, the New Ground, the newsletter of the Chicago Chapter of Democratic Socialists of America, noted, “In Chicago, the New Party's biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN.

“Like most organizations, ACORN is a mixed bag. On one hand, in Chicago, ACORN is a group that attempts to organize some of the most depressed communities in the city. Chicago organizers for ACORN and organizers for SEIU Local 880 have been given modest monthly recruitment quotas for new New Party members. On the other hand, like most groups that depend on canvassing for fundraising, it's easy enough to find burned out and disgruntled former employees. And ACORN has not had the reputation for being interested in coalition politics -- until recently and, happily, not just within the New Party.”

Naturally, Barack Obama was an active part of ACORN at the time, helping it legally in court and helping it organize voters. By 1996, ACORN and the New Party were essentially the same body. Along with the Democratic Socialists of America, the New Party endorsed Barack Obama in his State Senate bid.

Obama began seeking the New Party endorsement in 1995. He had been running in a four way primary against his former boss, Senator Alice Palmer, herself a far left radical, and two other individuals. But an election law quirk gave Obama the upper hand. In order to get on the ballot, candidates had to collect signatures of voters. Printed names were not allowed. Obama challenged the petitions of his rivals and was able to get every one of them thrown off the ballot. By the time the ballot was drawn up for the 1996 election, Obama’s was the only name in the race.

Nonetheless, Obama still coveted the New Party endorsement. The New Party required candidates who received the endorsement sign a pledge of support for the party. Obama did not need to support a party that was, in effect, a front group for communists; yet he still chose to. The July issue of the New Ground noted that 15% of the New Party consisted of Democratic Socialists of America members and a good number of Committee of Correspondence members.

Barack Obama, not needing to, chose to affiliate himself with this band of quasi-communists. As the nation moves closer to the election, it is clear that Obama chose to affiliate with assorted anti-American radicals. Machiavelli once noted that we can know a leader by the people he surrounds himself with. What does that say about Barack Obama, who chose to surround himself with people committed to overthrowing the United States and capitalism?

Trackposted to
Cao's Blog, Faultline USA, Democrat=Socialist, Right Voices, and Shadowscope, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Barack Obama - Who Is He, Really? A Picture Emerges...

CNN Finds Extensive Ties Between Barack Obama and ‘Terrorist’ Bill Ayers

An Obama-Ayers link? Oh, yes.

CNN's Drew Griffin on links between Barack Obama and a founder of the 1960s terror group Weather Underground, Bill Ayers.

Is this a big deal? Well, Obama obviously has played down the connection with terrorist William Ayers. Obama hasn't been truthful about his relationship with Rev Wright, either. The truth is coming out about what this "community organizer" Obama was up to as chairman of the 100 million dollar Chicago Annenberg Challenge project, and the Woods Fund, which gave money to Rev Wright's church. The man won't come clean. He just won't. He is not truthful.

Liar, Liar Pants on fire!!

Anita Dunn, Obama senior advisor, looks like an idiot on the video.


Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Oct 7, 2008

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Nevada state authorities are raiding the Las Vegas headquarters of an organization that works to get low-income people to vote.

A Nevada secretary of state's office spokesman said Tuesday that investigators are looking for evidence of voter fraud at the office of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, also called ACORN.

No one was at the ACORN office when state agents arrived with a search warrant and began carting records and documents away.

Secretary of State spokesman Bob Walsh says ACORN is accused of submitting multiple voter registrations with false and duplicate names.

The raid comes two months after state and federal authorities formed a task force to pursue election-fraud allegations in Nevada.

Trackposted to
The Virtuous Republic, Blog @, Leaning Straight Up, and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Monday, October 06, 2008

A De-Evolution of Leadership - The Quiet Takeover of America

America needs to wake up.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - CS Lewis
With Obama at the helm, the likelihood of this scenario grows exponentially. With McCain leading, we will have at least a temporary buffer between the sovereign citizens of America and those who would torture us FOR OUR OWN GOOD.

The social progressives will literally take everything, unless we fight for our rights. Unless we are willing to fight for our first and second amendments, we had best prepare ourselves for a mind-set which includes being thankful for being allowed to exist in a political reality where the individual is always sacrificed for "the greater good". That rubs against the grain for me.

The silencing of our voices masquerades as "hate speech", hate crimes" - as "multicultural" dogma. The goal is to induce self-censorship, and if that doesn't work, the madmen will impose penalties for our transgressions. What do they want? POWER. Nor do they give a fig if you and I are destroyed in the process.

History provides us with numerous examples of such unbridled tyranny: Stalin's USSR, Communist China under Mao, Hitler's Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia - and the list grows now to include countries where the Islamists have gained control of the government. Darfur and Somalia come to mind. The list grows to include many African and Indonesian countries, and unless checked, you can add the most East and West European countries as well. Gun control and confiscation were among the very first policies carried out by the Islamic governments.

Indeed, that has always been the case.

(Previously posted in March) From the Eggman...

(Emphasis added)

Leaders lead, tyrants rule and servants serve. When did we lose sight of the distinction?

Place yourself in this hypothetical situation.

You are very successful and your time is in constant demand. It is no longer cost effective (or very much fun,) to shop, cook, register the car, pick up the cleaning, pay the bills and hunt for parking spaces.

Your situation DEMANDS you hire or contract the following:

* Personal Assistant
* Accountant/Business Manager
* Lawyer
* Housekeeper/Home Manager
* Family Nutritionist/Cook
* Tutor/Home School Teacher
* Driver/Cheauffer

All is well in your life. Your children are happy and well adjusted. Jimmy is very bright, eager to learn and enthusiastic about every new experience. His rampant curiosity is occasionally annoying, but you recognize it as an indication of genius. Your spouse and children often accompany you on your trips. There is always time for sightseeing and camping, which the family enjoys. Life is certainly good.

One day your doctor looks at your genetic profile and decides you have a marginally higher risk for high blood pressure than average. He orders you onto a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet. When you fail to follow his orders he instructs your housekeeper to stop allowing you certain foods. It is, after all, for your own good.

The housekeeper forbids the cook to prepare any food with more than 1% fat. Therefore, no more bacon and eggs for you, even in your own home. When you try to bring some home and cook them for yourself, the housekeeper confiscates them and makes you go to your room. It is, after all, for your own good.

Your accountant informs you that you can't afford to take a trip to Bali next year because he has given himself a raise. Your lawyer says you can't afford to take a trip to France next month because she has given herself a raise.

They need the additional money so that they can hire more staff and build bigger offices to better take care of you.

You are either too busy or too preoccupied with your perfect life to pay much attention. Besides, you hired them to look after things so you could have a life in the first place. They are trusted professionals and know what is in your best interest.

Jimmy's tutor loses patience because Jimmy won't sit still and be quiet. The tutor calls the doctor and they medicate Jimmy to calm him down. When you attempt to intervene they threaten to take away all of your children. It is, after all, for the good of the children.

Your doctor decides that your afternoon cigar is not good for you, and tells you to quit. The next week smoke detectors are installed throughout your house. It is, after all, for your own good.

All agree that your ownership of guns is far too dangerous. What if Jimmy should find one? Jimmy, however loved to shoot at cans on the family camping trips. He's a crack shot and has serious Olympic ambitions. When your personal assistant learned of this, however, she decided you must be an unfit parent. Jimmy was drugged even more deeply into submission because of his 'special needs' and placed in foster care. It is after all, in his best interest.

They hired a security guard, one deputy Barney Fife, Jr., to restore your feeling of security since they took away your firearms. Of course Barney soon made it clear that he really wasn't under any obligation to protect you. He also worked for a few thousand other people so he couldn't even promise to come if you did call.

Last week the spy software they installed on your computer alerted them that you had been visiting dangerous and subversive Websites. Today, you find your access to the NRA, ACLU, The Washington Times, National Review, and many of your favorite sites blocked, for your own good.

Your doctor, lawyer, accountant and tutor have a secret meeting and make a few more decisions. They don't like your driver. He has been your best and most trusted friend for 30 years. He has 1 Medal of Honor, two phD's, a wife and three kids and works cheap. He is loyal to you, however, and not to them. They decide it would be in the best interests of all if they fired him and replaced him with one of their 'professionals.' Your new driver will have strict orders about where you may and may not travel.

You finally reach your breaking point. You don't know how you let it get this bad, but enough is enough. How did these one-time servants become your so-called leaders? Your lawyers, accountants and doctors were once bound by a strict contract. Now, however, they are acting outside that contract and you are supposed to accept it because it is for your own good.

You tell them, you, "aren't going to take it any more," and, "they are all fired!"

They then inform you that they control all of your assets, and most every other aspect of your life.

Thanks to them your once prosperous accounts are deeply in debt.

If you don't like it, too bad, they won't give you any more of your money. They might even lock you in your room for a long time. They do, after all, know what's in your best interest. Isn't that why you hired them in the first place?

It's your own fault for letting them get this deeply entangled in your daily affairs.

Now please sit down, shut up and act like the mindless lemming they want you to be.

Besides, they have guns and you don't!

If this sounds like nightmare fiction or extremism talking, wake up and taste the tyranny.

The 'you' in the story is you, me, and every other law-abiding citizen, tired of watching our natural and Constitutional rights erode one paragraph at a time. 'Them' in the story, are what our so-called 'servants in government' have become.

We were once a noble example of the future that the founders envisioned in their Great American Dream.

Today, however, we huddle defenseless in glass boxes. We have to ask permission to spend what little allowance they give us from our own earnings.

We have never committed a crime, lied to them or given them any reason to mistrust us, yet they question our every action. We are searched when we travel, they read our e-mails, tap our phones, confiscate our nail clippers invade our private lives from bedroom to nursery, and generally treat us like the criminals they swore to protect us from.

Once great masters of our own domain, we have become mere pawns on someone else's political chessboard. And they are doing it all for our own good.

Is America still the greatest country in the world? You bet your Stars and Stripes she is!

We fought and will continue to fight to defend her.

It's unfortunate that many of our once loyal and trusted servants did not evolve into leaders. Instead they 'devolved' into slaves to their own lust for power and control. It's more unfortunate, however, that we allowed it to happen.

Take back your country by getting involved. Run for office, help someone you support get elected, vote, drive people to the polls, join a grassroots movement, volunteer, write a post-card a week, send an e-mail a day. Do whatever it takes to be heard over the din of political spin and media misinformation. Let's put some common sense back into government, put the servants back into office and expose the tyrants for the impotent cowards they are.

It all starts at the local level. Get involved in your town, city or county government today!

The noisy minority would drown in a sea of their own insignificance if only 50% of the elegible voters would merely exercise their right to vote! (While they still have it)

"If Thomas Jefferson were alive today he'd be spinning in his grave."


Trackposted to Woman Honor Thyself, The Pink Flamingo, Cao's Blog, third world county, Democrat=Socialist, Right Voices, The World According to Carl, and DragonLady's World, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Saturday, October 04, 2008

Islam: An Absolutely Intolerant Ideology

Islam is not a religion. It is an ideology, encompassing all aspects of Muslim life, and as such, cannot possibly co-exist with Western Values. It cannot co-exist, because it allows for no free expression of love, faith, or values learned outside the Qur'an. Here is further proof of ideological intolerance, masquerading as victimhood, but is in fact an ideology of supreme arrogance. One hears talk of "moderate Muslims". When I see evidence of the so-called moderates do more than try to"educate" non-Muslims regarding the peaceful nature of Islam - when I see evidence of the rabidly anti-Western Wahabbi mullahs being run out of Dodge - when I no longer hear of bombs blowing up innocent people, then maybe the "moderate Muslim" meme will begin to have credence. Until I see evidence of the radical Salafists being discredited as spokesmen for Islam, then the notion of "moderate Muslims" is just talk around a conference table, nothing more.

What Islam is Not.

U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution Curtails Free Speech, Critics Say

Fox News

Friday, October 03, 2008

By Jennifer Lawinski

Religious groups and free-speech advocates are banding together to fight a United Nations resolution they say is being used to spread Sharia law to the Western world and to intimidate anyone who criticizes Islam.

The non-binding resolution on “Combating the Defamation of Religion” is intended to curtail speech that offends religion -- particularly Islam.

Pakistan and the Organization of the Islamic Conference introduced the measure to the U.N. Human Rights Council in 1999. It was amended to include religions other than Islam, and it has passed every year since.

In 2005, Yemen successfully brought a similar resolution before the General Assembly. Now the 192-nation Assembly is set to vote on it again.

The non-binding Resolution 62/145, which was adopted in 2007, says it “notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of 11 September 2001.”

It “stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular.”

But some critics believe the resolution is a dangerous threat to freedom of speech everywhere. The U.S. government mission in Geneva, in a statement, told the U.N. Human Rights Council in July that “defamation-related laws have been abused by governments and used to restrict human rights” around the world, and sometimes Westerners have been caught in the web.

Critics give some recent news events as examples of how the U.N. "blasphemy resolution" has emboldened Islamic authorities and threatened Westerners:

-- On Oct. 3 in Great Britain, three men were charged for plotting to kill the publisher of the novel "The Jewel of Medina," which gives a fictional account of the Prophet Muhammad and his child bride. reported U.S. publisher Random House Inc., was going to release the book but stopped it from hitting shelves after it claimed that “credible and unrelated sources” said the book could incite violence by a “small, radical segment.”

-- An Afghan student is on death row for downloading an article about the role of women in Islam, also reported.

-- In December 2007 “a court reportedly sentenced two foreigners to six months in prison for allegedly marketing a book deemed offensive to Aisha, one of the Prophet Muhammad's wives,” the U.S. government said.

-- A British teacher was sentenced to 15 days in jail in Sudan for offending Islam by allowing students to name the class teddy bear Muhammad in November 2007.

-- In February 2007 in Egypt an Internet blogger was sentenced to four years in prison for writing a post that critiqued Islam.

-- In 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered after the release of his documentary highlighting the abuse of Muslim women.

“It’s obviously intended to have an intimidating effect on people expressing criticism of radical Islam, and the idea that you can have a defamation of a religion like this, I think, is a concept fundamentally foreign to our system of free expression in the United States,” said former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.
Passing the resolution year after year gives it clout, Bolton said. “In places where U.N. decisions are viewed as more consequential than they are in the U.S., they’re trying to build up brick-by-brick that disagreement with this resolution is unacceptable.”

Kevin “Shamus” Hasson, founder and president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest law firm in Washington that opposes the resolution, said it is a slap in the face of human rights law.
“The whole idea of the defamation of religion is a Trojan horse for something else," Hasson said. "When you talk about defamation, you talk about people being defamed and people being libeled, but ideas can’t be defamed. Ideas don’t have rights, people have rights.”
He said the resolution is a shield for Islamic fundamentalists who retaliate against perceived offenses and want to make Islamic Sharia law the law of the land. He said the resolution passes under the guise of protecting religion, but it actually endangers religious minorities in Islamic countries.

“Who could possibly be in favor of defamation?” Hasson said. “God may well punish blasphemy in the hereafter, but it’s not the government’s job to police in the here and now.”

Paula Schriefer, advocacy director for Freedom House, a member of the Coalition to Defend Free Speech, agrees.
“You have to remember that many of the governments that are pushing forward this idea are not democratic governments,” she said. “Citizens of Pakistan or Egypt, who have been two of the ringleaders of this movement, are frequently put in prison or arrested. Even if they’re not arrested, the fear of being arrested creates an environment of self-censorship.”
Floyd Abrams, Visiting Professor of First Amendment Law at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, said that while Americans are protected by the Constitution at home, the U.N. resolution could affect those who travel to countries with anti-free-speech laws and isolate Westerners who oppose restricting religious dialogue.

Neither the Pakistani, the Indonesian nor the Egyptian missions to the U.N. responded to requests for comment. All three are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Friday, October 03, 2008

Coming Soon To A Neighborhood Near You: Shari'a Law

WEST: The politics of intimidation

Islamists work to silence critics

Diana West

Friday, July 11, 2008

Having run the polite-but-grim gauntlet of Dutch government security to gain access to Geert Wilders, I finally understood what the 24-hour security requirements of the man's continued existence really mean. To make the survival of Western-style liberty in the Netherlands his political cause, this Dutch parliamentarian has to live under high-tech lock and key.

This stunning paradox, with no end in sight, illustrates how far political freedom in the West has already eroded. Think of it: For writing about the repressive ideology of Islam, for arguing against the inequities of Shariah (Islamic law), for making a video ("Fitna") to warn about Islamic jihad, Mr. Wilders lives in his own non-Islamic country under a specifically Islamic death threat.

If it is politically incorrect to notice this, it is also indisputably true. True, too, is that, sans state security, this death threat could conceivably be carried out anytime, anywhere from the picturesque streets outside the Dutch parliament, to the house Mr. Wilders hasn't slept in since 2004. That, of course, was when — on an Amsterdam street, a Muslim assassin plunged a knife into Theo van Gogh's corpse — thus attaching the Islamic manifesto threatening both Mr. Wilders and his then-parliamentary colleague, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, with death.

Not long ago, political debate in the Netherlands met with, well, more political debate. Now, however, with a growing Muslim minority — and it's politically incorrect to notice this, too — political debate sometimes meets with Islam-inspired political assassination. At least it has, traumatically, twice in recent years: once, with the 2002 murder of the anti-Islamic-immigration politician Pim Fortuyn by an animal-rights activist who claimed Mr. Fortuyn was scapegoating Muslims; and the following year with the ritualistic Islamic murder of Van Gogh, director of "Submission," a short video made with Miss Hirsi Ali about Islamic mistreatment of women. In all, such Islam-inspired violence has been enough to chill Islam-inspired debate.

And that's just the situation at home. This week, even as Amsterdam's chief public prosecutor, Leo de Wit, announced that no charges would be brought against Mr. Wilders for "discrimination" or "incitement to hatred" related to Mr. Wilders' writings or video ("We find Mr. Wilders' remarks were limited to Islam as a religious movement," Mr. De Wit said), Jordan announced it is bringing a "Fitna"-related criminal case against the Dutch parliamentarian.

In other words, Jordan will indict a Dutch politician according to Jordanian (read: Islam-inspired) law. "Jordanian authorities are not aiming to arrest" the Dutch leader of the Freedom Party, Radio Netherlands Online reports. "They say the decision to prosecute was taken in order to send a signal to the Netherlands." A "signal"? How about a gag? Of course, like other Western peoples, the Dutch seem content to censor themselves, happily mouthing multicultural platitudes that effectively rationalize their own culture's Islamization. Not Mr. Wilders.

I recently asked the 44-year-old Dutchman what was stronger in his country: Islam or multiculturalism.

"Unfortunately, they are both strong," he replied, seated in his lightly furnished but heavily guarded office. "But cultural relativism is the biggest problem." He went on to explain: "Multicultural society would not be that bad. I don't really believe in it, but it would not be that bad if at least we would be strong enough to say that our culture is better and dominant. But when you combine multicultural society with a dominant sense of cultural relativism, you are heading in the wrong direction. You are committing suicide when it comes to your own culture."

He continued: "I am not advocating a monocultural society. I just want what the Germans call leitkultur (leading culture). I want our own culture to be dominant - not the only one, but to be dominant. I have a big problem with the cultural relativists who say every culture is equal. I don't believe every culture is equal." Hoping to preserve the primacy of Western culture in this Dutch corner of the West, Mr. Wilders advocates a halt to Islamic immigration. "I'm not saying that every Muslim in the Netherlands is a criminal or a terrorist," he explains. "We know the majority is not."

Still, he continues, "there is good reason to stop the immigration, because the more we have an influx of Muslims in the Netherlands, the strength of the (Islamic) culture will grow, and the change of our societies will increase." He sees his efforts as "a fight against an ideology that I believe at the end of the day will kill our freedom, kill our societies and change everything we stand for." He's right and, yes, it's politically incorrect to say that, too. Everything the West stands for, starting with freedom of speech, is already changing as our institutions, up to and including, for example, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security - which increasingly proscribe - critical references, or indeed, any references to Islam. While it's clear that the European manifestation of Islamic ideology has already killed Mr. Wilders' personal freedom in the Netherlands, the general impact on freedom throughout the West has yet to be fully appreciated.

"I have a mission," Mr. Wilders said. "I believe very strongly in what I say, and my party fortunately shares this view. And nobody in the Netherlands is doing (what I do). And somebody should. And I pay a high price for it." What is the expression, freedom isn't free? This is literally and acutely the case when it comes to this heroic and dedicated Dutchman.

Diana West is a syndicated columnist.

Trackposted to Woman Honor Thyself, Perri Nelson's Website, Cao's Blog, third world county, Faultline USA, and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Is Islamization Also Coming To America?

Washington Times

WEST: Creeping Islamization in Europe

Diana West
Sunday, September 21, 2008

With Wall Street convulsing, and the White House race intensifying, the question “Who lost Europe” is on no one's lips, let alone minds. Indeed, the question begs another, "Is Europe lost?" The answer to the second question is, "No, not yet." And losing Europe, I would add, is by no means inevitable.

But that doesn't mean the continent isn't currently hell-bent to accommodate the dictates of Islamic law, bit by increasingly larger bit. Such a course of accommodation, barring reversal, will only hasten Bernard Lewis' famous prediction that Europe will be Islamic by century's end.

And what do I mean by "accommodation"? Well, to take one tiny example, one snowflake in a blizzard of such examples, there are schools in Belgium that not only serve halal food to Muslim and non-Muslim alike (old news), but, according to a recent French magazine report, no longer teach authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. (Don't even ask about the Holocaust.) For a more substantial, indeed, keystone example of accommodation, we can look to England, where, it pains me to write, Sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. According to press reports this week, the British government has quietly, cravenly elevated five Sharia courts to the level of tribunal hearings, thus making their rulings legally binding.

It may be difficult to quantify the impact of a Voltaire vacuum on the continent, but we can instantly see the inequities of British Sharia (I can't believe I'm writing that phrase). Among the first official verdicts were those upholding the Islamic belief in male supremacy. These included an inheritance decision in which male heirs received twice as much as female; and several cases of domestic violence in which husbands were acquitted and wives' charges were dropped.

In a decidedly minuscule minority, I say we ignore the spread of Islamic law across Europe, from the schoolroom to the courtroom, at our peril, particularly given that in so doing, we also ignore the vital political parties that have arisen in reaction to this threat to Western civilization. Why at our peril?

Because the same type of liberty-shrinking, Sharia-driven accommodation is happening here. Of the parties dedicated to resisting Islamization that I examined in Europe last summer, the most promising range from the sizeable Vlaams Belang in Belgium to the tiny Sweden Democrats, and include the Lega Nord in Italy, the Party for Freedom of Geert Wilders in Holland, the Danish People's Party, the Swiss People's Party and the Austrian Freedom Party. Such parties are unknown here, or ignored. Worse, they are shunned. Why? I believe it's because their respective political opponents the leftist media and governing establishments that are increasingly dependent on Islamic support, by the way have successfully slandered these parties as "extremists," "racists," "fascists" and "Nazis." Is advocating freedom of speech "extreme" or "fascist"? Is opposing Islam's law, which knows no race, "racist"? Is supporting Israel (which these parties do far more than other European parties) "Nazi"? The outrageously empty epithets of the Islamo-socialist left seem calculated to stop thought cold and trigger a massive rejection reflex. In this way, resistance becomes anathema, and Islamic law, unchecked, spreads across Europe.

Does that sound "Islamophobic"? You bet. How can anyone who values freedom of conscience, equality before the law and other such Western jewels not have a healthy fear of Islamic law, which values none of these things? Incredibly, this is an emotion that is supposed to be suppressed and, in Europe, on pain of prosecution. Indeed, because Filip Dewinter admitted to such "Islamophobia" in an interview, his party, the Vlaams Belang, has been taken to court in Belgium on charges of racism, and, if convicted, will be effectively shut down through defunding by the government.

That hasn't stopped Dewinter, who, in accepting an award at a memorial event dedicated to Oriana Fallaci in Florence, last week, said: "Islamophobia is not merely a phenomenon of unparalleled fear, but it is the duty of every one who wants to safeguard Europe's future. Europe means Rome, Greece, Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian roots. Europe is a continent of castles and cathedrals, not of mosques and minarets." Of course, even as Dewinter admits to fearing the Islamization of Europe, he and his colleagues act with exceptional political and physical bravery in rallying voters against it. This coming weekend, he joins several other politicians on the Sharia-fighting right in
Europe among them two other men I interviewed, Mario Borghezio of Lega Nord, which is part of Italy's ruling coalition, and Heinz-Christian Strache of Austria's Freedom Party, which is expected to become part of Austria's ruling coalition after elections this month in Cologne, Germany. In that ancient cathedral city, where the city council recently approved the construction of a long-controversial mega-mosque, these men will address a rally against European Islamization.

(Contrary to initial reports, Jean-Marie Le Pen will not be at the demonstration.) The Sharia-fighters expect 1,500 demonstrators. Police expect 40,000 counter-demonstrators. These are frightening odds - a metaphor, perhaps, for Europe's chances of staving off Islamic law.

Who lost Europe? If it does happen, we certainly won't be able to say we weren't warned.


Is Islamification coming to America? Answer: it's already here.


WEST: The politics of intimidation

Islamists work to silence critics