Saturday, December 02, 2006

Jews Are Being
Attacked Daily
In Berlin

The demonic wildfire of anti-Semitism is raging across Europe, and nowhere more fiercely than in the cradle of modern Jew-hatred, Germany. From the European Jewish Press:

BERLIN (EJP)--- The head of Berlin's Jewish community has said that attacks on Jews are becoming a daily ritual on the streets of the German capital. “We have been getting reports from school children about them having been at the centre of verbal and physical attacks,” Gideon Joffe told the DDP news agency.

“Almost every day, we have been witnessing that the word ‘Jew’ is being used as a sexual and racist explicative… and that the children are beginning to think of this as something totally normal,” he said.

Joffe was reacting to a physical attack by a group of Arab youths, last Friday, against a 14 year old Jewish girl in Berlin’s mainly Muslim Kreuzberg district.

According to a police report, the girl had often been at the centre of verbal attacks by Arab youths. The taunting began during the Israeli-Lebanon war, this summer. During one of the girl’s walks to school, she and a friend were even chased.

Last Friday, the taunts and the chasing ended in blows to the girl’s head and back.

“This is a new dimension, which anti-Semitism has been taking,” Joffe said.

He stressed, however, that many of the reports of anti-Semitic taunts did not only stem from Muslims. Such attacks have come from across every religious and cultural group,” he said. However, according to police reports, most attacks have been verbal and have come from segments of society made up primarily of migrants, usually Arabs.

Unreported attacks

The Berlin police told EJP that most physical attacks are not reported to them because there are no physical injuries. Thus they have not been able to put together a statistic of conclusive numbers to work with at this time.

“Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the mental scars that can be left behind,” one officer said, adding that he believes even verbal attacks should not go unreported. Joffe is concerned that potential attacks keep Jews from living out their traditions.

“Stars of David, hanging around the necks of kids or the wearing of Kippas (scullcaps) have almost totally disappeared from the Berlin landscape,”

The Scariest
Part Of
All This

From the Mad Magazine cartoonist Yaakov Kirschen at Dry Bones Blog:

Yes, it's also the saddest part, and the most angering part. As I've noted before, if Ahmadinejad were to accomplish what he says he wants to accomplish, the track record of the Christian Church with regard to the ensuing second Holocaust would be even worse than our record on the first one.

It's The Secularism,
Charlie Brown:
An ACLU Christmas

From Gates of Vienna:

AUSTIN, TX - The Young Conservatives of Texas — University of Texas Chapter — announced today that they will be displaying an “ACLU Nativity Scene” on the West Mall of the University of Texas campus on Monday and Tuesday, December 4th and 5th. The group’s intent is to raise awareness on the extremity of the ACLU, and bring to light its secular-progressive efforts to remove Christmas from the public sphere.

The display, the first of its kind in the nation, will feature characters that are quite a bit different than the standard crèche.“We’ve got Gary and Joseph instead of Mary and Joseph in order to symbolize ACLU support for homosexual marriage, and of course there isn’t a Jesus in the manger,” said Chairman Tony McDonald. “The three Wise Men are Lenin, Marx, and Stalin because the founders of the ACLU were strident supporters of Soviet style Communism. The whole scene is a tongue-in-cheek way of showing the many ways that the ACLU and the far left are out of touch with the values of mainstream America.”

Go read the whole thing over at Gates of Vienna.

Palestinian Nazi Salute

I have periodically posted photographs of various groups of Palestinians doing Nazi salutes. Well, here's one that comes via Associated Press December 2, 2006. Yes, that's today.

Note the AP caption:

Palestinian student supporters of the Fatah Movement at the Arab American University raise their arms as they shout slogans supporting Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, during a rally near the West Bank town of Jenin, Saturday, Dec. 2, 2006. Hamas on Saturday rejected demands by PLO leaders that its government resign over the failure to form a moderate coalition acceptable to the West, a sign of an intensifying power struggle between Islamic militants and moderate President Mahmoud Abbas. (AP Photo/Mohammed Ballas)

Does The City Of Chicago Hate The Baby Jesus?

It might be a funny way to phrase the question, but one does have to wonder why Chicago denied New Line Cinema the opportunity to sponsor the Christmas market in downtown Chicago. Check out this video.

Friday, December 01, 2006

Vissi D'Arte
from Tosca
by Puccini

As performed by Grover Washington Jr. (on Soprano Saxophone) and Orchestra.

A House Is Not A Home

Thanks to Olivia for turning me on to this amazing performance by Luther Vandross.

An Opportunity
To Miss
An Opportunity

From Elder of Ziyon:

"It seems the harder Israel and the rest of the world try to give the Palestinians their own country, the harder they try to prove that they don't deserve one."
- Editorial, National Post, Canada

It is a breath of fresh air to see a mainstream newspaper even mention the possibility that the Palestinian Arabs don't deserve a state.

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Vladimir Putin
A Very
Dangerous Man

Ok, so I'm guessing there is no one who has not heard about the Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko, who was murdered using the radioactive agent Polonium 210. But, I do wonder if everyone is aware that there are many who believe that Vladimir Putin ordered this man's murder.

Litvinenko is not the first political opponent Putin is suspected of having offed. In recent weeks, it has been suspected that he also ordered the murder of a journalist who was working on a story which Putin did not want to get out.

The thing is, how does one go about proving that Putin had anything to do with the murder. Well, for one thing, it just isn't that easy for a person who is not involved in nuclear weapons projects, or black ops of some sort, to get their hands on Polonium 210.

But, of course, one would presume the Polonium 210 could have originated in Britain. Maybe Litvinenko had enemies high up in the British government, or in some other European government.

Or, maybe not:

33,000 BA passengers alerted over radiation The Telegraph
British Airways is trying to contact all 33,000 passengers who may have been exposed to radioactive traces that were found on two of its planes.

Thousands of BA passengers were caught in the radiation scare last night after traces of a substance, thought to be the same that killed the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, were found on the planes.

A spokesman for the airline said that, so far, 2,500 of the 33,000 passengers who are believed to have flown on 221 flights across Europe since the traces were found have called in to BA's dedicated helpline.

The Government grounded one plane on Tuesday and another yesterday. A third is in Moscow awaiting tests.

Police are focusing on flights from Moscow to Heathrow Airport on Oct 25 and 31 and in the other direction on Oct 28 and Nov 3. Since then, the planes, all Boeing 767s, have flown to Barcelona, Dusseldorf, Athens, Larnaka, Madrid, Vienna, Istanbul, Frankfurt and Stockholm.

BA has set up a helpline for affected passengers and those with symptoms of radiation poisoning, such as vomiting or bleeding gums, were advised to telephone NHS Direct. The Health Protection Agency (HPA) said the risk to the public was low.

Mr Litvinenko was killed by polonium 210, which must be swallowed to be lethal. The search of the planes points the finger of suspicion more firmly at Moscow.

And now, comes this:

Mystery illness hits former Russian PM Yegor Gaidar, Russia’s former prime minister and the architect of the country’s market reforms, last week suffered a sudden, unexplained and violent illness on a visit to Ireland, a day after Alexander Litvinenko, a former KGB spy, died in London from an apparent radiation poisoning.

If it is true that Vladimir Putin is boldly and even cavalierly murdering his political opponents wherever he can find them, then he is a very dangerous man. These are the machinations of a terrible dictator; a totalitarian. But, wait, isn't Russia a free state? I thought the Evil Empire, the Soviet Union had fallen away, to be replaced by a Democracy.

Well, it did. And, Putin was Democratically elected. Even now, it is suspected that the Russian people would re-elect Putin if he were to run again, which legally he can not do. Legally.

How did things get this way? How is it that once again we face having a totalitarian Russia led by a murderous dictator?

Joel Rosenberg has some answers:

Who Is Putin?

The assassination of a KGB-operative-turned-critic-of-Vladimir-Putin in London by radioactive poison has
stunned the West and raised chilling new questions about who Putin is, what he wants, and how far he's willing to go to get it. It's about time.

For the last six years, few in Washington -- including conservatives -- have been willing to carefully assess, much less confront, Putin's increasingly anti-Western rhetoric and actions. But the murder of FSB Colonel Alexander Litvinenko
may change all that. The cold hard truth is that Putin is not a friend of the U.S. or the West. He is neither a partner for peace nor worthy of G8 or WTO membership. He is dismantling democracy in Russia, re-socializing the Russian economy, taking over the Russian media, rebuilding the Russian military, forming alliances with radical Islamic nations, arming our worst enemies -- including Iran and North Korea -- and positioning himself as Russia's new Czar.

For a man who was trained by the KGB and at one time was Russia’s top spy, Putin has been surprisingly candid about his long-term objectives and his strategies for achieving them, at least to those who are watching closely and listening carefully. In 1999, for example, Reuters ran the following headline: “RUSSIAN PREMIER VOWS TO REBUILD MILITARY MIGHT.” Putin, then prime minister under Yeltsin, had just delivered a speech declaring that “the government has undertaken to rebuild and strengthen the military might of the state to respond to the new geopolitical realities, both external and internal threats.” He focused special attention on “new threats [that] have emerged on our southern frontiers.” Putin also announced a 57 percent increase in military spending in the year 2000.

No sooner had Yeltsin stepped down than Putin repeated the vow to rebuild his country’s badly withered military machine. “Our country Russia was a great, powerful, strong state,” he declared in January 2000, “and it is clear that this is not possible if we do not have strong armed forces, powerful armed forces.”

Putin has kept his word. Consider 2004, for example.

* In January, Putin ordered the largest maneuvers of Russian nuclear forces in two decades, scrambling strategic bombers, launching cruise missiles, test-firing ballistic missiles, and sending new spy satellites into orbit, in what analysts described as “an imitation of a nuclear attack on the United States.”

* In February, Putin insisted that Russia “does not have and cannot have aggressive objectives of imperial ambitions.” Yet he ordered dramatic improvements in the Russian military to achieve a more “combat-capable army and navy,” causing one of China’s leading dailies to worry about “the resurrection of the Russian military.”

* In August, Putin ordered a 40 percent increase in Russia’s defense budget, including new fighter aircraft, new rockets, and two new army divisions.

* In December, as the election crisis in Ukraine was still unfolding, Putin ordered the test launch of a Cold War–era Russian intercontinental ballistic missile known as the SS-18 Satan, the first time the Russians had fired such a missile since the Soviet Union collapsed.

With the rebuilding of Russia’s conventional military and strategic nuclear missile forces underway, Vladimir Putin then delivered a speech on April 25, 2005, that I believe ranks as the most dangerous presidential address of our times. “First and foremost,” he declared, “it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.”

Putin went on to argue that since the threat to Russia from terrorism was “still very strong,” the Kremlin must be strong to eradicate such terror. “The moment we display weakness or spinelessness, our losses will be immeasurably greater.” Then he insisted that Russia should remain “connected” to “the former republics of the USSR.” He argued that Russia and her neighbors have “a single historical destiny” together, and said he wants to “synchronize the pace and parameters of [the] reform processes” in Russia and those former Soviet republics.

Consider for a moment what such a speech says about the lenses through which the leader of Russia views his country and the world. When Vladimir Putin looks out over the vast expanse of the twentieth century, he is not primarily concerned with the 20 million people who perished under Stalin’s reign of terror. Or the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust under Adolf Hitler. Or the 3 million who died in the killing fields of Cambodia under Pol Pot. Rather, he believes that the disintegration of the Evil Empire ranks as the “greatest political catastrophe of the century” and that its reintegration and synchronization is a matter of “historic destiny.”

Such fondness for an empire so murderous and cruel would be chilling if it were voiced by the leader of any country possessing 10,000 nuclear warheads. But it is particularly chilling coming from the leader of Russia, a country described in the Scriptures as having expansionist ambitions in the last days.

Yet this was not the first time Putin had discussed such views or such ambitions on the record. In 2000, three Russian journalists—Nataliya Gevorkyan, Natalya Timakova, and Andrei Kolesnikov—published First Person, in my view the most important book ever written about Putin. It is important not because the journalists offered their own insights or analysis into Putin but because they let Putin speak for himself. They interviewed the Russian leader six separate times. Each interview lasted about four hours. The book is merely a transcript, and when it comes to understanding Putin’s ambitions and approach, it is a goldmine of intelligence.

Putin on his mission in life — “My historical mission,” he insisted, is to stop “the collapse of the USSR” (p. 139). To do this, he vowed to “consolidate the armed forces, the Interior Ministry, and the FSB [the successor to the KGB, the “secret police” of the Soviet Union]” (p. 140). “If I can help save Russia from collapse, then I’ll have something to be proud of” (p. 204).

On his style — “Everyone says I’m harsh, even brutal,” Putin acknowledged, without ever disputing such observations. “A dog senses when somebody is afraid of it, and bites,” he observed. “The same applies [to dealing with one’s enemies]. If you become jittery, they will think they are stronger. Only one thing works in such circumstances—to go on the offensive. You must hit first, and hit so hard that your opponent will not rise to his feet” (p. 168).

On the czars — “[F]rom the very beginning, Russia was created as a supercentralized state. That’s practically laid down in its genetic code, its traditions, and the mentality of its people,” said Putin, adding: “In certain periods of time . . . in a certain place . . . under certain conditions . . . monarchy has played and continues to this day to play a positive role. . . . The monarch doesn’t have to worry about whether or not he will be elected, or about petty political interests, or about how to influence the electorate. He can think about the destiny of the people and not become distracted with trivialities” (p. 186).

On his choice of history’s most interesting political leader — “Napoleon Bonaparte” (p. 194).

On his rise from spy to president — “In the Kremlin, I have a different position. Nobody controls me here. I control everybody else” (p. 131).

On his critics — “To hell with them” (p. 140).

Putin has repeatedly promised that he will not attempt to extend his time in office when his second term ends in 2008, and every person I interviewed in Russia in 2004—including every political officer and diplomat I spoke with at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow—told me they believed he would leave peacefully when the time came. Should he really do so, Putin will pass on to his successor executive power unparalleled since pre-Gorbachev times and a dynamic that suggests a future of more, rather than less, centralization of power.

But how seriously should Putin’s many pledges be taken? On at least six separate occasions after becoming president, he vowed not to end direct elections of Russia’s regional governors and appoint them himself. Yet in 2004, when it suited his purposes, he did just that. Why should his promise to leave office in 2008 be any different? Now in his fifties, Putin is still a young man, at the top of his game, with no professional experience of any kind other than being a KGB-trained suppressor of dissidents and a rising political leader. What if he wants to change the constitution to allow him to stay? Belarus did it in 2004 (and President Alexander Lukashenko was “reelected” in 2006 with 83 percent of the vote). Other ex-Soviet republics have done it as well, including Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan.

What if Putin is looking for a pretext for himself to become a new Russian monarch? Would a terrible new series of terrorist attacks—perhaps similar to the Beslan school hostage crisis—be enough? What about an assassination attempt, or attempts at a coup, or new revolutions in the former Soviet republics? What about polls showing that in the absence of Putin, the leading two contenders for Russia’s presidency are ultranationalist fascist Vladimir Zhirinovsky and communist hardliner Genady Zyuganov? Might “the will of the Russian people” suffice? In 2004, only 27 percent of Russians supported a third Putin term (perhaps this is why every expert I spoke with dismissed the possibility). By June 2006, however, the number had shot up to 59 percent.

Bottom line: It is time for the White House and Congress to radically redefine our relationship with Vladimir Putin. He is a Czar in the making and he is leading Russia down a very dangerous path.


In a dramatic statement written before he died, Litvinenko called Russian President Vladimir Putin 'barbaric and ruthless' and blamed him personally for the poisoning. The 43-year-old Litvinenko, who fiercely criticized Putin's government from his refuge in London since 2000, told police he believed he was poisoned Nov. 1 while investigating the October slaying of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, another critic of Putin. Litvinenko's statement, read by his friend Alex Goldfarb to reporters outside the hospital, put the blame for his death squarely on Putin.

He accused Putin of having 'no respect for life, liberty or any civilized value.' 'You may succeed in silencing me but that silence comes at a price. You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed,' the statement said. 'You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr. Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life.'"

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

It Ain't Whitey Who's On The Moon

Thanks to Q and O for making me aware of this bit of comedy, er, tragedy.

Listen to this nutbag. He says, "white people" have retina scans and DNA Banks, and that we whiteys have this stuff so that we can monitor black people in order to prevent them from committing genocide against us.

Now, listen all my friends. Come in close around me. I've got to whisper something in our secret whitey code. Okay here goes:

This guy is on to us. That means we're gonna hafta come up with even more advanced and dastardly technology so that we can keep one step ahead of smart blackfolk like this dude.

Damn, how stupid is this guy? The most insulting thing he says is that "white people" have this stuff.

Earth to Kamau Kambon: HUMANITY has these technologies. You know, all people. White people did not invent everything. Jesus Christ. You're insulting your own people, you fool.

Anyway, this all has got me in the mood for some Gil Scott Heron. Check out this old nugget.

U.S. State Dept.
Ahmadinejad Letter

Iranian President wrote a letter to the American people, and it was delivered today. Here it is, if you want to read it. Here's what the U.S. State Dept. has to say about the letter:

Hours after Iran's president wrote to Americans attacking their government's foreign policy and urging that their troops leave Iraq, a US State Department spokesman dismissed the move as a ploy.

"Clearly this is something of, again, a public relations stunt or a public relations gesture," Tom Casey said of the letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad released Wednesday by Iran's UN mission at the United Nations.

"But, again, actions speak louder than words. And I think if you look at the record of Iranian action, we unfortunately haven't seen any change in behavior that would indicate that they've got a new approach to things," Casey added.

"I think my initial reaction to you is that there's really not a lot new here," he said of Ahmadinejad's unprecedented attempt to establish a direct dialogue with Americans by bypassing their government.

Here's what someone who actually knows something about the Koran has to say about the letter:

Media commentators in the U.S. are likely to pick up on the “public relations” side of the letter. Ahmadinejad calls on the U.S. to bring the troops home from Iraq, to cut off support for Israel, and to stop “kidnapping presumed opponents from across the globe” and holding them in secret prisons.

He even has some advice for the new Democrat majority in Congress: Bend to the Muslim agenda, or you will be tossed out of power.

Ahmadinejad repeatedly tries to appeal to Americans as people of faith, who share Islamic values. “We, like you, are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of the Palestinian people,” he drones. “Persistent aggressions by the Zionists are making life more and more difficult for the rightful owners of the land of Palestine.”

And he trots out his old anti-Semitic saw, claiming that “the Zionists” control America “because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural, and media sectors.”

But to focus on these parts of his letter, however silly and objectionable they may be, would be to miss the main point. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not the Hugo Chavez of the Persian Gulf. He knows that soon he will have his finger on the nuclear trigger.

Citing from the Quran at the close of his letter, he says that if Americans “repent” of their “injustice,” they will be blessed with many gifts. “We should all heed the divine Word of the Holy Qur’an,” he says.

The context of this particular verse (28:67-28, Sura “Al-Qasas,” or The Narration), is very clear. It follows a graphic description of destruction and devastation that will befall those who fail to repent of their injustice.

It also sets out the terms of the tradition Muslim warning to the enemies of Allah. “And never will your Lord destroy the towns until He sends to their mother town a Messenger reciting to them Our Verses.” This is is precisely what Ahmadinejad is doing in his letter.

Dump Bush, allow the Muslims to destroy Israel, and adopt Islam — or else you will be destroyed. This is Ahmadinejad’s message.

America Will
Pressure Israel
To Make Concessions
To Entice Iran And Syria
To Attend Conference

If you thought Neville Chamberlains fine fellating of Adolph Hitler came cheaply, you ain't seen nothing yet:

WASHINGTON — An expert adviser to the Baker-Hamilton commission expects the 10-person panel to recommend that the Bush administration pressure Israel to make concessions in a gambit to entice Syria and Iran to a regional conference on Iraq.

The assessment was shared in a confidential memorandum — obtained yesterday by The New York Sun — to expert advisers to the commission from a former CIA station chief for Saudi Arabia, Raymond Close. Mr. Close is a member of the expert group advising the commission and was a strong advocate throughout the panel’s deliberations for renewed American diplomacy with Iran and Syria. In the memo, Mr. Close shares his “personal predictions and expectations” for what the Iraq Study Group will recommend in its final report next month.

Mr. Close writes that he expects the study group to urge President Bush to convene a regional conference “to enlist the support of neighboring states in establishing stability in Iraq.” Among the participants in the regional conference should be “all principal states of the region,” including Iran, Syria, and Israel. The inclusion of Israel, according to Mr. Close, is crucial because it will provide the only leverage by which Iran and Syria can be enticed to help stabilize Iraq.

“To have any realistic chance of success, I believe that the process would have to start with the announcement of a major initiative, promoted and vigorously supported by the United States, to reach a comprehensive resolution to the Israel-Arab crisis through a process of reasonable compromise and accommodation between Israel and its Arab neighbors,” he writes.

While it is widely expected that the Baker-Hamilton commission will recommend renewed diplomacy with Iran and Syria in an effort to share the burden in stabilizing the country, the content of such negotiations has until now been a mystery. According to Mr. Close, the talks will center around a resolution of the conflict between the Jewish state and the Arab and Islamic world.

America is in serious trouble. You might want to buy gold. Then again the gold may prove worthless as well.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Airport Imams

It looks like the incident, wherein six Imams were removed from an airliner the other day, was staged, for political purposes:

Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials.

Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted “Allah” when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix.
“I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud,” the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.

Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks — two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.

“That would alarm me,” said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. “They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane.”

A pilot from another airline said: “That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry.”

But the imams who were escorted off the flight in handcuffs say they were merely praying before the 6:30 p.m. flight on Nov. 20, and yesterday led a protest by prayer with other religious leaders at the airline’s ticket counter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
Mahdi Bray (
lgf: search), executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation (lgf: search), called removing the imams an act of Islamophobia and compared it to racism against blacks. “It’s a shame that as an African-American and a Muslim I have the double whammy of having to worry about driving while black and flying while Muslim,” Mr. Bray said.

The protesters also called on Congress to pass legislation to outlaw passenger profiling. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas Democrat, said the September 11 terrorist attacks “cannot be permitted to be used to justify racial profiling, harassment and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans.”

“Understandably, the imams felt profiled, humiliated, and discriminated against by their treatment,” she said.

According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior. Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she “found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting.” Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.

The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed. A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious. ...

One of the passengers, Omar Shahin, told Newsweek the group did everything it could to avoid suspicion by wearing Western clothes, speaking English and booking seats so they were not together. He said they conducted prayers quietly and separately to avoid attention. The imams had attended a conference sponsored by the North American Imam Federation in Minneapolis and were returning to Phoenix. Mr. Shahin, who is president of the federation, said on his Web site that none of the passengers made pro-Saddam or anti-American statements.

And it is very important to know that these Imams are not simple, peaceful clerics. They are, instead, promoters of terror:

Then there’s the case of Muhammed al-Qudhaieen and Hamdan al-Shalawi, two Arizona college students removed from an America West flight after twice trying to open the cockpit. The FBI suspected it was a dry run for the 9/11 hijackings, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. One of the students had traveled to Afghanistan. Another became a material witness in the 9/11 investigation.

Even so, the pair filed racial-profiling suits against America West, now part of US Airways. Defending them was none other than the leader of the six imams kicked off the US Airways flight this week.

Turns out the students attended the Tucson, Ariz., mosque of Sheikh Omar Shahin, a Jordan native. Shahin has been the protesters’ public face, even returning to the US Airways ticket counter at the Minneapolis airport to scold agents before the cameras.

In an Arizona Republic interview after 9/11, he acknowledged once supporting Osama bin Laden through his mosque in Tucson. FBI investigators believe bin Laden set up a base in Tucson.
Hani Hanjour, who piloted the plane that hit the Pentagon, attended the Tucson mosque along with bin Laden’s onetime personal secretary, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. Bin Laden’s ex-logistics chief was president of the mosque before Shahin took over.

“These people don’t continue to come back to Arizona because they like the sunshine or they like the state,” said FBI agent Kenneth Williams. “Something was established there, and it’s been there for a long time.” And Shahin appears to be in the middle of it.

What Is This?
A Jew-Hating Jew?

UCI Professor Mark LeVine is Jewish. And, he seems to hate his own kind so much that he comes up with the stupidest anti-Semitic conspiracy theories this side of Al Qaeda:

As far as I can see, the only party that benefits from Gemayel's assassination is Israel. Israel was the main loser in last summer's war, at least politically and strategically. The country's leaders began threatening a new round of fighting even before they began pulling troops out of the south of Lebanon. Hezbollah's post-war ascendence was the most visible and troubling sign of Israel's seemingly unprecedented military weakness and strategic blundering.

Pulling off an assassination like this, which is by no means beyond Israel's ability, would serve several goals: First, it would turn the chaos that Hezbollah was trying to create in the Lebanese political system against it. Instead of Hezbollah managing the post-war chaos in order to strengthen its position, the movement is now forced onto the defensive and must react to a new dynamic in which Christians (with the exception of the breakaway Aoun faction) and Sunnis are more united than ever in their desire to block Hezbollah's takeover of the system. Second, if the country descends into civil war, which is a frightening, if still distant possibility, Hezbollah would be effectively neutralized, and Israel could rely on Maronites and perhaps Sunnis to attack Hezbollah without Israel facing the international condemnation it received during the war.

Roger Simon, a Jew who doesn't hate Jews, comments:

That there have been other recent assassinations in Lebanon similar to Gemayel's (Rafik Hariri - maybe he thinks Israel is behind that one too) and that Syria has been implicated (by the UN!) means nothing to them (unless it fits their propaganda purposes).

The UN's Jew Obsession

From the American Thinker (hat tip to Olivia):

Every single day, hundreds of African tribesmen are killed in Darfur by militias acting with the blessing of Sudan's Arab Islamist government. Each day, Hamas bombs from Gaza deliberately target innocent Israeli civilians in Sderot: although the weapons are crude, they occasionally find their mark -- last week a Qassam killed Fatima Slutsker, a 57-year-old (Muslim) Israeli woman who was waiting for her (Jewish) Israeli husband at a bus stop.

Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, has ratcheted up its campaign of violence this week, assassinating a Maronite Christian cabinet minister in Lebanon in a blatant attempt to provoke a constitutional crisis. (As of this writing, under the Byzantine Lebanese constitution, the terrorist group needs to eliminate only one more minister to bring about the collapse of the government.) The life-span of Zimbabweans is 34 years, and 550,000 have died over the past three years due to deliberate policies of the Mugabe dictatorship.

All of these barbaric crimes are human and moral tragedies that call for international action, prioritization, even obsession. But that self-proclaimed source of international legitimacy, the United Nations is not obsessed or even particularly concerned with any of them. None of these abuses of human rights by authoritarian regimes or movements was the object of the General Assembly resolution "condemning the military assaults...which have caused loss of life and extensive destruction...of particular the killing of many... civilians, including children and women."

For none of these violations of the right to life did the UN summon righteous indignation to "emphasize the importance of the safety and well-being of all civilians" and demand "the immediate cessation of military incursions and all acts of violence, terror, provocation, incitement and destruction."

Rather, since November 7, the UN has been obsessed with one accident, committed in self-defense, by the world body's favorite pariah, the democratic State of Israel.

A brief reminder of uncontoverted facts is in order:

In August 2005 Israel disengaged from the entire Gaza strip, after pledges by the Palestinian Authority (PA) that it would not use the area to wage war on Israel, and that it would remain faithful to the "roadmap for peace."

Immediately after Israeli disengagement the Palestinians broke their word. Hamas-backed terrorists have fired more than 1,000 Qassam rockets at Israeli civilians like Mrs. Slutsker. Via arms smuggling operations in southern Gaza, terrorists have brought in more than 30 tons of high explosives.

This massive smuggling of lethal weapons from Egypt has taken place with the silent complicity of Cairo (Egypt had promised to seal its border against terrorist traffic under an international accord brokered Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice), and with no effort by PA police to prevent the transit. Indeed, the Palestinian government itself essentially declared war on Israel with the election of Hamas. The kidnapping of an Israel soldier and killing of two others by forces the PA clearly harbors if not supports is another transparent act of war.

Bombs fall regularly on Sderot and Ashkelon, Israel, from northern Gaza in general and from the village of Beit Hanoun in particular. Hamas spokesmen have admitted that one of their key objectives is to force the evacuation of all Israeli towns and villages around the Gaza Strip. Obliged to protect its own civilians, Israel initially used its intelligence to target the locations of individual murderers, but both because of intelligence failures and the craven use of Palestinian women and children as human shields, the Jewish state has put these targeted killings on hold.

Israel's remaining recourse, short of re-occupying Gaza (which doubtless will incur the indignant wrath of the world community...) is to launch missiles at the sites of rocket launchers. This it has done. Because of equipment failure, one single missile missed its mark, landing instead on an apartment house and tragically killing nineteen women and children. Israel expressed extreme regret immediately for this event (one searches in vain for such contrition from Hamas).

But of course the Hamas murderers are the ones who bear ultimate moral responsibility for these deaths.

Angry residents screamed at the car that brought UN Commission on Human Rights Louise Arbour under heavy security to Sderot early Tuesday. The day before, Québécoise law professor had slammed Israel for "intolerable violations" of Palestinian human rights during a visit to Gaza's Beit Hanoun.

Therein lies the rub, the incredible rub, the impossible-to-explain-otherwise-than-as-anti-Semitism rub. The one Israeli missile that struck the Beit Hanoun apartment house was:

1) launched in justifiable self-defense;
2) reasonably produced and targeted; and
3) absolutely not intended to kill civilians.

The daily Palestinian bombs, meanwhile, are

1) acts of aggressive war;
2) callously launched without any effort to aim them accurately at military targets (in fact, legal experts long ago concluded that the use of the notoriously inaccurate Qassams are ipso facto a war crime since they simply cannot be targeted); and
3) in fact meant to kill and terrorize civilians.

In the face of this asymmetry, how does the international community react? Why, by blaming the Jews, as Ms. Arbour has done. For fourteen days, despite all the tragedies in the world, the UN has done virtually nothing but condemn Israel for its reasonable act of self-defense.

Monday, November 27, 2006

Pinky The Cat

Man, I have never seen a cat like this before.

No Peace Train
This Man

Cat Stevens was, of course, a great songwriter of the 1970's. He is known for such sensitive folk-rock style hits as Peace Train, Moonshadow, and First Cut Is The Deepest. Honestly, I love the guys music. But, I would never pay money for anything he ever did ever again.


Because Cat Stevens is no longer Cat Stevens. He has been transformed, by his Muslim religion, into Yusuf Islam, the Islamofascist.

Sending a Grim Message
By BRUCE BAWERNovember 27, 2006

Yusuf Islam, formerly Cat Stevens, is a man who opposes freedom of speech and women’s equality, and a man who would have cheered the execution of Salman Rushdie, writes Bruce Bawer.

The Nobel Peace Prize Concert will be held in Oslo on December 11 and broadcast around the world. The Norwegian Nobel Committee doesn't much care for Americans these days (except for 2002 laureate Jimmy Carter), but it knows who's an international draw and who isn't, and so the concert, as always, is top-loaded with American celebrities. The co-hosts are Sharon Stone and Angelica Huston, and the entertainers scheduled to appear include Lionel Ritchie and Wynonna. Also on the bill is a British singer who calls himself Yusuf.

Does that last name not sound familiar? Well, this is the same guy who used to be known as Yusuf Islam. Still confused? Well, before that he was Cat Stevens, and before that, just for the record, he was Steven Demetre Georgiou. For those who know a bit about Yusuf — who dropped his original name after converting to Islam in 1977 — the invitation from the Nobel Committee came as something of a surprise. Then again, for those who know a bit about the Nobel Committee's politics (this is the same crowd, after all, who publicly regretted giving their 1994 award to Shimon Peres, but not to that year's co-winner, Yasser Arafat), the decision to invite Yusuf to pay tribute in song to this year's prize winner, Muhammad Yunus, was not quite so astonishing.

There is reason to be dismayed by the Norwegian Nobel Committee's anointing of Yusuf. This is, after all, a man who's been denied entry into America and expelled from Israel.

After the publication of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, he was quoted in the New York Times as saying that if Mr. Rushdie came to his door for help, "I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like. I'd try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is."

A Web site called the Jawa Report claims that Yusuf has performed at fund-raising events for charities with connections to terrorist organizations. On the same Web site you can also read claims that he is an intimate of the Islamist Omar Bakri Mohammed and of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who is now serving a life sentence for terrorist activities.

Perhaps the barring of Yusuf from America and his expulsion from Israel were based on misunderstandings; perhaps he was misquoted on Mr. Rushdie, and perhaps the Jawa Report is mistaken. But Yusuf's own statements on his own Web site are not so easily dismissed. On that Web site he claims that he "never called for the death of Salman Rushdie; nor backed the Fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini," even though he feels that Mr. Rushdie's book "The Satanic Verses" "destroyed the harmony between peoples and created an unnecessary international crisis."

But then he adds the following: "When asked about my opinion regarding blasphemy, I could not tell a lie and confirmed that — like both the Torah and the Gospel — the Qur'an considers it, without repentance, as a capital offense. The Bible is full of similar harsh laws if you're looking for them. However, the application of such Biblical and Qur'anic injunctions is not to be outside of due process of law, in a place or land where such law is accepted and applied by the society as a whole." What does this mean? It means this: Yusuf is not against the idea of Mr. Rushdie being executed for writing a book. He is simply acknowledging that in Britain and other Western countries, the proper Islamic punishments do not apply. Yet.

What about women's rights — about burkas and such? Yusuf writes on his Web site that his wife and four daughters all wear clothes "which modestly cover their God-given beauty." He insists that "a woman's beauty and form" should not be viewed by "males who are not closely related." This view places him squarely in the mainstream of patriarchal Islamism, for whose adherents the covering of women is central to the theological principle that a family's honor is founded in its women's "modesty."

And what about free speech? Yusuf supports an Islam that "wisely prohibits the vilification of what people hold sacred, in order that people do not vilify or mock God the Almighty." In other words, he champions the same kind of Shariah-based censorship that obtains in Saudi Arabia and Iran and that was a way of life in Taliban-run Afghanistan. This is, in short, a man who opposes freedom of speech and women's equality — a man who would have cheered the execution of Salman Rushdie. The decision to invite him to perform at the Nobel Peace Prize Concert — which is supposed to be a celebration of civilization's highest values — sends a grim message about the values the Norwegian Nobel Committee exalts above all others.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Rock The Boat

Some silly seventies shit that warms the cockles of my heart.

Rock On

Glam-pop star David Essex. This is another silly pop song from the seventies. But, this is a pretty serious and innovative piece of music in its own way, with bass guitar that is almost like a prophecy of my namesake Jaco Pastorius, James Bond strings, and a tight 80's pop arrangement that predates Duran Duran and the Simple Minds by 10 years or so.

I wonder what my buddies Steve Harkonen and Stogie would think of this tune.

Ballroom Blitz

The Sweet. This is another silly seventies pop song with an incredible arrangement. Check it out.

The Fusion
Of Islamofascism
And White Supremacism

From No Pasaran:

Dieudonné (anti-Semitic French-Muslim comedian) calling for the de-diabolisation of Le Pen among suburban French youth, and second-generation Moroccan-origin French youth soccer hooligans rolling with far right supporter groups like the Boulogne Boys. What brings them together? Jew hatred.

"...[Muslims] adopted then the characteristics of a kind of sub-class and at the same time they then merge with the worst features of the host society. You can be in a northern English town after 9 o’clock at night on a Saturday night and these tattooed gangs of Pakistani skinheads came rolling through town. You think, what the hell is this? It’s like some futuristic dystopian thing cooked up by some mad lab scientist in which he’s taken the worst pathologies of the western world and the worst pathologies of the Muslim world and fused them together.

So you have this grotesque license, the sense of license and self gratification that your ordinary English yobbo would have merge with the sort of basic misogyny of the Muslim community and it produces something quite terrifying in these rape gangs they’ve now got in Scandinavia and France and Belgium and places. I think it’s that the western world impacts on a lot of young Muslims in ways that make them far more alienated, far more fiercely Islamist in effect than to some goat herder in Afghanistan."-- Mark Steyn, "America Alone"

An Advertisement
For The Obliteration
Of Western Civilization

A relative of mine, who lives in Europe, sent this ad to me, because he thought it was funny.

The message of this ad isn't, "Be a better parent." Instead, it is, "Take the easy way out, don't have children."

Too bad our European brothers and sisters no longer understand the blessings of life.

There is no major Western European country that is producing enough children to replace the current population. Instead, they are replacing their population with Muslim immigrants.

Here are the birthrates per couple in various European countries:

Remember the birthrate for a population that is neither increasing nor declining is 2.1 babies per woman of childbearing age.

Ireland - 1.87
Germany - 1.3
Austria - 1.3
Italy - 1.2
Russia - 1.2
Spain - 1.1.

At a replacement rate of 1.1, Spain is at half the stable population replacement rate. This means Spain's population is halving every generation. The magnitude of the numbers is difficult to comprehend. In 2000, the total population of Europe was 728 million. By 2050 at the present rate of births, it will be less than 600 million, a loss of a staggering 125 million Europeans.

Are children really just a pain in the ass, or are they hope for a future?


Writers such as Mark Steyn and Bat Ye'or have been predicting, for the past several years, that Europe is destined to fall to its Muslims inhabitants due to the twin fates of demographics and lethargy. While I respect Mark Steyn, and believe his points to be salient and important, I do not share his pessimism as to the fate of Europe

However, that does not mean that I think all will be well with Europe. It has always been my opinion that Europe will be what Europe always has been; a land of brutal and barbaric defenders of what they perceive to be their culture.

It looks like Ralph Peters agrees with me (Hat tip to Olivia):

November 26, 2006 -- A RASH of pop prophets tell us that Muslims in Europe are reproducing so fast and European societies are so weak and listless that, before you know it, the continent will become "Eurabia," with all those topless gals on the Riviera wearing veils.

Well, maybe not.

The notion that continental Europeans, who are world-champion haters, will let the impoverished Muslim immigrants they confine to ghettos take over their societies and extend the caliphate from the Amalfi Coast to Amsterdam has it exactly wrong.

The endangered species isn't the "peace loving" European lolling in his or her welfare state, but the continent's Muslims immigrants - and their multi-generation descendents - who were foolish enough to imagine that Europeans would share their toys.

In fact, Muslims are hardly welcome to pick up the trash on Europe's playgrounds.

Don't let Europe's current round of playing pacifist dress-up fool you: This is the continent that perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing, the happy-go-lucky slice of humanity that brought us such recent hits as the Holocaust and Srebrenica.

THE historical patterns are clear: When Europeans feel sufficiently threatened - even when the threat's concocted nonsense - they don't just react, they over-react with stunning ferocity. One of their more-humane (and frequently employed) techniques has been ethnic cleansing.

And Europeans won't even need to re-write "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" with an Islamist theme - real Muslims zealots provide Europe's bigots with all the propaganda they need. Al Qaeda and its wannabe fans are the worst thing that could have happened to Europe's Muslims. Europe hasn't broken free of its historical addictions - we're going to see Europe's history reprised on meth.

The year 1492 wasn't just big for Columbus. It's also when Spain expelled its culturally magnificent Jewish community en masse - to be followed shortly by the Moors, Muslims who had been on the Iberian Peninsula for more than 800 years.

Jews got the boot elsewhere in Europe, too - if they weren't just killed on the spot. When Shakespeare wrote "The Merchant of Venice," it's a safe bet he'd never met a Jew. The Chosen People were long-gone from Jolly Olde England.

From the French expulsion of the Huguenots right down to the last century's massive ethnic cleansings, Europeans have never been shy about showing "foreigners and subversives" the door.

And Europe's Muslims don't even have roots, by historical standards. For the Europeans, they're just the detritus of colonial history. When Europeans feel sufficiently provoked and threatened - a few serious terrorist attacks could do it - Europe's Muslims will be lucky just to be deported.

Sound impossible? Have the Europeans become too soft for that sort of thing? Has narcotic socialism destroyed their ability to hate? Is their atheism a prelude to total surrender to faith-intoxicated Muslim jihadis?

The answer to all of the above questions is a booming "No!" The Europeans have enjoyed a comfy ride for the last 60 years - but the very fact that they don't want it to stop increases their rage and sense of being besieged by Muslim minorities they've long refused to assimilate (and which no longer want to assimilate).

WE don't need to gloss over the many Muslim acts of barbarism down the centuries to recognize that the Europeans are just better at the extermination process. From the massacre of all Muslims and Jews (and quite a few Eastern Christians) when the Crusaders reached Jerusalem in 1099 to the massacre of all the Jews in Buda (not yet attached to Pest across the Danube) when the "liberating" Habsburg armies retook the citadel at the end of the 17th century, Europeans have just been better organized for genocide.

It's the difference between the messy Turkish execution of the Armenian genocide and the industrial efficiency of the Holocaust. Hey, when you love your work, you get good at it.

Far from enjoying the prospect of taking over Europe by having babies, Europe's Muslims are living on borrowed time. When a third of French voters have demonstrated their willingness to vote for Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front - a party that makes the Ku Klux Klan seem like Human Rights Watch - all predictions of Europe going gently into that good night are surreal.