Sunday, July 31, 2011
MSNBC and Language
Chris Jansing
You know the old saying, "Language matters"? It does, and I was reminded of that this morning on the treadmill while watching MSNBC talking babe Chris Jansing's show focusing on the debt ceiling negotiations. (Not bad-looking, I might add-Jansing not the negotiations.)
Anyway, there was a news-ticker thread running at the bottom of the screen saying, "Will tea party force America to default? Weigh in at Ed@msnbc.com." (Feel free to weigh in, if you wish.)
Some of the terms that I kept hearing over and over again were, "revenue"-as opposed to taxes), "right-wingers", and "progressives". Of course, liberals will never use the term "left-wingers", preferring the term "progressives."
I concede that conservatives also eschew the term "right-winger" in favor of conservatives, and will make liberal (no pun intended) use of the term, "left-winger". They don't say, "revenue enhancements". They say taxes. Take your pick. It cuts both ways.
For the sake of you younger readers, especially those of you majoring in community studies at UC-Santa Cruz (America's Wackiest University), "progressive" was a term coined during the Cold War when the communists and their fellow-travelers referred to themselves as "progressives" instead of "communists" and "fellow travelers". "Communist" was a dirty word then, so the term, "progressive" sounded nicer-just as it does today to describe far-left ideologues, many of whom still have Marxist beliefs. That's right. I said it.
There was also a lot of back and forth discussion about how there were both Republicans and Democrats opposed to the developing deal. Who were those folks? The "tea party, the right-wing Republicans" and the Democratic "progressives." (Well, what would you rather be, children-a right-winger or a progressive?)
Chris also had on another MSNBC babe, Richard Wolffe (with 2 f's), bemoaning the fact that the proposed deal, as currently formulated, has a clause requiring committee meetings on further cuts, while having no such clause requiring future discussions on taxes. (He actually used the word "taxes". Must have been a slip of the tongue.)
Richard Wolffe- MSNBC commentator and author, who wrote a children's fairy tale on President Obama.
As I said, conservatives and Fox News will use language on the other side to make their points. What is important here is that the reader, listener or watcher should be aware of the alternative vocabularies being used to make a point even while appearing to be objective. Take this piece you are reading now, for example. It may appear to be objective......
Meanwhile at the US Capitol.............
*Artwork by Fousesquawk. All rights reserved. Send in for a free brochure.)
This morning, sources say the Republicans and Democrats are closing in on a deal. Let's look in.
The UN, Syria, Libya and Iraq
For all of you who still believe in the UN, here's an update on why we should get the hell out of that despicable organization. In the past 24 hours, Syrian troops mowed down another 100 people. In addition, the UN has quietly extended its development aid program with Bashar Assad's murderous regime.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/07/29/despite-western-sanctions-against-syria-un-quietly-extends-development-aid-to/
And in case you haven't been paying attention, our quiet little war in Libya is still raging, months after President Obama and NATO assured us it would be over in days. Why just this week, Abdelbaset al Megrahi (the "dying" Pan Am 103 bomber) was spotted at a pro-Ghaddafi rally as Snoopy and the Red Baron were flying in tandem over Tripoli dropping leaflets telling Ghaddafi it was "time for him to go".
Meanwhile, syndicated writer Trudy Rubin has a column today describing how our government (State Department) is suspending visas for Iraqis who have been working on our side and thus targeted for death as soon as the last troops pull out.
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/visas-309801-iraqi-security.html
But there is good news: Harry Reid has spoken by phone twice this morning with Joe Biden (about the debt ceiling vote).
Great Caesar's ghost.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Al Sharpton at MSNBC? Why Not?
It has been reported that Al Sharpton may get that empty talk show host spot at MSNBC. Personally, I'd prefer that Melissa Harris-Perry babe that is filling in now. She is easy on the eyes unlike that other "babe", the Tim Geithner look-a-like Rachel Maddow. Oh, she's just as liberal, but I can always hit the mute button and just look at her.
But I digress; we are talking about Al Sharpton. A lot of folks are criticizing the idea claiming that Sharpton is not fit to fill the position. I disagree.
Sharpton's detractors point out that he has been involved in a number of controversies during his career as a civil rights activist. He sure has.
Sharpton, you may recall, jumped into the 1987 Tawana Brawley hoax backing up the teenage girl's claims that a group of white cops had sexually assaulted her. He was later successfully sued for libel.
During the 1991 Crown Heights riots, Sharpton was quoted as saying during a demonstration,"If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house" and referring to Jews as "diamond merchants." The riots began after a car driven by a Jew struck and killed a small Guyanese boy. During the riots, several Jews were beaten on the streets and an Australian Jew was stabbed to death. Yet, after the riots, Sharpton led another demonstraion shouting, "Whose streets? Our streets!" and "No justice-no peace."
Also in 1991, Sharpton led a black boycot of a Korean store owner in Brooklyn.
In 1995, Sharpton involved himself in the protests of Freddie's Fashion Mart, when a Jewish tenant evicted his sub-tenant, a black-owned record store per the request of the owners of the building, a black Pentacostal church. During the demonstrations against the store, Sharpton said this to the crowd; "We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business". In December of 1995, one of the protesters, entered Freddie's Fashion Mart and shot several customers while setting the store on fire. Seven employees died of smoke inhalation, and the gunman shot himself.
In 1998, Sharpton was hit with a delinquent tax bill of some 1.5 million dollars to the IRS and New York State. He claimed discrimination.
And don't forget that famous undercover video of Al negotiating a cocaine deal.
Also don't forget that Sharpton publicly stated that he would not criticize President Obama.
So the verdict is clear. Al Sharpton is a perfect fit for MSNBC. And even better, you know that MSNBC won't ever suspend or fire him like they do with all the other talking heads. They wouldn't dare.
Just think; Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Larry O'Donnell and Al Sharpton. The Fab Five.
UK Muslims Trying to Set Up Shariah-Compliant Zones
Hat tip to Creeping Sharia
Our old friend Anjem Choudary and his unmerry band of nosepickers known as Islam4UK are at it again. Now they are putting up posters in certain parts of towns in the UK declaring shariah law zones. Their ultimate goal is to establish independent Islamic emirates within the UK.
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/uk-muslims-set-up-sharia-law-zones-as-seeds-for-islamic-emirate/
Here is their press conference (hat tip to Vlad Tepes), where Choudary and his cohorts spell it out. Here he describes the Muslim patrols going through parts of major British cities enforcing shariah. Toward the end, Choudary states that the eventual goal is to cut off hands and feet, stone adulterers, and execute apostates.
You talk about chutzpah!
"Ya talk about chickensh--!"
Where are those British soccer hooligans when you need them?
"Sharia this, Anjem!"
Our old friend Anjem Choudary and his unmerry band of nosepickers known as Islam4UK are at it again. Now they are putting up posters in certain parts of towns in the UK declaring shariah law zones. Their ultimate goal is to establish independent Islamic emirates within the UK.
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/uk-muslims-set-up-sharia-law-zones-as-seeds-for-islamic-emirate/
Here is their press conference (hat tip to Vlad Tepes), where Choudary and his cohorts spell it out. Here he describes the Muslim patrols going through parts of major British cities enforcing shariah. Toward the end, Choudary states that the eventual goal is to cut off hands and feet, stone adulterers, and execute apostates.
You talk about chutzpah!
"Ya talk about chickensh--!"
Where are those British soccer hooligans when you need them?
"Sharia this, Anjem!"
Edwin Edwards is Still Kickin'
"Laissez les bon temps rouler"
Who says you can't marry a woman young enough to be your daughter? Former Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards (84) just married one young enough to be his grand daughter be Jesus.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/29/ex-louisiana-gov-edwin-edwards-marries-prison-pen-pal-less-than-half-his-age/?test=latestnews?test=latestnews
Of course, the bribe-taking governor had to meet her while in prison for taking bribes. Nevertheless, good things always happen to crooked politicians, don't they? Just ask Bill Clinton.
So all you old farts out there who dream of hooking up with a young bimbo, here's the secret. Get yourself elected governor, take bribes until they finally put you away, then take your pick of young gold-diggers who want to write to you because they know in their heart of hearts that you are innocent.
Friday, July 29, 2011
The LA Times Under Attack (With Good Reasons)
My friend and colleague David Stein of Counter Contempt up in LA has written a piece on the LA Times, one of the most over-rated fishwraps in America. Of course, the Times has long enjoyed a reputation as one of the big 3 or 4 newspapers in America, The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune and the LA Times. Personally, I don't think much of any of them.
The LA Times is one of the most biased newspapers in America, with a liberal staff of editorial writers that rank right down there with the talking heads of MSNBC. (Well, that might be a slight exaggeration.)
Here is David's article with a link back to a previous article on the Times.
The Los Angeles Times and the Jews - A Few Choice Examples.
By David Stein
My article (http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/1710) about Friday’s frustrating encounter with a cowardly reporter and a condescending corporate flack at the L.A. Times got me reminiscing about years past, when I used to pay a lot of attention to incompetent and biased reporting at my city’s “paper of record.” These days, I only occasionally write about what goes on at the rapidly-shrinking L.A. Times, because as the paper’s readers have been evaporating, so has its relevance.
One aspect of Times coverage that always got under my skin was its intensely biased coverage of Jewish issues. Of course, it’s expected that most “mainstream” (i.e., left-leaning) newspapers are, to one degree or another, hostile to Israel. But the Times has gone several steps further, often being openly hostile to Jews as a people.
One of my just-for-fun side projects is working with a libertarian-conservative organization called the Republican Party Animals (RPA). The RPA is a 4,000 person-strong national social club for young, right-leaning urbanites who enjoy mixing their politics with a healthy dose of nightlife fun. Last year, I designed an online video game for the group, “Obama vs. the Corpse-Men,” a riff on the president’s unintentionally hilarious mispronunciation of the term “corpsman” during a press conference last February. The gist of the game is that players must try to save Obama from a horde of hungry zombies (“corpse-men”) by answering trivia questions about the left.
One of the questions reads:
The Los Angeles Times has seen its circulation plummet from 1.1 million to about 600,000. Wonder why? Which of these statements about the L.A. Times is true?
A) The Times colluded with Holocaust deniers to run an anti-Semitic ad during Hanukkah.
B) The Times routinely runs op-eds by the terrorist organization Hamas.
C) The Times ran an anti-Semitic cartoon showing evil Jews slitting the throats of Arabs and drinking their blood.
D) In an article about a Muslim kidnapping ring targeting Jews, The Times hid the Muslim identity of the gang.
E) All of the above.
The answer, of course, is “E.” If players choose correctly, they are redirected to a page that provides background information for each assertion. Being in the mood to kick the Times around a little, I thought I’d cut-and-paste that info here. Enjoy (or, perhaps more appropriately, don’t enjoy. Instead, get angry enough to cancel your subscription, if you have one).
(You can also click here to play the game in full)
http://republicanpartyanimals.org/
The Times colluded with Holocaust deniers to run an anti-Semitic ad during Hanukkah
• In December 2004, the Times’ advertising department was approached by the largest Holocaust denial organization in North America, the Institute for Historical Review (located in Newport Beach, CA), with a plan: The Institute wanted to run a Holocaust denial ad in the Book Review section of the Sunday Times (the Times’ most-read edition), on the last weekend of Hanukkah. The advertising director loved the idea, and the ad was set to run. Someone at the Times who still possessed a living brain cell killed the plan at the last minute, so infuriating the ad director that he promised the deniers that the ad would run in the next week’s edition FOR FREE, to make up for the fact that the poor deniers missed their Hanukkah target. Unfortunately for the Hitler fanboys, their plan was thwarted when the ad was once again killed right before the paper went to press (the preceding information was confirmed through a series of private emails between me and two staffers at the Times. I undertook the investigation after seeing the deniers bragging about the affair on one of their message boards).
The Times routinely runs op-eds by the terrorist organization Hamas
• The Times routinely runs op-eds by the terrorist organization Hamas…you know, that’s the organization that murders Jews on a regular basis. But the Times has NEVER run op-eds by Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, or Thomas Sowell. The Times considers them “too extreme.” I suppose the Hamas Jew-killers are, by the Times’ standards, “moderates.”
The Times ran an anti-Semitic cartoon showing evil Jews slitting the throats of Arabs and drinking their blood
• The L.A. Times refused to run any of the Danish “Mohammed cartoons,” even the really tame ones (only a fraction of the cartoons portrayed Mohammed disrespectfully. Some portrayed him as a dignified, wizened old man, and one cartoon lampooned the editor of the Danish newspaper as a moronic dunce). In place of the Mohammed cartoons, the Times ran a cartoon from the Arab press, showing bloodthirsty, evil Jews slitting the throats of Muslims to drink their blood.
As an illustration of just how blind, deaf, and dumb the Times is to its own hypocrisy, Times columnist Tim Rutten criticized CNN for not showing the Mohammed cartoons, and replacing them instead with anti-Semitic cartoons from the Arab press. Wrote Rutten (“Lets Be Honest About Cartoons,” February 11, 2006), “Nothing, however, quite tops the absurdity of (a piece) done this week by CNN…Thursday, CNN broadcast a story on how common anti-Semitic caricatures are in the Arab press and illustrated it with – you guessed it – one virulently anti-Semitic cartoon after another. As the segment concluded, Wolf Blitzer looked into the camera and piously explained that while CNN had decided as a matter of policy not to broadcast any image of Muhammad, telling the story of anti-Semitism in the Arab press required showing those caricatures. He didn’t even blush.”
And Timmy Rutten didn’t blush either when his newspaper did the exact same thing (for the record, Timmy was critical of his editors’ decision not to run the Mohammed cartoons, but he was mum on their hypocrisy in publishing an Arab anti-Semitic cartoon instead, just as CNN had done).
Oh, and it should be added that running anti-Semitic cartoons is a regular feature in the Times. In the past, the Times has run cartoons which depicted:
L.A.’s Jews crucifying then-Mayor Tom Bradley like Jesus;
A murderous Jew with an uzi standing on top of a pile of dead Palestinians, declaring that there’s no need to negotiate with the Palestinians because there aren’t any left;
Uncle Sam in chains, his arms crushed in a Star of David-shaped manacle;
A Jewish Nazi goose-stepping with a sword, holding a snarling Star of David on a leash, its fanged, drooling mouth attempting to devour a young Muslim mother and her child (understatement is a Times specialty)
All in a days work at the “L.A. Sturmer.”
In an article about a Muslim kidnapping ring targeting Jews, The Times hid the Muslim identity of the gang
• And here’s the corker: In 2006, the Times ran an article about a shameful instance of French injustice. In Paris, a gang of Muslims (primarily immigrants from Africa) was kidnapping Jews. The kidnappers would call the victims’ families. They would force the families to hear the agonizing screams of their loved ones as they were tortured…and the kidnappers would yell Koranic verses into the phone to let the families know that they were doing this in the name of the “religion of peace.” The Parisian police attempted to cover up the existence of this crime ring, fearing that any attempt to stop it would “offend” France’s Muslim community (and possibly lead to more riots in Muslim slums, as had happened in 2005), but after one of the Jewish kidnap victims was murdered, the story finally broke (23-year-old French/Moroccan Jew Ilan Halimi was tortured, stabbed, stripped naked, and burned alive with acid after 24 harrowing days in the gang’s captivity).
In the Times article about this story, the Times refused to use the term “Muslim” to refer to the murderous gang. Instead, they merely referred to the killers as a “multiethnic gang.”
Multiethnic? So, was there an Eskimo involved? An Uzbek? A Creole? Perhaps a Peruvian tree-dwelling Indian? Only at the L.A. Times could the irony be so completely lost: They reported on the cover-up of the existence of a Muslim anti-Semitic kidnapping ring by covering up the existence of a Muslim anti-Semitic kidnapping ring.
And the Times is still at it! Check out this example of pure, excremental pseudo-journalism.HERE’S a story about the 2009 trial of the Muslim kidnap/murderers from the Daily Telegraph.
And HERE’S the L.A. Times.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/30/world/fg-briefs30.S3
No mention of the “M word!” To lift a line from the incomparable Dennis Miller, calling the folks who run the L.A. Times “scum buckets” is an insult to buckets filled with scum.
• Oooh, but there’s more! On July 4th, 2002, a Muslim terrorist, Egyptian immigrant Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, opened fire at the El Al counter at LAX, killing two (25-year-old Victoria Hen and 46-year-old Yakov Aminov), and wounding four, before being fatally shot by an El Al security guard.
The death of young Victoria Hen was made even more tragic by the fact that on July 5th, her boyfriend and family had planned a surprise party at which the boyfriend was to ask for her hand in marriage.
The day after the shootings, the Hen family issued a brief public statement: “We believe that this was an act carried out by a terrorist against Israelis and Americans on American soil. We wish the American government will once and for all take a clear stand on this issue of terror and will act on it.”
That statement was carried by most mainstream newspapers, including the New York Times. And, indeed, Times reporters Anna Gorman and Karima Haynes dutifully included it in their article profiling the LAX victims. But, just hours before the edition went to press, someone in authority at the Times issued an order that the family’s statement must immediately be pulled from the article. After all, a grieving Jewish family should have NO RIGHT to call their daughter’s murderer a terrorist. I mean, how DARE they!
Not only was the Hen family’s statement cut from the article, neither her mother nor her father or brother were quoted – AT ALL – in the article.
The title of the article from which the family’s statement was erased, and for which no family members were quoted? “Families, Friends Remember Loved Ones Killed in Shooting.” You might want to pause for a moment to appreciate the irony.
When quizzed by David Stein (the Republican Party Animals Southern California Chairman), reporters Gorman and Haynes were baffled as to who removed the family’s statement. After being bounced from editor to editor, none of whom would take credit for censoring the statement, Stein landed at the desk of L.A. Times Assistant Managing Editor David Lauter. When asked for an explanation as to why the Hen family statement was removed, Lauter had this to say:
“I’m sorry you have been bounced around among editors. I can’t give a definitive answer to your question – the editor who handled the story that day is on vacation, and I don’t work on Saturdays – but Ill tell you what I can. Generally when things are trimmed out of a story, the reason is simply inches….Perhaps the story could have been edited differently – there are almost always several different ways a story can be cast….The story was too long. They had to cut something and the statement was among the things that were cut. There was no political motivation or intention involved nor was the Hen family singled out for unfair treatment.”
Ah, of course. It all makes sense now. The family’s reaction to their daughter’s murder wasn’t germane to an article about the family’s reaction to their daughter’s murder. That’s not just torturing logic…that’s waterboarding it while shoving bamboo under its fingernails.
Oh, but check THIS out! About a week later, the Times ran a glowing profile of Hadayat, the LAX murderer, filled with loving tributes from his wife, his cousin, and his co-workers (“Those Who Knew LAX Killer Say Personal Agenda Died With Him,” July 14th, 2002). According to his wife Hala, “He was correct, a perfectly decent Egyptian person. He loves his children and his neighbors and his family and his friends. He is a normal person who goes from work to home and that’s it. A normal person. There is nothing to suggest he was a bad person or that he belonged to any groups.” According to his cousin Emad, “Since he was 13 or 14 he wanted to go to America. He used to say, ‘It’s a beautiful country.’ He was like any young man, dreaming of a good life in the States.” His co-worker Abdallatef was quoted as saying, “He had nothing against Americans….He’s not hateful for the American people on the street….He loved this country. He loved freedom of speech. He told me, ‘I’d like to be a U.S. citizen. I like to pay my taxes. I want to raise my children here.”’ The Times even sought a praiseworthy quote from the killer’s INSURANCE BROKER (no, I swear I’m not joking…I wish to God I were). “‘He seemed to be very ambitious, conscientious,’ said Hadayat’s insurance broker John Henningsen. ‘He had big plans for his limousine company. He wanted to go places with it.’”
The Times didn’t include a single negative comment about the murderer in their profile of him. In total (including comments I didn’t quote above), the Times ran a whopping six-hundred and sixty-six words of praise for the killer from his family, friends, and co-workers. Yet the newspaper couldn’t make room for the victim’s family’s forty-three word statement in the article about the victims.
David Stein sought comment from the writers of the tribute to Hadayat (sparing no expense, the Times had assigned three reporters to write the glowing piece – Robyn Dixon, Jack Leonard, and Rich Connell). Stein wanted to know – why were the comments from Victoria Hen’s family removed from the article about the victims, but loving comments from the murderer’s friends and family were included in the article about the murderer? Replied staff writer Dixon, “The aim of the story was to create a balanced portrait of the killer and his background. Inclusion of the widows comments seems not only valid but important in this case.”
Okay, so let’s recap: Victoria Hen’s family’s comments were not important enough to be included in the article about Hadayat’s victims…but Hadayat’s widow’s loving comments were “valid” and “important” in the article about him…which was a “balanced portrait” of Hadayat…even though no negative comments, only positive ones, were included in it, which makes it balanced rather than one-sided because, uh, umm, because…uh…
I seriously think my head’s about to explode from the lack of logic and decency. So I’ll sign off with a question: Considering that all L.A. Times content is available online for free, why would anyone – especially anyone who’s Jewish – spend money to subscribe to that rag?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David,
To answer that last question; there is a good reason to buy the LA Times-to wrap your fish. You can't do that online.
(Toledo Talker)
Great articles.
Norway: Are Conservatives Against Multi-culturalism?
Pajamas Media has an article by David Solway on the debate over multi-culturalism in the wake of the tragic events in Norway.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/after-norway-massacre-the-debate-will-go-on/
It strikes me that the term multi-culturalism may have a slightly different meaning in Europe than here in America. In Europe, I would say the debate is mostly about the rise in the Muslim population, crime, lack of assimilation, and the degree of accommodation afforded to them. Here in America, it revolves around many other groups and languages.
On both continents, however, multi-culturalism has been erroneously spelled with a capital M-at least in many peoples' minds. It is Multi-Culturalism. It has unfortunately been perverted to send a message that Multi-culturalism is something to be desired over the European, western civilization. It is part of the post-colonial philosophy that has taken over our universities.
Again, I will repeat that multi-culturalism (small case m) is a central part of my life. I treasure the opportunity every day to meet people from other countries and practice their languages. I have lived in 3 different countries (Germany, Thaliand and Italy) and they are all a part of me. Nobody can tell me that I don't respect other cultures. That also applies to religions and races.
However, it is a mistake to elevate Multi-Culturalism to the level of some religion-especially when its underlying message is to reject western civilization because of some past historical sins (colonialism, imperialism, and racism). All civilizations have things to be proud of and things not to be proud of over the course of history.
The very idea that "conservatives" are against multi-culturalism (as I would define it) is unfair. Yes, we are against Multi-Culturalism (as I just described it), but it is not the idea that immigrants from other lands do not enrich our own society. They clearly do.
In my case. I am married to a Mexican immigrant. Since my own family now consists of three first cousins, my wife's family is basically my family now. I well understand the reasons Mexicans come to this country illegally and have written about it often. Yet, I still say our borders must be controlled.
Anders Breivik spoke out against his conception of the word multi-culturalism. I think it is clear that his concept and my concept don't match. Do we really think Breivik was angry at alll immigrants in Norway? Were there too many Latins or Asians in Oslo to suit him? I doubt it. Anders was angry at the Muslim immigrants because he perceived that they were not assimilating and were responsible for increased crime in Norway and other European countries. He feared that Norway and Europe would become predominately Muslim. Did that justify his action? Of course not. One thing that angers me is the incredible fact that he only faces a maximum of 21 years in prison for this mass murder. Now that is ridiculous.
The challenge in Europe now is for the anti-Jihadist movement (for lack of a better word) to continue to express their frustration at an immigration system that has gone wrong. The liberal left is itching to take any future expressions and paint them as "right-wingers or conservatives" who are against multi-culturalism and are, thus, racist. That is inaccurate and unfair. I have followed the blogs in Europe and America, as well as the main voices against Islamic fascism. The reactions are universal. They all condemn what Breivik did. Nobody is celebrating this act.
I still think that most Europeans are open to immigrants from other countries as long as they contribute to the society and the economy as opposed to being a burden on the state; as long as they respect the culture and traditions of the countries they immigrate to, don't commit crimes, and don't demand that their own culture be accommodated. It's really a pretty simple formula.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/after-norway-massacre-the-debate-will-go-on/
It strikes me that the term multi-culturalism may have a slightly different meaning in Europe than here in America. In Europe, I would say the debate is mostly about the rise in the Muslim population, crime, lack of assimilation, and the degree of accommodation afforded to them. Here in America, it revolves around many other groups and languages.
On both continents, however, multi-culturalism has been erroneously spelled with a capital M-at least in many peoples' minds. It is Multi-Culturalism. It has unfortunately been perverted to send a message that Multi-culturalism is something to be desired over the European, western civilization. It is part of the post-colonial philosophy that has taken over our universities.
Again, I will repeat that multi-culturalism (small case m) is a central part of my life. I treasure the opportunity every day to meet people from other countries and practice their languages. I have lived in 3 different countries (Germany, Thaliand and Italy) and they are all a part of me. Nobody can tell me that I don't respect other cultures. That also applies to religions and races.
However, it is a mistake to elevate Multi-Culturalism to the level of some religion-especially when its underlying message is to reject western civilization because of some past historical sins (colonialism, imperialism, and racism). All civilizations have things to be proud of and things not to be proud of over the course of history.
The very idea that "conservatives" are against multi-culturalism (as I would define it) is unfair. Yes, we are against Multi-Culturalism (as I just described it), but it is not the idea that immigrants from other lands do not enrich our own society. They clearly do.
In my case. I am married to a Mexican immigrant. Since my own family now consists of three first cousins, my wife's family is basically my family now. I well understand the reasons Mexicans come to this country illegally and have written about it often. Yet, I still say our borders must be controlled.
Anders Breivik spoke out against his conception of the word multi-culturalism. I think it is clear that his concept and my concept don't match. Do we really think Breivik was angry at alll immigrants in Norway? Were there too many Latins or Asians in Oslo to suit him? I doubt it. Anders was angry at the Muslim immigrants because he perceived that they were not assimilating and were responsible for increased crime in Norway and other European countries. He feared that Norway and Europe would become predominately Muslim. Did that justify his action? Of course not. One thing that angers me is the incredible fact that he only faces a maximum of 21 years in prison for this mass murder. Now that is ridiculous.
The challenge in Europe now is for the anti-Jihadist movement (for lack of a better word) to continue to express their frustration at an immigration system that has gone wrong. The liberal left is itching to take any future expressions and paint them as "right-wingers or conservatives" who are against multi-culturalism and are, thus, racist. That is inaccurate and unfair. I have followed the blogs in Europe and America, as well as the main voices against Islamic fascism. The reactions are universal. They all condemn what Breivik did. Nobody is celebrating this act.
I still think that most Europeans are open to immigrants from other countries as long as they contribute to the society and the economy as opposed to being a burden on the state; as long as they respect the culture and traditions of the countries they immigrate to, don't commit crimes, and don't demand that their own culture be accommodated. It's really a pretty simple formula.
Great Park Board Member AWOL
The OC Register has an interesting article today in their Watchdog section regarding Santa Ana mayor Miguel Pulido, who also serves as a board member for that fallow field known as the Great Park (the site of the former El Toro Marine Base). Apparently board members are paid almost $1,000 bucks a month to show up at a monthly board meeting. Pulido hardly ever shows up.
http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/2011/07/28/does-miguel-pulidos-attendance-record-matter/90439/
Well why should he show up? To begin with there is no Great Park. The only thing they have is a bunch of road signs directing you in circles to The Great Park. Keep following the signs and you wind up back where you started. All there is is a big orange gas balloon, a weed-covered runway, and a bunch of gopher holes. That, ladies and gentlemen is The Great Park.
Then there is this from local pol Beth Krom:
“A number of the times, Miguel has been absent for what I would deem more than legitimate reasons,” Krom said. “If somebody never came or missed six meetings in a row, I’d have a problem with that, but Miguel has made this a priority.”
Krom also backed Pulido’s contention that he is working behind the scenes. “I think he carries the Great Park around with him wherever he goes and is a very great emissary,” she said.
If what he brings to the table “requires him to be a little more flexible than most,” that’s acceptable, she added."
What Beth means is that Miguel carries that big orange balloon around with him wherever he goes.
"We all live in an orange submarine, an orange submarine, an orange submarine."
Below: Beth Krom and Larry (Boss) Agram
* Artwork by Fousesquawk. All rights reserved. Write for a free catalogue.
Fast and Furious: Getting Closer to You Know Who
Hat tip to American Thinker
Not only is it increasingly ludicrous to think Eric Holder didn't know about ATF's Fast and Furious, there are more signs that Holder's boss (He only answers to one person) had some knowledge about it as well. Not only has it been revealed that the agent-in-charge of ATF's Phoenix office was communicating about it to White House National Security figure Kevin O'Reilly, but now we learn that President Obama has made statements about how the DOJ was involved in "gun tracing". The below article appears in American Thinker and is written by M. Catherine Evans.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/07/fast_and_furious_traced_to_white_house.html
"Last point I would make, is that there are going to be some opportunities where I think we can build some strong consensus I'll give you one example and that is the issue of gun tracing, the tracing of bullets and ballistics and gun information that had been used in major crimes."
-President Obama, April 2009 at joint press conference with President Felipe Calderon in Mexico City
Is the above statement a smoking gun? No. Fast and Furious began a few months later. It does cast doubt on Obama's claim not to have been aware of what the ATF began doing in the fall of 2009. It even increases suspicion that the whole idea of Fast and Furious could have been cooked up by Obama and Holder themselves.
Not only is it increasingly ludicrous to think Eric Holder didn't know about ATF's Fast and Furious, there are more signs that Holder's boss (He only answers to one person) had some knowledge about it as well. Not only has it been revealed that the agent-in-charge of ATF's Phoenix office was communicating about it to White House National Security figure Kevin O'Reilly, but now we learn that President Obama has made statements about how the DOJ was involved in "gun tracing". The below article appears in American Thinker and is written by M. Catherine Evans.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/07/fast_and_furious_traced_to_white_house.html
"Last point I would make, is that there are going to be some opportunities where I think we can build some strong consensus I'll give you one example and that is the issue of gun tracing, the tracing of bullets and ballistics and gun information that had been used in major crimes."
-President Obama, April 2009 at joint press conference with President Felipe Calderon in Mexico City
Is the above statement a smoking gun? No. Fast and Furious began a few months later. It does cast doubt on Obama's claim not to have been aware of what the ATF began doing in the fall of 2009. It even increases suspicion that the whole idea of Fast and Furious could have been cooked up by Obama and Holder themselves.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Another Perspective on Norway and Europe
Soeren Kern
Soeren Kern of the Hudson Institute of New York has written a thought-provoking article on the massacre in Norway and the dilemma facing Europe today in a continent where "multi-culturalism" has failed.
http://www.hudson-ny.org/2301/norway-massacre-free-speech
It is a sad fact that this term, "multi-culturalism" has been a disaster in Europe. Here in the US, it is a politically-correct term that attempts to put various ethnic groups in favored categories rather than favor assimilation and a common identity as English-speaking Americans. We are fighting its spread here, and we have a good chance of success because (I still believe) most immigrants want to be part of America and contribute. All things considered, with all the problems, I still maintain that immigration in America is a positive force.
The problem in Europe is worse. While we in America have a plethora of minorities who would be most happy to assimilate if they weren't filled with the nonsensical ideas of the multi-culturalists, most of the immigrants in Europe have come from Muslim countries. The Europeans initially made no effort to assimilate them, and now it is too late. They have no desire to assimilate.
Human relations in Europe are not good and getting worse. Europeans are angry, and they are also angry at their leaders, who have let them down and are trying to silence their complaints. Now, in an age of Islamic militancy, it is an impossible dream.
Report on the King Hearings Round 3
I have received the below report from ACT for America on the King hearings. The below report is by Lisa Piraneo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Report from the Hill
Round 3: House Homeland Security Committee Hearing
“Al Shabaab: Recruitment and Radicalization within the Muslim
American Community and the Threat to the Homeland”
by Lisa Piraneo, Director of Government Relations
Yesterday, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter T. King (R-NY) continued to follow through on the promise he made at the start of the 112th Congress—to address the threat of radical Islam in America. Yesterday, he held his third in a series of hearings on Muslim-American radicalization, this one entitled: “Al Shabaab: Recruitment and Radicalization within the Muslim American Community and the Threat to the Homeland.” I attended the hearing so that I could offer you a first-hand report.
As I noted after Chairman King’s second hearing (covering radicalization within the U.S. prison system), we didn’t see the full-blown circus that attended his first discussion on radical Islam. However, I have to say that the behavior of some congressional members of the Committee was appalling. This is a serious subject that demands serious examination, and it is deeply disappointing to watch some of the members of the Committee act with the disrespect they showed yesterday.
The discussion yesterday was based on the result of what Chairman King called a “lengthy investigation the Committee has conducted into the threat the U.S. homeland faces from al-Shabaab, the Somalia affiliate of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda and Anwar al-Aulaqi’s al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).” The report found, among other concerning things, that over 40 Muslim-Americans and 20 Canadians have been recruited and radicalized by al-Shabaab. Click HERE to read the Committee’s full report.
The purpose of yesterday’s hearing by Chairman King was clear: We see a problem developing that has severe implications for our national security; we take this seriously; we need to address it NOW.
The witnesses for this particular hearing had varied but formidable backgrounds:
Mr. Ahmed Hussen – National President, Canadian Somali Congress. Mr. Hussen stated that his group is a “national advocacy organization that advocates on issues of importance to the 200,000 strong Canadian Somali community.” He told the Committee that as a Canadian Muslim he is “proud of his heritage” and thanked Chairman King for holding a hearing on this critical issue as, he said, it helps the Somali community, both in the U.S. and Canada, fight against those who wish to do either nation harm. Further, he said that it is important that the leaders in the Somali-Canadian and Somali-American communities “emphasize integration and the adherence to and respect for American and Canadian values and not those that promote separation, extremism and victimology.” See Mr. Hussen’s full testimony HERE.
Mr. Thomas Joscelyn – Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Mr. Joscelyn noted that a majority of Somali-Americans do not support al-Shabaab, nor its agenda. That said, he believes that there is a serious danger to our nation from al-Shabaab and though there is “great confusion here in the U.S. as to whether or not Shabaab is really a part of al Qaeda’s international terrorist network…my view is that the link is much stronger than some counterterrorism analysts realize.” See Mr. Joscelyn’s full testimony HERE.
Mr. William Anders Folk – Former Assistant United States Attorney, District of Minnesota. Mr. Folk agreed with the other witnesses that al-Shabaab is a serious threat to the United States and that to fight them and their supporters, the U.S. “must engage in a multi-faceted approach that utilizes all of the United States’ abilities, including military, intelligence, law enforcement and diplomatic options. Further, this effort must be carried out in Somalia, the Horn of Africa, and the United States.” See Mr. Folk’s full testimony HERE.
Mr. Tom Smith – Chief of Police, Saint Paul, Minnesota. Chief Smith updated the Committee about efforts taking place in St. Paul to combat al-Shabaab’s impact on the Somali-American community there. During his testimony, he noted another problem with which they are dealing: Somali girls not only in Saint Paul and Minneapolis, but also in Tennessee and other states are being sexually trafficked. See Chief Smith’s full testimony HERE.
The discussion during yesterday’s hearing was a critical one. Again, what was tremendously disappointing to me was the recurring rude and disrespectful behavior (both to the Chairman and the witnesses) by certain Members of the Committee. This has happened at each of Mr. King’s hearings on Islamic radicalization. Though national security should be a non-partisan issue, once again, the perpetrators were all Democrats. To me, it demonstrated a serious problem: how unknowledgeable, disconnected and disinterested some Members of Congress are about a very real and dangerous threat to our nation.
Some examples:
Rep. Shiela Jackson-Lee (D-TX) – as usual, was bent on making a show out of her comments instead of adding substance to the dialogue and learning from the experience of the witnesses. As during prior hearings, she made formal requests that the Chairman instead hold hearings on right-wing extremist organizations, as well as one on Rupert Murdoch. When her comment period expired and the Chairman informed her that it had, she continued speaking over him. It took several attempts of “the gentle lady’s time has expired” to get her to settle down. The cameras were rolling and she knew it.
Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA) – commented that the scope of the Chairman’s series of hearings is discriminatory.
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) – argued that radicalization is “cross-cultural, cross-religious, and cross-ethnic” and that if we focus on only one group we open ourselves up to “the disdain of others.”
Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) – noted to Chairman King that this was his third hearing on the issue of Islamic radicalization within the U.S. and said “point made. Let’s move on.”
But the most outrageous comments during the hearing, came from Rep. Al Green (D-TX), who does not serve on the Committee but asked (and was granted) time to speak. [NOTE: The Chairman did not grant the same, this time, for Rep. Keith Ellison, another legislative showman, who dramatically broke down in tears during King’s first hearing.] Early in his comments, Mr. Green asked all of the witnesses if they had ever heard of Jihad Jane. When they replied that they had, he continued his line of questioning, asking them what her hair color was, her eye color, her height, and finally, her complexion. He asked the witnesses if acknowledging that she was “as she is called in America, a white woman” took them “out of their comfort zone.” Clearly, he was insinuating that the Chairman and the committee were racist by focusing on Somali-Americans. When Chairman King responded that the questions had absolutely no basis and made no sense to him, Rep. Green shot back, “I didn’t expect it to make sense to you.”
I do think it is worthwhile to watch the full hearing, so you can see how the issue was taken seriously by the witnesses and some Members of Congress, such as Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN), Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX) and Rep. Dan Lundgren (R-CA), as well as those I mention above, who were only interested in distractions. This hearing took place at the courtesy of your tax dollars and you have a right to know what your elected officials are doing on Capitol Hill. You can view the full hearing HERE or by going to the House Homeland Security website HERE and clicking on “Webcast.” If you like what your Member of Congress is doing remember to let him or her know—and the very same if you don’t.
As the Chairman noted in his Opening Statement, which we sent out to our full membership shortly after it was released (click HERE to view it in its entirety) “I will not back down from holding these hearings. I will continue to hold these hearings so long as I am the Chairman of this Committee. I…owe it to all the friends, neighbors, and constituents I lost on September 11th. I will not back down.”
We need to be appreciative of Mr. King’s past and future efforts in the U.S. Congress on identifying and addressing radical Islam within the U.S. Contrary to what some Members of the Committee claim, he never has and never will focus on the peaceful Muslims living in America. This is not about them and, frankly, these hearings will benefit them. These discussions are about identifying and immobilizing those individuals who follow an ideology that is contrary and dangerous to the freedoms afforded by our U.S. Constitution—those who strive to do harm to our nation and our citizens.
Finally, we need to let Chairman King and all other Members of Congress who continue to speak out about this issue know that a grateful nation—certainly including the 170,000 members of ACT! for America—is behind them 100 percent.
As for those Members of Congress who do not take this seriously, who seem intent only on making a mockery of these hearings, they need to hear from their constituents too. They need to be told that they took an oath to defend the Constitution and they need to start taking these discussions about Islamic radicalization seriously.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it not amazing how the Democrats refuse to see what is right in front of them? Peter King and the Republicans on the committee have no desire to smear all American Muslims. They have done or said nothing to lend credence to that argument. Yet, Democrats sit up there on that committee and tell King to "move on" and that they should give equal consideration to the next Tim McVeigh-and Rupert Murdoch??!!. It doesn't make any sense at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Report from the Hill
Round 3: House Homeland Security Committee Hearing
“Al Shabaab: Recruitment and Radicalization within the Muslim
American Community and the Threat to the Homeland”
by Lisa Piraneo, Director of Government Relations
Yesterday, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter T. King (R-NY) continued to follow through on the promise he made at the start of the 112th Congress—to address the threat of radical Islam in America. Yesterday, he held his third in a series of hearings on Muslim-American radicalization, this one entitled: “Al Shabaab: Recruitment and Radicalization within the Muslim American Community and the Threat to the Homeland.” I attended the hearing so that I could offer you a first-hand report.
As I noted after Chairman King’s second hearing (covering radicalization within the U.S. prison system), we didn’t see the full-blown circus that attended his first discussion on radical Islam. However, I have to say that the behavior of some congressional members of the Committee was appalling. This is a serious subject that demands serious examination, and it is deeply disappointing to watch some of the members of the Committee act with the disrespect they showed yesterday.
The discussion yesterday was based on the result of what Chairman King called a “lengthy investigation the Committee has conducted into the threat the U.S. homeland faces from al-Shabaab, the Somalia affiliate of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda and Anwar al-Aulaqi’s al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).” The report found, among other concerning things, that over 40 Muslim-Americans and 20 Canadians have been recruited and radicalized by al-Shabaab. Click HERE to read the Committee’s full report.
The purpose of yesterday’s hearing by Chairman King was clear: We see a problem developing that has severe implications for our national security; we take this seriously; we need to address it NOW.
The witnesses for this particular hearing had varied but formidable backgrounds:
Mr. Ahmed Hussen – National President, Canadian Somali Congress. Mr. Hussen stated that his group is a “national advocacy organization that advocates on issues of importance to the 200,000 strong Canadian Somali community.” He told the Committee that as a Canadian Muslim he is “proud of his heritage” and thanked Chairman King for holding a hearing on this critical issue as, he said, it helps the Somali community, both in the U.S. and Canada, fight against those who wish to do either nation harm. Further, he said that it is important that the leaders in the Somali-Canadian and Somali-American communities “emphasize integration and the adherence to and respect for American and Canadian values and not those that promote separation, extremism and victimology.” See Mr. Hussen’s full testimony HERE.
Mr. Thomas Joscelyn – Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Mr. Joscelyn noted that a majority of Somali-Americans do not support al-Shabaab, nor its agenda. That said, he believes that there is a serious danger to our nation from al-Shabaab and though there is “great confusion here in the U.S. as to whether or not Shabaab is really a part of al Qaeda’s international terrorist network…my view is that the link is much stronger than some counterterrorism analysts realize.” See Mr. Joscelyn’s full testimony HERE.
Mr. William Anders Folk – Former Assistant United States Attorney, District of Minnesota. Mr. Folk agreed with the other witnesses that al-Shabaab is a serious threat to the United States and that to fight them and their supporters, the U.S. “must engage in a multi-faceted approach that utilizes all of the United States’ abilities, including military, intelligence, law enforcement and diplomatic options. Further, this effort must be carried out in Somalia, the Horn of Africa, and the United States.” See Mr. Folk’s full testimony HERE.
Mr. Tom Smith – Chief of Police, Saint Paul, Minnesota. Chief Smith updated the Committee about efforts taking place in St. Paul to combat al-Shabaab’s impact on the Somali-American community there. During his testimony, he noted another problem with which they are dealing: Somali girls not only in Saint Paul and Minneapolis, but also in Tennessee and other states are being sexually trafficked. See Chief Smith’s full testimony HERE.
The discussion during yesterday’s hearing was a critical one. Again, what was tremendously disappointing to me was the recurring rude and disrespectful behavior (both to the Chairman and the witnesses) by certain Members of the Committee. This has happened at each of Mr. King’s hearings on Islamic radicalization. Though national security should be a non-partisan issue, once again, the perpetrators were all Democrats. To me, it demonstrated a serious problem: how unknowledgeable, disconnected and disinterested some Members of Congress are about a very real and dangerous threat to our nation.
Some examples:
Rep. Shiela Jackson-Lee (D-TX) – as usual, was bent on making a show out of her comments instead of adding substance to the dialogue and learning from the experience of the witnesses. As during prior hearings, she made formal requests that the Chairman instead hold hearings on right-wing extremist organizations, as well as one on Rupert Murdoch. When her comment period expired and the Chairman informed her that it had, she continued speaking over him. It took several attempts of “the gentle lady’s time has expired” to get her to settle down. The cameras were rolling and she knew it.
Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA) – commented that the scope of the Chairman’s series of hearings is discriminatory.
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) – argued that radicalization is “cross-cultural, cross-religious, and cross-ethnic” and that if we focus on only one group we open ourselves up to “the disdain of others.”
Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) – noted to Chairman King that this was his third hearing on the issue of Islamic radicalization within the U.S. and said “point made. Let’s move on.”
But the most outrageous comments during the hearing, came from Rep. Al Green (D-TX), who does not serve on the Committee but asked (and was granted) time to speak. [NOTE: The Chairman did not grant the same, this time, for Rep. Keith Ellison, another legislative showman, who dramatically broke down in tears during King’s first hearing.] Early in his comments, Mr. Green asked all of the witnesses if they had ever heard of Jihad Jane. When they replied that they had, he continued his line of questioning, asking them what her hair color was, her eye color, her height, and finally, her complexion. He asked the witnesses if acknowledging that she was “as she is called in America, a white woman” took them “out of their comfort zone.” Clearly, he was insinuating that the Chairman and the committee were racist by focusing on Somali-Americans. When Chairman King responded that the questions had absolutely no basis and made no sense to him, Rep. Green shot back, “I didn’t expect it to make sense to you.”
I do think it is worthwhile to watch the full hearing, so you can see how the issue was taken seriously by the witnesses and some Members of Congress, such as Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN), Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX) and Rep. Dan Lundgren (R-CA), as well as those I mention above, who were only interested in distractions. This hearing took place at the courtesy of your tax dollars and you have a right to know what your elected officials are doing on Capitol Hill. You can view the full hearing HERE or by going to the House Homeland Security website HERE and clicking on “Webcast.” If you like what your Member of Congress is doing remember to let him or her know—and the very same if you don’t.
As the Chairman noted in his Opening Statement, which we sent out to our full membership shortly after it was released (click HERE to view it in its entirety) “I will not back down from holding these hearings. I will continue to hold these hearings so long as I am the Chairman of this Committee. I…owe it to all the friends, neighbors, and constituents I lost on September 11th. I will not back down.”
We need to be appreciative of Mr. King’s past and future efforts in the U.S. Congress on identifying and addressing radical Islam within the U.S. Contrary to what some Members of the Committee claim, he never has and never will focus on the peaceful Muslims living in America. This is not about them and, frankly, these hearings will benefit them. These discussions are about identifying and immobilizing those individuals who follow an ideology that is contrary and dangerous to the freedoms afforded by our U.S. Constitution—those who strive to do harm to our nation and our citizens.
Finally, we need to let Chairman King and all other Members of Congress who continue to speak out about this issue know that a grateful nation—certainly including the 170,000 members of ACT! for America—is behind them 100 percent.
As for those Members of Congress who do not take this seriously, who seem intent only on making a mockery of these hearings, they need to hear from their constituents too. They need to be told that they took an oath to defend the Constitution and they need to start taking these discussions about Islamic radicalization seriously.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it not amazing how the Democrats refuse to see what is right in front of them? Peter King and the Republicans on the committee have no desire to smear all American Muslims. They have done or said nothing to lend credence to that argument. Yet, Democrats sit up there on that committee and tell King to "move on" and that they should give equal consideration to the next Tim McVeigh-and Rupert Murdoch??!!. It doesn't make any sense at all.
European History For Dummies-WW I
This was it: the war to end all wars. World War I. How did it happen? In truth, it's way too complicated to describe, but imagine Europe controlled by the Republicans and Democrats-plus ten other parties. You get the picture. It was the most senseless war since whatever war the Europeans had fought before it.
In 1914, you had this archduke, you see. He was from Austria, that country that proved later in history that nothing ever good happens when an Austrian leaves Austria. Archduke Franz Ferdinand was part of the Hapsburg family that ruled what was then the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Archduke Franz Ferdinand (reasonable facsimile)
That was the same dysfunctional family that sent Maximillian and Carlota to reign over Mexico in the previous century. That didn't end so well as old Maxie wound up in front of a firing squad and Carlota went insane-kinda like Nancy Pelosi.
Anyway, in June 1914, Ferdy made a big mistake; he went to the grand old city of Sarajevo in Bosnia, where he and his wife were pumped full of bullets by a Bosnian Serb, who history would prove to be a real trend-setter. (Never put a Serb in Sarajevo). Bad things happen.
Well, as they say in Brussels, the death of an archduke merits a world war. Here's how it played out. You see, Austria-Hungary didn't like Serbia, and they were happy as a clam that Ferdy got bumped off so they could have an excuse to go to war with Serbia. They sent the Serbies a list of ten demands; raise taxes, lift the debt ceiling, and a few others. When the Serbies accepted only 8 out 10 demands, the A-H'ers declared war.
There was one problem. The Serbies had friends-the Russians. The Russkies mobilized their army. When that happened, the Germans, who were pals of the Austrians, mobilized their army. Then the Frenchies, still pissed at the Krauts for taking Alsace-Lorraine in the Franco-Prussian War, mobilized their armies. Then the Germans declared war on Russia, the Brits declared war on Germany, the Turks (Ottoman Empire) jumped in to fight the Russkies, the Italians jumped in to sell white flags to both sides, the Americans joined later, and to cap it all off, the Bolivians declared war against Guatamala.
For the next several years, both sides lived in pleasant abodes called trenches feeding the rats when they weren't shooting each other. Of course, the Germans did what they always do-invade France. Eventually, it was the Germans who had the good sense to call the whole thing off 4 years later when they couldn't remember what the Hell they were fighting for.
(Archduke Franz Ferdinand, be Jesus.)
As we know, they had to take the fall and be blamed for the war. The Treaty at Versailles was the ultimate exercise in finger pointing and all fingers pointed to the Germans. They were literally the guy in the barrell.
As it turned out, the war to end all wars was the war that led to the next war. And as we all know, to complete the full circle, there was yet another Austrian who had left his native land to cause trouble, and who was lurking in the wings.
"Oh, who would have ever imagined?"
In 1914, you had this archduke, you see. He was from Austria, that country that proved later in history that nothing ever good happens when an Austrian leaves Austria. Archduke Franz Ferdinand was part of the Hapsburg family that ruled what was then the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Archduke Franz Ferdinand (reasonable facsimile)
That was the same dysfunctional family that sent Maximillian and Carlota to reign over Mexico in the previous century. That didn't end so well as old Maxie wound up in front of a firing squad and Carlota went insane-kinda like Nancy Pelosi.
Anyway, in June 1914, Ferdy made a big mistake; he went to the grand old city of Sarajevo in Bosnia, where he and his wife were pumped full of bullets by a Bosnian Serb, who history would prove to be a real trend-setter. (Never put a Serb in Sarajevo). Bad things happen.
Well, as they say in Brussels, the death of an archduke merits a world war. Here's how it played out. You see, Austria-Hungary didn't like Serbia, and they were happy as a clam that Ferdy got bumped off so they could have an excuse to go to war with Serbia. They sent the Serbies a list of ten demands; raise taxes, lift the debt ceiling, and a few others. When the Serbies accepted only 8 out 10 demands, the A-H'ers declared war.
There was one problem. The Serbies had friends-the Russians. The Russkies mobilized their army. When that happened, the Germans, who were pals of the Austrians, mobilized their army. Then the Frenchies, still pissed at the Krauts for taking Alsace-Lorraine in the Franco-Prussian War, mobilized their armies. Then the Germans declared war on Russia, the Brits declared war on Germany, the Turks (Ottoman Empire) jumped in to fight the Russkies, the Italians jumped in to sell white flags to both sides, the Americans joined later, and to cap it all off, the Bolivians declared war against Guatamala.
For the next several years, both sides lived in pleasant abodes called trenches feeding the rats when they weren't shooting each other. Of course, the Germans did what they always do-invade France. Eventually, it was the Germans who had the good sense to call the whole thing off 4 years later when they couldn't remember what the Hell they were fighting for.
(Archduke Franz Ferdinand, be Jesus.)
As we know, they had to take the fall and be blamed for the war. The Treaty at Versailles was the ultimate exercise in finger pointing and all fingers pointed to the Germans. They were literally the guy in the barrell.
As it turned out, the war to end all wars was the war that led to the next war. And as we all know, to complete the full circle, there was yet another Austrian who had left his native land to cause trouble, and who was lurking in the wings.
Ft Hood Plot- Back to Reality
I guess someone was watching that absurd video the DHS put out asking the public to turn in suspicious-looking white guys with hooded sweatshirts to those "fusion centers". The tipster who alerted the authorities to Naser Jason Abdo must have been blind and just listened to the audio.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/28/exclusive-us-military-serviceman-arrested-in-second-alleged-attack-on-ft-hood/
Hopefully, this will bring Janet Napolitano back from her delusion that right-wing Christian military veteran extremists with stringy blond hair falling out of their baseball caps are the biggest terrorist threat to America. That is an absurdity.
What happened in Norway was a horrific act that hopefully, will not be repeated, but it should not be a diversion from what the true threat is and where it comes from. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is about to hold another hearing on the radicalization of Muslims right here in America. This latest story, coupled with the on-going recruiting of Jihadists to return to Somalia and fight with Al Shabaab is a reminder that the King hearings are necessary. I have full confidence that King will not allow it to become a witch-hunt or smear against innocent American Muslims, but it is a necessary inquiry.
I don't want to minimize the attack in Norway nor the possibility that lone wolf characters may play out their hate through violence. At this point, different kinds of hatred are present in western Europe. However, one lone act by a single nut is hardly a trend. Islamist acts of terror are a world-wide trend. Let's be realistic in setting our priorities and recognizing the threats.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/28/exclusive-us-military-serviceman-arrested-in-second-alleged-attack-on-ft-hood/
Hopefully, this will bring Janet Napolitano back from her delusion that right-wing Christian military veteran extremists with stringy blond hair falling out of their baseball caps are the biggest terrorist threat to America. That is an absurdity.
What happened in Norway was a horrific act that hopefully, will not be repeated, but it should not be a diversion from what the true threat is and where it comes from. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is about to hold another hearing on the radicalization of Muslims right here in America. This latest story, coupled with the on-going recruiting of Jihadists to return to Somalia and fight with Al Shabaab is a reminder that the King hearings are necessary. I have full confidence that King will not allow it to become a witch-hunt or smear against innocent American Muslims, but it is a necessary inquiry.
I don't want to minimize the attack in Norway nor the possibility that lone wolf characters may play out their hate through violence. At this point, different kinds of hatred are present in western Europe. However, one lone act by a single nut is hardly a trend. Islamist acts of terror are a world-wide trend. Let's be realistic in setting our priorities and recognizing the threats.
Batty Woman's Quote of the Day
Tip of the Hat to Gretawire (Fox Insider) and The Daily Planet
Leave it to Spoker of the House Nancy Pelosi to come up with the quote of the day.
“What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget….we’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today.”
http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/07/28/leader-pelosi-is-trying-to-save-world-from-republican-budget/
This sounds like a job for Batty Woman and "Handsome Henry".
"Nay!"
"Neigh."
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Geert Wilders Statement on Norway
Hat tip to Gates of Vienna
The below statement comes from Dutch politician Geert Wilders concerning the terrorist attack in Norway. I got it off Gates of Vienna. I think it is important to post.
Statement of Geert Wilders concerning the massacre in Norway
"The brutal murder of dozens of innocent Norwegian civilians several days ago has shocked the Freedom Party (Dutch PVV). We mourn and stand by the Norwegian people who suffer from a massive blow.
The manifesto of the perpetrator makes clear that this is a madman. He wants to work with Al Qaeda (which he cherishes great admiration for), craves the bombing of cities, dreams of knights that surgically mutilate themselves, and wants to meet his hero Karadzic.
Breivik also refers to the Netherlands. That the fight against Islam is violently abused by a psychopath is disgusting and a slap in the face of the global anti-Islamic movement. It fills me with disgust that the perpetrator refers to the PVV and me in his manifesto.
Neither PVV nor I are responsible for a lone idiot who twisted and violently abused the freedom-loving anti-Islamization ideals, no matter how much some people would like that. We are democrats at heart. The Freedom Party has never, ever called for violence and will never do. We believe in the power of the ballot box and the wisdom of the voter. Not bombs and guns.
We fight for a democratic and nonviolent means against the further Islamisation of society and will continue to do so. The preservation of our freedom and security is our only goal."
— Geert Wilders
Well stated, Mr Wilders.
The below statement comes from Dutch politician Geert Wilders concerning the terrorist attack in Norway. I got it off Gates of Vienna. I think it is important to post.
Statement of Geert Wilders concerning the massacre in Norway
"The brutal murder of dozens of innocent Norwegian civilians several days ago has shocked the Freedom Party (Dutch PVV). We mourn and stand by the Norwegian people who suffer from a massive blow.
The manifesto of the perpetrator makes clear that this is a madman. He wants to work with Al Qaeda (which he cherishes great admiration for), craves the bombing of cities, dreams of knights that surgically mutilate themselves, and wants to meet his hero Karadzic.
Breivik also refers to the Netherlands. That the fight against Islam is violently abused by a psychopath is disgusting and a slap in the face of the global anti-Islamic movement. It fills me with disgust that the perpetrator refers to the PVV and me in his manifesto.
Neither PVV nor I are responsible for a lone idiot who twisted and violently abused the freedom-loving anti-Islamization ideals, no matter how much some people would like that. We are democrats at heart. The Freedom Party has never, ever called for violence and will never do. We believe in the power of the ballot box and the wisdom of the voter. Not bombs and guns.
We fight for a democratic and nonviolent means against the further Islamisation of society and will continue to do so. The preservation of our freedom and security is our only goal."
— Geert Wilders
Well stated, Mr Wilders.
CBS Now Reporting on Fast and Furious: White House Briefed?
Lo and behold. Now one of the big three of the mainstream media, none other than CBS, is covering ATF's Fast and Furious Scandal. Now we have testimony that William Newall, the agent-in-charge in Phoenix briefed a friend of his in the White House in September 2010, with the preamble, "You didn't get this from me." The friend was reportedly Kevin O'Reilly, National Security Director for North America.
"You didn't get this from me."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20083772-10391695.html
What CBS did not mention was that Newell's testimony was considered highly evasive by some of the committee members. That was reported by Human Events:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45131
What strikes me as strange is that if O'Reilly wanted information on Gunrunner that he could discuss with the Mexicans, it wouldn't be anything sensitive that would require Newall to state, "You didn't hear it from me." It would be something muy vanilla like, "We have this great operation going in the US that will crack down on the gun smuggling into Mexico", just like Eric Holder told the Mexican authorities in 2009 about Gunrunner. The plain and simple fact is that you don't give any sensitive information to Mexico unless you want to see it compromised due to corruption.
Certainly not anything that comes to you accompanied by, "You didn't get this from me."
We need to see the contents of that e-mail, and we need to hear from Mr O'Reilly.
Under oath, of course.