Enter your keyword

Sunday, November 30, 2008

The Choice is Clear -- Socialism or Freedom

By On November 30, 2008
The vital question of the moment, for Americans and for free people the world over, is the choice between the risks of freedom and the relative safety of serfdom in a socialist nanny state.

Social justice has been used to lay the bricks and bars of a vast prison of nations across the civilized world. In the name of providing aid to the disposed, an ever expanding category, people at large have been deprived of their independence and their incomes. But rather than aiding anyone, what has been truly built up is a vast bureaucracy to man the walls and herd the people through every step of their lives.

Socialism has reversed the human march toward freedom and out of the shadow of monarchies and empires which assumed the ownership of the rights of its subjects. Like the monarchs of old, socialism promises protection in exchange for subservience. The contract isn't stated as clearly as that, but that is its final end point.

Give us your freedoms and we'll measure out your health care and your life expectancy, we'll give you unemployment and take back the bulk of your income, give us your free speech and we'll tell you what to think.

Of course like Satan laying out his proposal to Faust or your average television commercial, only the advantages of the arrangement are laid out, but not the dark price that has to be paid to get those advantages.

For Conservative movements the world over to matter again, the question must be put to nation after nation. Would you rather be taken care of on a second rate basis in exchange for all your freedoms or would you rather be free?

Satan's appeal to Faust relied on his pride. The chief arsenal of big government is fear. "Either you give us unlimited power or who knows what will happen to you? Sure you may not like paying high income taxes, find your life narrowly restricted and your choices limited... but just imagine what could happen without our safety net?"

And that safety net remains the most compelling thing socialism has to offer. But what the safety net really means is the abrogation of responsibility, the promise that entire populations need never grow up, need never function as adults because they live and die secure in the cradle of the nanny state.

Little wonder then that where socialism creeps birth rates drop, marriages are delayed, divorces are frequent, leadership is lacking, culture becomes vulgar, obscenity becomes art and all the other symptoms of an infantile generation take hold. After all once you've chosen to give up your responsibility to the government, you choose to remain stuck somewhere between childhood and adulthood.

Little wonder then too that socialist countries are filled with pop culture offerings that shout, rant and rave about rebellion. Of course when you refuse to be an adult, posturing about being a rebel is the next best substitute. But not a rebellion that leads to adulthood, but to greater infantilism, more Socialism, Marxism, Communism and even a smiling Great Teacher in the form of Che or Obama to lead you there and solve all your problems.

As Conservative movements adopt to socialism, they begin playing on a socialist ball field in a contest that they may win in the short term, even as they are losing disastrously in the long term. Because on a socialist ball field, all that conservatives can do is try to hold back the worst policies of the left, this only makes a socialist system more functional, or try to divy up the benefits another way. Often both.

In doing so Conservatives give up their most compelling argument against the Left, individual freedom.

The general public is surprisingly well aware of the price being paid for the benefits socialism promises, of the bureaucrats they are subservient to, the high taxes on their income and the centralized control that is as aimless and dysfunctional as anything operating out of Moscow. They know the problem, what they all too often lack is an opposition that puts their grievances into words and then actually does something about it when in power.

If we can give them that, then we can win. And freedom can win.

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Who is Really Responsible for the Mumbai Massacre?

By On November 29, 2008
Now that the Mumbai massacre is done and the bodies are being cleaned away, business can continue on as usual, but let's interrupt the proceedings for a moment to drag some of those bodies back on the floor, with a level of detail that the same media which has censored 9/11 footage and prefers to show wreath, rather than the crimes to which they themselves are accomplice to, would prefer to hide

Photographs taken after the shootout give a vivid picture of the brutality unleashed on the Holzbergs and their friends after the terrorists took over the house on Wednesday, speak volumes of the nightmare the family and their friends must have gone through before they died.
The Rabbi’s body was found in a room on the second floor, with his legs sticking into the hall where his wife’s body was found. Rivka’s body was found near the legs of the Rabbi. His legs had been tied with a belt. His wife’s limbs were, however, not bound.
Two other Israeli girls were found dead with their hands and legs bound. They were lying next to each other. Another body was found in a decomposed state, indicating he was killed when the attack had begun.

It is a horrifying scene, but it is not an isolated scene. Muslim terrorists have been murdering innocent people in this way for decades now, body piled upon body, men, women and children, murdered year after bloody year. And what has been heard from politicians and reporters, from activists and our public voices of conscience? Calls for justice? Calls for vengeance? No, time and time again, it has been calls for accommodation with the terrorists.

No it is not the terrorists alone who are responsible for what took place here, but their accomplishes who sit in Fifth Avenue high rises, in the State Department, in the plush offices of a thousand humanitarian organizations, in the CNN offices in Atlanta and the Newsweek offices and a hundred thousand others pulling down six figure salaries while pulling for terror.

Let them now bring forth their usual charade of sorrow, the nodding and the pretense of sympathy-- as if the terrorists of Mumbai were some uncontrollable and unpredictable force-- rather than the outgrowth of decades of pro-terrorist politics on the left.

It was Jimmy Carter's administration which began funneling money to Pakistan's ISI, building the growth of a Southeast Asian terrorist network that encompasses Al Queda as well as the Mumbai attackers and the endless terror in Kashmir. Zbignew Brezinsky, the mastermind behind those pro-ISI politics, and Brezinsky is no fossil, but remains close to Barack Hussein Obama.

It was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who aggressively used the ISI to promote Jihad, and his daughter, the much mourned martyr Benazir Bhutto, who openly used it to aid terrorism in Kashmir against India, while backing the Taliban. Had all those who wept over that corrupt vicious witch spent a fraction of the time mourning her victims in Kashmir, murdered, beheaded, rape and blown up, perhaps Pakistan's government, whose president today is Asif Ali Zardari, Benazir's husband, would not have been so blatant about getting back in the Islamic terrorism business.

But the West, particularly Western liberals, seems hopelessly addicted to Pro-Terrorist politics.

With the fall of the USSR, there was no longer any excuse to play footsie with Muslim terrorists. The Soviet Union had been overthrown and a new day was upon us. And the new day saw the transition from pro-terrorist politics for the sake of fighting Communism to pro-terrorist politics for the sake of pro-terrorist politics.

The two Bush. and Clinton administrations cracked Israel, forcing the creation of a cancerous PLO state, that currently hosts the Muslim Brotherhood's Hamas, a wing of Al Queda and the PLO's Fatah. Concession after concession has expanded their capabilities from suicide bombings to bus bombings and now to full on rocket barrages with the technology supplied by Iran.

The same left wing media talking heads, the State Department bureaucrats and liberal activists that continue to demand another pound of flesh from Israel's population and then another, blood upon blood, more terrorists freed, more land turned over-- can then pretend that they are not on the side of the terrorists. Not when Samantha Power, who called for invading Israel to protect terrorists, heads up Obama's State Department transition team.

Was Mumbai some unique phenomenon? Have Muslim terrorists not left similar carnage behind in New York, Paris, Madrid, London, Jerusalem, Haifa and a hundred other places? Have not Western liberals repeatedly urged rewards for those terrorists, have they not protected them and shielded them?

And what of Al Queda, the cancerous growth of ISI? The Al Queda denizens of Gitmo can only bestow blessings on the endless assortment of liberal groups who have agitated for them and fought for them over these years.

From the ACLU to the AJC, from the World Council of Churches to nearly every single major liberal organization in America, has worked on behalf of Al Queda, even as they pause on September 11th to leech a few crocodile tears out of their cold dead eyes, before getting back to the bloody business of enabling terrorism.

No, they will protest. We did not work on behalf of Al Queda. We worked on behalf of liberal principles, tolerance, justice, hope, change and that bundle of nonsense words with which they have done their ugly work of brainwashing the West.

Let us ask ourselves, when a terrorist bomb goes off, who is it that calls for concessions to the terrorists... and are not such people accomplices of their crimes?

Can you negotiate a ransom on behalf of a kidnapper, turn it over to him and then expect not to be jailed for it? Yet the pro-terrorist politics of the past few decades consist exactly of that. Their collaboration with evil is sickening and yet it is a staple of their ideology.

Now they will briefly pause, after spending years screeching that global warming and endangered polar bears were a bigger threat than terrorism, to shed their obligatory crocodile tears, even if they have to bring them beforehand in a dropper, before going back to doing exactly what they have been doing all along.

Why does treason not prosper, is the old cynic's question. Because when treason prospers, none dare call it treason. Why don't terrorists prosper? Because when terrorists prosper, you call them President. Just ask Arafat or Abbas or Obama by way of Rashid Khalidi or Billy Ayers.

The terrorist accomplices are happy enough to let the public briefly mourn the dead, throw a wreaths on the caskets, and go back to shopping for consumer electronics. After all even Caesar's murderers let him have a funeral.

It is not funerals or memorials that the men and women who drive us to make common cause with terrorism fear, but the damning finger, the Mark Antony who will condemn the conspirators whose confessions are printed in issue after issue of the New York Times and the Washington Post, read over the air on NPR and issued as press releases by the State Department.

And too few who would make no common cause with terrorist, speak softly when it comes to criticizing them. In doing so they echo the early Antony, who said;

I should do Brutus wrong, and Cassius wrong,

Who, you all know, are honourable men:

I will not do them wrong; I rather choose

To wrong the dead, to wrong myself and you,

Than I will wrong such honourable men.

And so time and time again, we choose to wrong the dead, rather than the "honorable men" writing for Time Magazine, working in Washington D.C. and being waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay.

But perhaps it is time to speak truly, to go look upon the bodies, to see the bullet wound in the chest fired by David Remnick, the stab wound inflicted by Joshua Hammer, the arm torn by Condoleeza Rice, the head severed by James L. Jones, the arms bound by Samantha Power, the whole catalog of crimes that continues on seemingly without end.

To close with Shakespeare's Antony once more.

O, what a fall was there, my countrymen!

Then I, and you, and all of us fell down,

Whilst bloody treason flourish'd over us.

We have all fallen down, nations and individuals, in the face of terrorism. We are not weak in the face of terrorism carried out by barbarians with a handful of stolen weapons. We have been weakened, we have been made weak by the bloody treason that flourishes over us.

When you read another news story criticizing the US for taking away control of Somalia from Al Queda, there writes a traitor. When you hear a call to dismantle Gitmo, you are listening to a traitor. When you hear more prattle about peace in the middle east, you are hearing treason, first or secondhand.

And so the killing goes on, and the terrorism goes on, and the police burst into hotel rooms, clean up bomb sites and sift through the ashes, an hour or a day too late. Too late each time for long before the terrorist struck, bloody treason had seeded the ground and done its work.

Friday, November 28, 2008

Friday Afternoon Roundup - the Obama Economy and the Mumbai Massacre

By On November 28, 2008

It's been a long two weeks, and while outside the Obama worship continues unabated with the Obama memorabilia industry succeeding, while all else seemingly founders.

Or Barack Obama mugs, T-shirts, stationery, posters, postcards, notecards, aprons, coasters, dog jerseys, throw pillows and mouse pads. With so many segments of the economy in the fetal position, the Obama memorabilia business is one of the very few that is actually thriving.

While the Washington Post crows enthusiastically about the United States economy being on a par with that of North Korea or the USSR, in which the only productive sector was the one selling images of the Beloved Leader, the rest of the country might want to think about what the future would be like in which the productive industries have been bankrupted, seized or taxed out of business, while everyone is told to go buy more Barack Hussein Oven Mitts and Doormats and of course copies of his books.

The Washington Post of course needn't worry, nor the rest of the press, as long as they keep bringing out lots of issues with big photos of Obama with a halo behind his head, and as long as the idiots who worship Obama as lord and savior keep spending their taxpayer paid civil service salaries, teacher and nurse's union pay and welfare money to buy them.

After all why not adopt the thriving Communist model of nationalizing everything and dedicating all our efforts to worshiping a con man from Chicago. Don't we want to be more like North Korea? (Hint, hint: Fairness Doctrine)

Of course you've got to bankrupt a country before you nationalize it, and with the people responsible for the economic crisis rising to the top, including Robert Rubin, whom even the New York Times credits with bringing down Citibank

The bank’s downfall was years in the making and involved many in its hierarchy, particularly Mr. Prince and Robert E. Rubin, an influential director and senior adviser.

Citigroup insiders and analysts say that Mr. Prince and Mr. Rubin played pivotal roles in the bank’s current woes, by drafting and blessing a strategy that involved taking greater trading risks to expand its business and reap higher profits. Mr. Prince and Mr. Rubin both declined to comment for this article.

When he was Treasury secretary during the Clinton administration, Mr. Rubin helped loosen Depression-era banking regulations that made the creation of Citigroup possible by allowing banks to expand far beyond their traditional role as lenders and permitting them to profit from a variety of financial activities. During the same period he helped beat back tighter oversight of exotic financial products, a development he had previously said he was helpless to prevent.

And since joining Citigroup in 1999 as a trusted adviser to the bank’s senior executives, Mr. Rubin, who is an economic adviser on the transition team of President-elect Barack Obama, has sat atop a bank that has been roiled by one financial miscue after another.

Of course naturally the Wall Street Money is all over the Obama admin, with Rahm Emanuel, the new Godfatheresque Chief of Staff, topping out as the top recepient of Wall Street Money

A day after being elected president and acknowledging "the worst financial crisis in a century," Barack Obama asked one of the biggest recipients of Wall Street campaign contributions to be his chief of staff. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois congressman who was an aide in the Clinton White House, was the top House recipient in the 2008 election cycle of contributions from hedge funds, private equity firms and the larger securities/investment industry--not the most popular of industries in the current economy. Since being elected to Congress in 2002, after working as an investment banker, Emanuel has received more money from individuals and PACs in the securities and investment business than any other industry.

You get what you pay for, and if you think there's going to be any serious regulation, you can forget about it. But meanwhile the Obama drones will keep shouting that it's Republican deregulation and the free market at fault here, even as the Obama administration toploads itself with the very people responsible and in hock to those who caused the financial crisis.

But luckily we won't hear about that for long. Not just because the press has the integrity of a whore on a bad Tuesday, but the new Attorney General Eric Holder, who pushed to release FALN terrorists, does support internet censorship

The court has really struck down every government effort to try to regulate it. We tried with regard to pornography. It is gonna be a difficult thing, but it seems to me that if we can come up with reasonable restrictions, reasonable regulations in how people interact on the Internet, that is something that the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at. - May 28, 1999 NPR Morning Edition

And if anyone remembers, it's the Clinton Administration with Holder and Reno, who tried twice to censor the internet. Round three coming up now.

And once Holder gets his slimy ass in the chair, he might want to get to work on censoring things like this video of him weaseling his way at a Congressional hearing on Pardongate and Holder's work to free the FALN terrorists.

In Mumbai meanwhile the terrorists are down and everyone in the Jewish center is dead. Hopefully the Indian authorities will not be responsive when Eric Holder gets sent over there by the Office of the Kenyan Con Artist Select, asking for them to be freed back into the wild. Perhaps Obama can follow the model of his brother Assad in Syria and award the murderers of the Chabad Rabbi there with an award, right after he issues a phony statement of condolence of course.

At NeoCon Express, more information on the murdered . Elya Katz rounds up more.

In the wild wooly blogsphere meanwhile, Obama's pals at Google may be sandboxing critical articles on Obama, as has happened to Atlas of Atlas Shrugs

The beauty of this kind of censorship of course is that you don't have to delete the information, when you can simply make it inaccessible. Why take out the blogs, when you own the road that leads to them, and can divert it somewhere else.

Of course this is once again why people should avoid using Google services. Yahoo Mail has more storage capacity than Google's Gmail. Ask.com has more intelligent search capability than Google. Picsearch works faster than Google Image Search and filters out the trash that fills even the filtered Google Image Searches. Go alternative and stay independent is the watchword of the day and the decade.

Speaking of videos, LGstarr meanwhile brings in two Obamagate videos

But I Am a Liberal looks at the future of Iraq with the SOFA pact in

Steven Plaut meanwhile has the devastatingly satirical letter from Peres to the Indian PM in the wake of Mumbai

Moreover, if you strike at the perpetrators of the Mumbai protests and
their supporters, you will simply expand and enlarge the cycle of
violence. Your retaliation bombs will no doubt injure some innocent
children and civilians alongside any terrorist activists you strike. That
will enrage the rest of the world and make the victims seek revenge. Your
violence against these militants and activists will cause them to hate the
Hindus and it will drive the separatists to embrace terrorism. Moreover,
if you refuse to negotiate with the Moslem separatists, then their leaders
will be toppled and a really violent extremist group will take charge. In
that case, you will have lost the window of opportunity to make peace.

Begin by declaring a unilateral ceasefire! Mister Prime Minister, blessed
is the peacemaker. Remember Mahatma Gandhi (but not Rehavam "Gandhi"
Zeevi). The entire world will support you and congratulate you if you
respond to these horrific attacks by disarming India and opening serious
dialogue with the terror activists.

All we are saying is give peace a chance. Yitzhak Rabin would have
approved. Yes, chaver, what you need is shalom, salaam, peace. You will be
awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in recognition. Do not allow yourself to be
drawn down into the gutter of retaliation. Violence never achieves
anything. History has no lessons. History is the dead past.

Follow my example! Provide the Bombay bombers with anti-aircraft and
anti-tank missiles so that they can battle against the true radicals and
extremists. And they will do so with no ACLU or Supreme Court to restrain

The week is over. Thanksgiving is over. Let's hope the new week and the winter brings us things to be thankful for.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Wanted: Men and Women of Courage

By On November 26, 2008
Now the hard part comes. We are heading for winter, the time when the summer soldiers fall away and decide that it's easier to live with a King George III or a Barack Obama then to continue a losing fight or be seen as irrational or extremist.

What we were doing was a lot easier in 2002 than it will be in 2009. Back then we were supporting the US government in the War on Terror. Shortly we will be dealing with a US government that is itself pro-terrorist and a public that wants to hear more about massive government giveaways than about the terrorist threat.

Meanwhile Obama's omnipresent cult of personality is already a pervasive reality, but will become more so when he actually occupies the White House. And it takes courage not to fall in line with a pervasive message aggressively broadcast through every channel. Many have already fallen in line or abandoned the fight. Others still have let themselves be herded into a "moderate" cage, moderation naturally being defined by the opposition as toothless opposition toward them and ruthless opposition toward us.

We are about to find out what it was like to be a German in 1930's Germany who knew Nazism was rotten to the core led by a sociopathic clown, or a Russian in Stalin's USSR, a Cuban in Castro's Socialist Paradise or more accurately Venezuelans living under Hugo Chavez, who saw and see arrogant and incompetent dictators rising to power by foul means and spreading their cult of personality far and wide-- who see a society gone mad.

That is not to say that opposing Obama at this point will mean a knock on the door and a trip to a basement at the local office of the internal security services. We are not at that stage. But rejecting the cult of personality around Obama means rejecting the dominant cultural paradigm, and it takes a strong mind to do that.

Numerous psychological experiments have shown how easily people can be pressured and swayed into doing everything from performing shock torture to giving answers they know to be wrong when they see that everyone else gives the wrong answer.

By such means it is perfectly possible to induce sane and intelligent people to state that 2 + 2 = 5 if they see everyone surrounding them state that 2 + 2 = 5. Our mission in these times is to proclaim that 2 + 2 = 4 , no matter how many times the media and the mob insists that it's 5.

That is courage. Courage is not simply rushing into a fire, it is also defying convention and conformity. One man with courage makes a majority, because courage rests in holding to ideals rather than bowing to the majority. And that is what we need. Men and women with the courage to go on defying conformity and speak out for what is right.

It was easy to be an Anti-Jihad blogger in 2002. It will be increasingly hard in 2009. It will take courage and it will take integrity. It will take sticking to what's right, despite silencing voices from all sides.

The weak minded are already falling away, penning congratulations and defenses of Obama. Others will give in to overt intimidation and peer pressure. But those who go on standing through the refining process will define the political resistance to the Obama Junta reading itself to seize control of America.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

With Obama, America has its Own Mohammed

By On November 25, 2008
He who may not be mocked, whose middle name may not be pronounced, who is an object of popular worship despite no apparent accomplishment but yet is declared as the harbinger of a new age.

Not long ago a news story interviewed comedians wondering what they were going to do when Obama was President. Clearly they couldn't make jokes about him, they would just have to find someone else to make jokes about.

And who knows what the editorial cartoonists are to do. Even if you are to defy the Cult of Obama and actually submit a cartoon, it's a hell of a slippery slope to being accused of racism. After all if calling Obama a socialist was declared a racist code word, and pointing out that he had terrorist ties, was also a racist code word... the hunt begins for a way to criticize Obama without being accused of racism, only to discover of course that there isn't one.

So what is a leader who can't be criticized? An object of mass adoration whose very image is deified? You can call him a tyrant or you can call him Mohammed.

If America wouldn't go to Mohammed, Mohammed came to America. At least an upbeat, manipulative and youth oriented version with a ready smile and a whole lot of friends with interest in banks, and in collapsing them at the appropriate times. The original Mohammed robbed caravans with his gang of cutthroats, the new and improved model has men and women in business clothes who buy and sell shares and profit from subprime lending. Not to mention the con artists and crooks at ACORN who signed up 7 year olds, the mentally ill and the dead to vote for Obama.

But either way it doesn't matter, as the new declared faith of the land now is Obama. Gone is the separation of Church and State. If you read the papers or watch television, there is but one faith now, the Mosque of Barry. Buy Barry's T-Shirts, buy tickets to his inauguration, donate to his transition team, see what he ate at a carefully staged photo op lunch yesterday.

Tyranny begins in the soul and so does worship. And the hollow children of a hollow culture must worship something, even if it as a man transformed into a brand and back into a man again. They want their Gods and their Prophets in the same packaging as their iPods and their Hoodies, in a word, trendy. And no other word encapsulates Barack Mohammed Obama nearly as well.

Popularity has long since trumped dusty notions like Merit or Achievement. Whose dreams really stand on center stage, that of the scientist or the builder, or the rock star and the NBA basketball player? Cool triumphs over hard work any day of the week. So it was clear that a Mohammed for the infidels would have to be that, which wasn't that hard to achieve compared to say, actual achievement. Especially when everyone with a microphone and a press pass is your waterboy.

What does a truly worthless man with only one gift, that of manipulating people do? As any number of amateur sociopaths know, he founds his own cult, as everyone from Charles Manson to Hitler to Jim Jones to L Ron Hubbard to Joseph Stalin to Mohammed to David Koresh to Barack Obama have done.

You don't need achievement to lead a cult. You just need charisma. And now that's all you need to become the Selected President of the United States. The White House which has been a symbol of a Democratic Republic, now becomes a cult mansion, with an organic garden on the front lawn, and marching morons wearing Obama T-shirts and buttons chanting his name. Haare Obama, Haare Barry.

When American newspaper after newspaper refused to run the Mohammed cartoons. When CNN itself censored them as if they were obscene, the media demonstrated how ready it was to silence all its critical impulses and to bow in obeisance to a dead warlord and pedophile, out of a sour mixture of fear and slavish political correctness. And so the way was made ready for an American Mohammed.

The American Mohammed. A man of no worth or morals or legitimacy. A man with his own cult whose message is his brand and whose brand is his message. A prophet of his own greatness in whose name schools are already being named before he has even taken office. Whose image hangs in more places than that of any living or dead American President. Who may not be criticized.

America has not come to Mohammed. Now Mohammed has come to rule over America.

Monday, November 24, 2008

A Poet Goes on Trial in Israel for Verses Offensive to Arabs

By On November 24, 2008
Free speech is a rare quantity and many Americans are all too unaware of how rare it really is. Israel, like Europe or Canada, does not have actual free speech, instead it has free speech subject to government discretion and the politically correct sensitivity of "oppressed minorities".

While mockery, contempt and even outright hatred for Judaism and Jews can be found on TV shows, political commercials, editorial cartoons and throughout the Israeli left wing media, when directed at Arabs quickly becomes a criminal offense. And that is no joking matter. Tatiana Soskin, a young Jewish immigrant who drew a cartoon of Mohammed as a pig and pinned it to a door, served time in jail for it.

Today however in Israel it is a poet going on trial. Gershon (Gregory) Trastman is a moderately well known Jewish Russian poet living in Israel who wrote a series of satirical verses about a rival political party for Vesti, a Conservative Russian Jewish language newspaper. The verses included references to Arab demographics as a weapon against Israel, a premise first put forward by Arafat himself. The key offensive lines ran something like these, accounting for translation errors.

A Nightmare, the number of Arabs passes a Million
And increases without weakness or respite
Look upon them and your vision grows dark
I will tell the Jews without offense
At night they farm and form is filled
By the eclipse of the moonlight's beam,
The breath of death, what way is found?
The hare, the cat, the locust cannot match
And whether through Ill Luck or Prophecy
We already pave the way to the Tomb of Night
The Tomb of Night, an Arab woman's womb

It is a matter of interpretation whether the lines are straightforward or a satirical jab aimed at Avigdor Lieberman, an Israeli right wing politician. The translation here is rendered seriously, but it does not have to be. More to the point though, whatever the intention, Gershon (Gregory) Trastman, should have been able to write whatever he saw fit subject to the willingness of newspapers to print it and of the public to buy the newspapers.

But of course that is only how things work when there is free speech. While left wing parties such as Shinui are free to run cartoons and articles that mimic Der Sturmer's evocation of religious Jews as rats cockroaches, Arabs are protected from similar criticism.

Since Vesti is a conservative newspaper, it has left wingers regularly monitoring it for material they can use for a court case. David Eidelman, the Russian spokesman for the left wing Kadima party, and an all around scumbag, on seeing the verses prepared his own skewed Hebrew translation of them and distributed them around, looking to incite a court case.

David Eidelman's mistranslation found its way to the Mossawa Advocacy Center, an Arab organization funded by the EU and Oxfam, which wrote a letter to Attorney General Mazuz demanding action and warning that if such poems were tolerated it could lead to more Arab riots such as in Acco. Mazuz, ever eager to crush political opponents of the left, jumped in with both feet and ordered an investigation.

The identity of the poet, Gershon (Gregory) Trastman, who had been writing under a pseudonym was exposed and he along with Sergei Podrazhansky, the Vesti op ed page editor, are now headed to court. This is not the first time that Vesti editors and writers have been dragged through the court system. That became a feature of the Barak era, one of whose goals was to destroy conservative Jewish media in Israel. But the timing adjacent to an election is not accidental either. A regular feature of the Israeli left wing's election strategy is to advertise their fight against "right wing extremism".

Gershon (Gregory) Trastman and Sergei Podrazhansky would appear to be the latest targets of this fight. Aside from a smear article in the radical left wing publication Haaretz and the always reliably repulsive Lily Galili, no mention of the trial has appeared in any English speaking publication.

Mention of what is going on, even on the blogsphere, could at the very least alert the judge and prosecutor that there is outside attention being paid to this case. Anyone who would like to email a protest can do so to Attorney General Mazuz at menim@justice.gov.il . In a time when Arabs and Muslims have succesfully proven that they can silence free speech in just about any First World democracy in the name of not giving offense, it is important to continue fighting for that fundamental right without which no political opposition or legal dissent is possible.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Behind the Strategy of Appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State

By On November 23, 2008
The proposed appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State has many political observers baffled, but it shouldn't. It's actually a quite clever move, which can be summed up in two words-- Plausible Deniability.

And a major target for which that will be needed is Israel.

Appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State will create an interesting situation because as a major former rival, Hillary Clinton will be seen as distinct and even independent from Obama, freeing him from a good deal of the responsibility for her actions. With just about any other Secretary of State, their actions would reflect on Obama. But Hillary Clinton is such a major personality that it will be easy for the Obama Kleptocracy to disown her at its convenience.

Hillary Clinton wanted a whole other role in the Cabinet, but instead as Secretary of State she will have very little domestic power but a great deal of power overseas. This will close the door on her ability to threaten Obama's power base at home, while at the same time cutting off the head of the conservative Democratic Leadership Council, a major source of interparty opposition, and freeing up a Senate seat in New York for a major ally of his. A solid three pointer.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton will carry most of the weight and blame for what will happen in Iraq and Afghanistan, making her into a highly visible lighting rod for the Anti-War camp, which is already assailing Obama.

More importantly though, Hillary Clinton will be a gun pointed at Israel's head. There is one foreign policy accomplishment that the Clintons are known for and that is Oslo. Over the last decade and a half, while Russia has gone from democracy back to tyranny and radical Islam has run wild across the Muslim world, the State Department and successive Secretaries of State and President have had one foreign policy priority above all others, to force Israel to make enough concessions to Terrorism to birth a "viable" Palestinian state.

Hillary Clinton is an ideal choice for the job. First she has bafflingly high ratings from the Jewish community. This makes her perfect for sticking in the knife without anyone daring to complain. Second of all, she's associated with Oslo by way of her husband, and will naturally be able to drag in Rabin and the usual bundle of cliches.

Third once in office she will have no choice but to go after Israel. Secretary of State is a mostly thankless job. The only way she can succeed and distinguish herself with a major triumph that would give her a legacy and position her for a hypothetical 2016 Presidential run. And there is only one place she can go for that legacy, and that is by following her husband with another White House Rose Garden photo op between Abbas and Livni, putting into place a Palestinian State.

This cynical awareness is behind her appointment and her slow reluctant acceptance. Her job once in office will be to take a beating for the lack of change abroad and to browbeat and blackmail Israel into cutting a deal that will create an expanded terrorist state headed by a puppet government ripe for a Hamas takeover... with its capital in Jerusalem.
That is the ugly bottom line. It's also why the new motto of Pro-Israel activism should be "Obama Hands Off Israel." A cynical game in which Hillary Clinton is forced to play Bad Cop on Israel while Obama gets to play the Good Cop is an intolerable deception that must be torn down by holding Obama accountable for pressure placed on Israel to give in to terrorism.

With a likely National Security Advisor who wants NATO troops in Israel's West Bank protecting Fatah and Hamas terrorists, the game pieces are being moved into place. It will soon be the time for bold confrontational activism that challenges the Kenyan occupant of the White House directly by attacking what he values most, his popularity.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

The Future of the Republican Party - Too Socially Conservative or Not Socially Conservative Enough

By On November 22, 2008
Lately a bunch of articles have been making the rounds blaming McCain's defeat on social conservatives who had "hijacked the party."

One of the more famous such articles comes from one Paul Hsieh who claimed that McCain had lost his vote because of the social conservative agenda.

I want to let them know that they lost the vote of many former supporters (including myself) because they have chosen to embrace the Religious Right. I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans. But I didn't vote for a single Republican in 2008. I've become increasingly alienated by the Republicans" embrace of the religious "social conservative" agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.

Now if we are to take Paul at face value, than he could vote for George W. Bush but simply couldn't vote for McCain because of the "social conservative agenda." Naturally this is the kind of absurdity that leads most people to laugh at loud. George W. Bush was the emblematic candidate of social conservative positions at least on paper, by contrast McCain downplayed social conservativism and so did much of the party.

Former mediocre New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman meanwhile has co-authored a Wall Street Journal article claiming much the same thing, namely that social conservatives have taken the party hostage.

Our central thesis was simple: The Republican Party had been taken hostage by "social fundamentalists," the people who base their votes on such social issues as abortion, gay rights and stem cell research. Unless the GOP freed itself from their grip, we argued, it would so alienate itself from the broad center of the American electorate that it would become increasingly marginalized and find itself out of power.

The problem with all of these arguments is that McCain was the most liberal Republican Presidential nominee in decades. He certainly didn't run with a social conservative platform front and center. A hard core challenge to Obama on abortion and gay rights might have had unpredictable results, but it's not the route that McCain took.

If Hsieh and Whitman are not satisfied with McCain, who would they be satisfied with as the Republican nominee? Hillary Clinton or Obama? It's far more plausible to argue that the lack of social conservativism did McCain in, than the other way around. But in this election the big issues for most voters were the economy and a dissatisfaction with Republicans, one that was rooted in the usual frustration with incumbents when things aren't going well.

Protecting traditional values is however a solid issue that continues to reasonate with large numbers of voters on both sides of the aisle. Hsieh and Whitman claim that Republicans lost the middle over social issues, but even Obama voters have demonstrated a tendency to fall more on the dreaded social conservative side of the aisle, as witnessed in California.

By contrast the sort of voter for whom support for gay marriage, abortion or evolution are do or die issues, is rarely the sort of voter who would consider voting Republican in the first place, absent a truly dire situation. That is not to say that the party should seek the furthest extreme or make them primary campaign issues in national elections, but soft-pedaling them only results in rejection by both sides... as the 2008 election demonstrated.

Social conservativism is not the problem, but neither is it the solution in and of itself. The average American will not go to the polls primarily on social issues. Social conservativism can only be part of a larger conservative worldview, one that stands for reducing government and increasing personal and commercial liberty and protecting authentic Constitutional rights at the expense of group rights produced by judicial activism.

I am not a social conservative, because I differ religiously on the fine points of a variety of issues including when abortion should be legal to protect the mother, and politically because I believe that the Federal government is a very poor tool for promoting conservative values and a very good tool for promoting liberal ones.

After multiple Presidents, the Department of Education, the NEA and any number of departments and institutions continue to promote a liberal agenda. Which means that the right solution is to dismantle the Federal government's ability to promote any values and reduce its local influence, rather than to try and use it to legislate social policy. Kicking social issues back to the states will allow Red States to be Red States and Blue States to be Blue States, which is as it should be in a democracy. Communities have the right to decide their own values and identity and people should have the right to choose a place to live that mirrors those values.

However even the Federal government can serve a valuable purpose by protecting against liberal attempts to write their own social agenda, one alien to most Americans into law. And that is in line with Conservative values. Innovations such as gay marriage or a constitutional right to abortion should be protected against, and the Federal government can fight judicial activism and resist the liberal Jihad against traditional American values.

Liberalism has succeeded in framing the debate as taking place between Tolerance and Intolerance. But the issue is not a matter of tolerance. It is a matter of respect for the values of the Constitution and the Republic and that of the average American citizen.

The entire Liberal notion of rights protection depends on extending the power of government over persons and institutions. The Conservative idea of rights protection must be to reduce the power of government over persons and institutions. And in doing so we will automatically negative the base and source of Liberal power.

The greatest Liberal fear is of Americans deciding for themselves what they want, not "special groups" deciding it, but ordinary citizens on a state by state and community by community basis. Their hardly hidden contempt for the average American, a creature they wish to displace through immigration and economic turmoil, when they aren't trying suppress, silence and brainwash him tells us they know as well as we do what the overall outcome would be, if their social policies were put to such a test. And even if they didn't, they have lost enough social referendums to draw them a map.

That then will become the true Conservative challenge in 2010 and 2012, to take Federal power only to give it up, by dismantling much of it, as they should have done in 2000, instead of using it as a great bipartisan pork barrel and a never ending source of new agencies and restrictions.

A new Contract with America, one that will commit to small government, individual freedom and state rights can satisfy both social conservatives and even the Hsiehs and Whitmans as well as appealing to the swing voter in the middle.

Friday, November 21, 2008

Homage to a Government

By On November 21, 2008

by Philip Larkin (1969)

Next year we are to bring the soldiers home
For lack of money, and it is all right.
Places they guarded, or kept orderly,
Must guard themselves, and keep themselves orderly.
We want the money for ourselves at home
Instead of working. And this is all right.
It's hard to say who wanted it to happen,
But now it's been decided nobody minds.
The places are a long way off, not here,
Which is all right, and from what we hear
The soldiers there only made trouble happen.
Next year we shall be easier in our minds,
Next year we shall be living in a country
That brought its soldiers home for lack of money.
The statues will be standing in the same
Tree-muffled squares, and look nearly the same.
Our children will not know it's a different country.
All we can hope to leave them now is money.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Eric Holder, Obama's Crooked Pick for Attorney General - Terrorists and Crime

By On November 19, 2008
While promising Hope and Change, Obama's real promise is clearly being translated as Hopeless Corruption. The pick of Clinton Administration figure Eric Holder who was criticized in a Congressional report for ethical violations involving the infamous pardon of fugitive criminal Marc Rich, followed by the appointment of corrupt Clinton Administration figure and Freddie Mac board member, Rahm Emanuel.

There were figures in the Clinton Administration who were dirtier than Eric Holder, but not many and Eric Holder's career both before and after his time in the Clinton Administration is a very ugly one.

Let's begin with Pardongate, when Eric Holder was involved in giving his nod to the pardon of fugitive tax cheat Marc Rich and in withholding information from the Justice Department. A Justice Department that he will now ironically head as Attorney General.

"A forthcoming Congressional report on the last-minute pardons by President Bill Clinton says Deputy Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was a "willing participant in the plan to keep the Justice Department from knowing about and opposing" a pardon for Marc Rich, the financier.

The 476-page report, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, harshly criticizes the Clinton White House for its handling of the 177 pardons and commutations granted on its last day.

The most controversial pardon went to Mr. Rich, a commodities trader who fled the country in 1983 rather than face trial on charges of tax evasion, racketeering and trading with the enemy. The report says that Mr. Rich's lawyers tried to circumvent prosecutors, who would oppose the pardon, and take their case straight to the White House.

Mr. Holder, the report says, played a major role, steering Mr. Rich's lawyers toward Jack Quinn, a former White House counsel. Mr. Rich hired Mr. Quinn, whose Washington contacts and ability to lobby the president made the difference, according to the report. It says that Mr. Holder's support for the pardon and his failure to alert prosecutors of a pending pardon were just as crucial.

The panel criticized Mr. Holder's conduct as unconscionable and cited several problems. It cited his admission last year that he had hoped Mr. Quinn would support his becoming attorney general in a Gore administration.

It's 8 years later but the Crook Fairy finally granted Eric Holder his wish to become Attorney General. And Obama has an Attorney General who conspired in the illegal pardon of a fugitive criminal in the hopes of making himself Attorney General.

Criminal doesn't even begin to describe this. Eric Holder belongs in a jail cell on charges of conspiracy, instead of being put in charge of the same Justice Department he tried to sideline to serve his own political ambitions.

Of course Eric Holder's slime trial doesn't end there. Pardongate also involved the pardons handed out to Weather Underground terrorists Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg who were transporting 740 pounds of explosives for use in bombings.

Here is what those 740 pounds of explosives were intended to do.

On May 11, 1985, she was arrested again, charged and then convicted of acquiring weapons, fake IDs and safe houses, and of terrorist actions. Her targets included the U.S. Capitol Building, the National War College, the Navy Yard Computer Center, the Navy Yard Officers Club, Israeli Aircraft Industries, the FBI and the New York Patrolman's Benevolent Association. In her possession were 740 pounds of dynamite. Evans was sentenced to 40 years in prison.

Certainly targets Al Queda itself would have approved of. And now Obama has an Attorney General that Bill Ayers and Marc Rich have thoroughly vetted.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Eric Holder and terrorists. Eric Holder also backed clemency for 16 FALN terrorists, withholding information from Congress and even Attorney General Janet Reno and overriding the FBI's own opposition to clemency for the FALN terrorists who were part of a terrorist campaign that included a wave of terror carrying out 130 bombings over nearly a decade.

"Holder, a Barbadian immigrant's son who grew up in Queens and received his law degree from Columbia, has played major roles in the probe of Democratic funny-money in the 1996 elections, the Sexgate scandal and the recommendation to President Clinton on whether to free FALN terrorists from jail. A list of FALN documents withheld from Congress shows that many memos on the FALN clemency decision went directly to Holder, while Reno's role was minimal."

(Brian Blomquist, "Ailing Reno Yielding Reins Of Justice," New York Post, 12/15/99)

This allowed Eric Holder to sideline his own boss and the Attorney General and playing the key role in freeing the FALN terrorists. Which proved to be a convenient way of blocking and dead ending the objections of the FBI and just about everyone involved in the case.

Although The FBI Opposed Clemency, Holder Supported Clemency For The
FALN Members. "Although The New York Times reported that the FBI, Bureau of
Prisons and U.S. state attorneys opposed clemency, Deputy Attorney General
Eric Holder, the Justice Department official most involved with this issue,
reportedly supported clemency. 'Eric Holder told me he was recommending
that,' a high-ranking official said. Ruff also supported clemency, sources
said. Holder declined to comment."

(Edward Lewine, "How Bill Chose Clemency," [New York] Daily News, 9/5/99)

Nor was Eric Holder simply approving request pardons. Instead he was working on freeing the FALN terrorists, even though they had not made any such request... and was actually passing messages along to them to make a show of remorse in order to move the process along.

In 1997, Holder Met With Three Members Of Congress And Made Recommendations To Them About How The FALN Members Could More Easily Be Granted Clemency. "The committee's documents show that Mr. Adams and Eric Holder, the Deputy Attorney General, met on Nov. 5, 1997, with Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, Democrat of Illinois, and Representatives Jose E. Serrano of the Bronx and Nydia M. Velazquez of Brooklyn, both Democrats, to discuss the case of the Puerto Rican inmates.

According to Mr. Adams's notes, Mr. Holder told the members of Congress that because the prisoners had not applied themselves for clemency this could be taken that they were not repentant, and he suggested that a statement expressing some remorse might help. In their testimony today, both Mr. Adams and Mr. Holder declined to answer several questions about how the clemency decision was reached, citing executive privilege. Both said, however, that the Justice Department had acted appropriately throughout the process."

(Neil A. Lewis, "Records Show Puerto Ricans Got U.S. Help With Clemency," The New York Times, 10/21/99)

Clearly Eric Holder was fixated on freeing the FALN terrorists. So fixated that he was willing to sideline procedures, behave unethically and possibly even illegally. Arguably after this, Eric Holder should not be able to hold any position in the government, let alone that of Attorney General.

How wrong were Eric Holder's actions? So wrong that FALN afterward was identified as a National Security Threat.

A Subsequent Clinton Administration Justice Department Report Identified The Group As An "Ongoing Threat." "The Puerto Rican nationalist group FALN, 16 of whose members were pardoned by President Clinton in August, poses an 'ongoing threat' to national security, according to a September report by Attorney General Janet Reno released yesterday during a combative Senate hearing on the clemency decision."

(David A. Vise and Lorraine Adams, "FALN A Threat, Reno Says," The Washington Post, 10/21/99)

Eric Holder's work on behalf of FALN resulted in a special congressional measure to reform the process.

And this is the carnage that Eric Holder's FALN buddies inflicted on the people of New York and the NYPD.

The editorial is written by the Director of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and the sister of one of the pilots who died on 9/11.

It was nearly 10 p.m. on New Year's Eve, 1982. Two officers on New York Police Department's elite bomb squad rushed to headquarters at One Police Plaza, where minutes earlier an explosion had destroyed the entrance to the building. Lying amid the carnage was Police Officer Rocco Pascarella, his lower leg blasted off.

"He was ripped up like someone took a box cutter and shredded his face," remembered Detective Anthony Senft, one of the bomb-squad officers who answered the call 25 years ago. "We really didn't even know that he was a uniformed man until we found his weapon, that's how badly he was injured."

About 20 minutes later, Mr. Senft and his partner, Richard Pastorella, were blown 15 feet in the air as they knelt in protective gear to defuse another bomb. Detective Senft was blinded in one eye, his facial bones shattered, his hip severely fractured. Mr. Pastorella was blinded in both eyes and lost all the fingers of his right hand. A total of four bombs exploded in a single hour on that night, including at FBI headquarters in Manhattan and the federal courthouse in Brooklyn.

The prisoners were convicted on a variety of charges that included conspiracy, sedition, violation of the Hobbes Act (extortion by force, violence or fear), armed robbery and illegal possession of weapons and explosives -- including large quantities of C-4 plastic explosive, dynamite and huge caches of ammunition. Mr. Clinton's action was opposed by the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. attorney offices that prosecuted the cases and the victims whose lives had been shattered. In contravention of standard procedures, none of these agencies, victims or families of victims were consulted or notified prior to the president's announcement.

"I know the chilling evidence that convicted the petitioners," wrote Deborah Devaney, one of the federal prosecutors who spent years on the cases. "The conspirators made every effort to murder and maim. . . . A few dedicated federal agents are the only people who stood in their way."

A few dedicated Federal agents stood in their way... and future Attorney General Eric Holder stood in the way of the dedicated Federal agents.

Twenty-four hours before a scheduled Senate committee hearing, the DOJ withheld the FBI's written statement about the history of the FALN and an assessment of its current terrorist capability. "They pulled the plug on us," said an unnamed FBI official in a news report, referring to the Justice Department decision to prevent FBI testimony

We can only imagine what Eric Holder will perpetrate as Attorney General, what crimes he will cover up, what terrorists he will aid and loose on the American public. He has proven himself all too well in the Clinton Administration as the best friend that terrorists and criminals with political influence could ever hope to have.

For Joe Connor, whose father was murdered by FALN terrorists in a bombing only blocks away from the World Trade Center, Eric Holder's corrupt actions on behalf of the FALN terrorists carries a great personal price.

During the 1970s and '80s, the FALN waged a war against the people of the United States that included 130 plus bombings. Their most heinous attack was the January 1975 lunchtime bombing of Fraunces Tavern here in New York City. It killed four people, including my father, Frank Connor, 33.

Until then, President Clinton had denied clemency in 3,039 out of 3,042 cases. It's also worth noting that the Clinton administration consulted with representatives of the terrorists - but ignored the families of their victims.

I was trying to make the point that the release of the FALN killers would send a frightening invitation to other would-be terrorists. Little did I know that more anguish was yet to come.

Almost two years to the day after my Senate testimony, my father's god son, our cousin Steve Schlag, was killed on 9/11. My brother and I watched in helpless horror from our downtown offices, ironically only blocks from Fraunces Tavern.

The 9/11 connection is not accidental. Freeing terrorists sends a signal of weakness to other terrorists. Eric Holder's work on behalf of the FALN terrorists 2 years before 9/11 amounted to demonstrating that you can brutally participate in murder of NYPD officers and New Yorkers and walk away from it with the Federal Government on your side.

But Eric Holder's terrorist ties don't end there. Once out of the White House and working as a lawyer at Covington and Burling, Eric Holder represented Chiquita when the Justice Department charged the company with engaging in transactions with terrorists for the millions of dollars in protection money that Chiquita paid to Columbia Narcoterrorists.

And then of course back in the Clinton Administration days, Eric Holder was a big fan of using force... not against terrorists, but against a 6 year old boy and his unarmed family.

Eric Holder played a key role in the armed abduction of Elian Gonzalez by an army of border patrol agents with automatic weapons pointed at his head.

Holder Also Defended The Use Of Guns In The Raid. "Mr. Holder said his
agents were heavily armed when they entered the house because they had
'intelligence that the possibility existed there were guns in the house. We
had to make sure our people were protected and they were in a position to
protect people within the house. I don't know if there were any guns in the
house. I don't know if they found any guns. We had to deal, however, with the
intelligence we had that we got from local sources and make sure everybody was
adequately protected.' Apparently no guns were found."

(Jerry Seper and Clarence Williams, "Holder Defends Sudden Raid For Elian," The Washington Times, 4/24/00)

Just to clarify this, ruthless force had to be used because there was supposedly intelligence that there were guns in the house, though Eric Holder has no idea if there were any guns in the house or whether any guns were found in the house.

As Debbie Schlussel points out, Eric Holder's appointment along with Greg Craig reunites 2/3rds of the Elian Gonzalez kidnapping team. We can only look forward to the kind of gruesome abuses of the justice system these two will perpetrate on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama.

Of course Eric Holder was not too fussy to get involved in corporate crime either. And I don't mean on the prosecuting side.

Eric Holder lobbied on behalf of Global Crossing, one of the 10 largest corporate bankruptcies since 1980, on a level with Enron and WorldCom. It was the 7th largest filing in American history. While Global Crossing was accumulating debt like mad, its executives were spending like mad, taking tens of millions in personal loans from the company, operating corporate jets, and selling as much inside stock as Enron.

Meanwhile Global Crossing executives were covering their asses with a million dollar donation to Bill Clinton's library. The same bribe route used by Marc Rich, another Eric Holder beneficiary.

Now guess who the auditor for Global Crossing was? Arthur Andersen, made infamous by its ties to Enron. And guess who was its lobbyist, Eric Holder.

And just in case you think that the Eric Holder Scandal Train stops there, it's only the beginning of a long route which we, and probably in a few years, Federal investigators will be tracing in great detail.

Unless Congressional Republicans and the few honest Democrats do their job and vet Eric Holder. We know the media won't do it, it will just keep on repeating the fluff about Eric Holder's historic appointment as the first Black Attorney General, as if that's supposed to make us forget FALN, Elian, Global Crossing, the Weathermen pardons and Marc Rich.

It's time for Congress to take a stand against Eric Holder and for integrity in the Justice Department.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Obama's Omnipresent Cult of Personality

By On November 18, 2008
While many have commented on the media's bias leading up to the election, what we are beginning to see now trumps anything that has come before. We are no longer talking about media bias, but media worship.

The media's approach to Obama does not resemble their approach to any living President, but its parallels can only be found in the Russian press' approach to Putin or the Iraqi press' approach to Saddam Hussein. It's not bias, it's a cult of personality.

Key to this cult of personality is the omnipresence of Obama. In totalitarian states, the dictator is everywhere. His life is always front and center, his recreation and hobbies are major news items, his day to day existence is meant to be the focus of your life.

It is an ominous development in a Democratic country, but not an unexpected one. The goal of this constant coverage is to deepen the one way emotional bond the "people" experience with Obama. Like a deity, the cult of personality is meant to create the sense that the Beloved Leader's life is deeply connected to yours.

The coverage involved is often trivial. Take for example, Putin's karate, his hunting, stories on how many women admire him or his skiing prowess. On the surface it seems innocuous, until you realize that it creates a cult figure who is somehow omnipresent. The dictator as celebrity is a cultural Moloch figure, meant only to be worshiped and adored.

It is the very triviality of the coverage that characterizes a cult of personality. Obama coverage is not simply filed under politics. It is everywhere. In the sports section, under music, under everything.

On the Yahoo front page we learn that there are nano sized images of Obama now being created.

At the University of Michigan, professor John Hart has used nanotechnology to create images of Barack Obama, the next president of the United States. Each Obama face is made up of 150 million vertically-aligned carbon nanotubes grown at really high temperatures and imaged with a scanning electron microscope.

In another article we learn about a massive beach sculpture of Obama. He truly is everywhere, great and small. Kim Jong Il can only look on in envy.

In the sports section of the New York Times, there is a scouting report for Obama on athletic heads of state, decorated with a photo of Obama playing basketball. Putin's athleticism naturally is highlighted in the article. The multimedia photo edition begins with Castro. Naturally.

Meanwhile the Arts section of the Chicago Tribune wonders whether Obama will restore Jazz to the White House.

The TriCities editor apologizes because the newspaper's Obama victory edition had too small a photo of Obama.
Unfortunately, we don’t get a second chance to put out a Nov. 5, 2008, front page. And while we wanted that one – a keepsake that documented Barack Obama’s historic presidential win – to be a masterpiece, we fell short in the estimation of several readers, despite our best intentions.The criticism: The Obama photo was too small.
The blame is mine to shoulder because it was my job to ensure our front page conveyed the heft associated with such a monumental event in U.S. history.

You expect to read things like this in Soviet papers, editors apologizing and admitting blame for insufficiently groveling to the Beloved Leader,  but what's old is new again. And Democracy and the Democratic tradition of leaders we question, rather than kneel before, is out as well.

Headlines everywhere compare him to Lincoln and Kennedy and FDR. Another headline asks, "Where Were You When Obama Was Elected?" A third headline, "Historians, Too, Call Obama Victory “Monumental”. 
A fourth headline, From congressmen to coeds, positive reactions to Obama. A fifth headline, "Confessions of a McCain Voter". Can the reeducation camps be far behind?

This is not political coverage, it is not even political bootlicking, but hysterical adoration. A true cult of personality for a man who has accomplished nothing to merit any of it. But then tyrants never do, that is why they need a cult of personality in the first place.

Men of accomplishment don't need hysterical followers, mass adoration and media managed worship. It is the human failures and the corrupt, who know exactly how little they're worth, who require it. The Stalins, the Hitlers, the Kim Jong Ils. Their secret fear is of discovery and exposure, that the mask will be ripped away and the little boy will cry, "The Emperor is Naked".

And so the cult of personality is born to cover up for the inadequacies of the sociopathic fraud who knows his own worthlessness and requires mass adoration to conceal it. But to the men and women who can see all that the cult of personality affirms is that the emperor is indeed naked.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Who did Jews really vote for in the 2008 Presidential Election?

By On November 17, 2008
While the liberal media insists on shoving the infamous 78 percent exit polling number at us, it is quite unclear what the real numbers of the Jewish vote are and how many Jews voted for Obama vs McCain.

The media has demonstrated in this election why they are untrustworthy on anything involving Obama and sources that may have been credible in the 2004 election, no longer are.

The few solid numbers we do have come from the 40,000+ votes cast by US citizens living in Israel. Those showed that 76 percent of Jewish voters backed McCain with 46 percent of Democrats switching sides to vote for McCain.

Yet in the US numbers, the exit polls would have us believe that more Jews voted for Obama than had voted for John Kerry. The idea that Obama, who had generated serious doubts even among hard core Jewish Democrats, pulled in more votes against a liberal Republican, than Kerry had against Bush is nakedly implausible.

But local polling too strongly suggests an entirely different picture. Take the following news story out of Brooklyn, which naturally throws in plenty of smears and snide remarks, but nevertheless reports that...

While Barack Obama won the vast majority of Brooklyn votes in the Nov. 4 election, McCain drew more than five times as many votes as Obama in the largely Hasidic neighborhood between Flushing Avenue and the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway — even though registered Democrats outnumber Republicans five to one in the area.

In the area’s three election districts, McCain gave Obama an 84-percent-to-16-percent thrashing. Those numbers stand in stark contrast to the overall Brooklyn vote, which went 79–20 in Obama’s favor.

While a single neighborhood's vote may not seem that significant, South Williamsburg has a Jewish population somewhere in the low six figures, one of the densest Jewish populations in the United States, out of a total national Jewish population in the low millions.

The idea that religious Jews and Jews in Israel voted for the Republican candidate is not particularly any kind of revelation. US voters in Israel will be more likely to back the candidate who is strong on national defense and whose best friends aren't Hamas. Genuinely religious Jews will naturally choose the more moral candidate with values, over a Kenyan con man backed by a gutter level cult of personality. A population that doesn't watch television and eschews the internet is a particularly poor target for the Obama camp's brand of brainwashing.

But they also contradict the claims of a Jewish landslide for Obama. The same media which was forced to report that many Jewish Democrats were either chancy on Obama or had outright left the camp, expect us to believe that not only had they all come out for Obama, but that they had done so in greater numbers than for John Kerry.

Not too damn likely.

So how believable are the Jewish exit polling numbers? Even according to this story in radical left wing Forward , which cites Edison/Mitofsky, the source for that infamous 78 percent exit polling number, not very much.

But those exit polls will only scratch the surface, albeit in some hotly contested parts of the country. The sample size of Jewish voters is usually small, and large swaths of Jewish voters are not included.

“Will it measure Jewish voters in Cleveland? No. But will it capture Jewish voters where it’s most important in Florida? Absolutely,” said Anna Greenberg, a Democratic pollster with Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.

The National Election Pool exit polls Edison/Mitofsky conducted in 2004 had trouble achieving the correct distribution of Jewish voters across the country given the small size of the Jewish sample. Only 268 Jewish voters were among the 14,000 voters included in NEP’s national survey. The remainder of Jewish voters was given state-specific surveys.

The exit polls, which showed that John Kerry won 74% of the Jewish vote and George Bush won 25%, relied heavily on those 268 voters included in the national survey,

Edison/Mitofsky once again conducted their exit polls, this time based on 17,000+ plus voters. The share of Jewish voters were likely to be the same and flawed in the same way. Do 268 people somewhere in Florida define the American Jewish vote? No they do not. In fact some of the smaller exit polls I cited actually had larger sample sizes of Jewish voters than Edison/Mitofsky did.

But there are of course two major reasons for putting out phony numbers for the Jewish vote.

First of all a phony Jewish landslide helps cover up the real landslide of fraud that really brought Obama to power. Imaginary Jewish voters coming out in droves for Obama helps conceal the multiple voting ACORN frauds, the ballots thrown out and replaced and the whole ugly litany of deceit that forms the 2008 Presidential election's true numbers.

Second of all it creates the illusion of a broad Jewish consensus supporting Obama. This will be key in silencing internal Jewish criticism, moderating any Jewish newspapers that dared to criticize the false messiah... all in preparation for his crackdown on Israel.

So what was the real 2008 Presidential Jewish vote? The short answer is we'll probably never know, but it also probably looked a more like Reagan vs Carter, than Gore vs Bush. And if the country ever makes it intact through the other side of the Obama junta, we can begin working toward a true history of what truly happened in the 2008 election.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

The Obama Crackdown on the Jewish Media Begins

By On November 16, 2008
Call it Scenes from the Obama Revolution Part 2. It's happening quietly and under the radar but there is a pattern to it is a bit similar for it to be completely random. Editors and staff working for local Jewish papers that have run articles critical of Obama have been receiving hostile phone calls.

While critical phone calls are not unusual when you're working on a newspaper, these phone calls are not from random readers, they are coming from lawyers and sometimes doctors who wield influence in the community and may often be advertisers. Typical talking points for these phone calls typically warn against running any further critical articles of Obama "now that he is President", emphasize that most Jews voted for Obama and emphasize that "we must unite behind him" or there may be "consequences to our community."

The phone calls are conducted with a brashness and rudeness that smack of Rahm Emanuel. A not atypical closing section from a phone call received by the editor of a Jewish newspaper not too far away from Obama's home base ran like this.

Caller: Who the hell does he think is writing things like this about Obama?

Editor: He is a respected journalist who is a Holocaust survivor and has been appearing with us for many years.

Caller: As far as I'm concerned he's garbage! You can't run any articles by him again, not until he moderates his position.

Editor: This is a free country, you can have your opinion and he can have his opinion.

Caller: No he can't!

The objectionable article was a fairly mild piece that pointed out Obama's lack of experience. The caller was not some random reader, but a fairly influential local figure. One or two such incidents could be put down to random moonbattery trickling up, but I'm hearing of more and more similar phone calls. And I'm seeing more and more Jewish papers that had formerly criticized Obama "moderating" their position.

To what extent is this an orchestrated campaign to silence opposition in Jewish newspapers, those that at any point did oppose Obama, there is no way to know. But the outcome can nevertheless be seen on many editorial pages, and with Carter talking about Obama's plan to tackle the middle east early on, it can be seen as clearing the decks and intimidating the Jewish press at large into remaining silent.

All this makes the function of the Jewish blogsphere all the more vital in the months ahead, to maintain our function as a voice of opposition to Obama's Pro-Hamas and Pro-terrorist policies. Hamas has already admitted that Obama's advisors were meeting with them, and there will no doubt be much worse revelations to come.

This situation is not unique to the Jewish community. The Cuban community will likely find itself similarly intimidated in preparation for Obama's coming change of policy on Cuba. Israel may top the list of free countries that Obama intends to stab in the back on behalf of his pro-terrorist policies, but Columbia is on the list, and the list includes what's left of the free world.

But the Jewish community's influence in American politics is an obstacle for Obama. The Obama junta's approach to dealing with that, has been to maintain the illusion of a Jewish consensus backed by the widely circulated phony high 70's figure of Jewish votes for Obama. This is being followed by a quiet campaign of intimidation intended to silence anyone who isn't on board. Dissidents will be branded as "racists" with stories already running on this theme and numerous more set to go.

The way is being cleared for Obama to take power and begin the destruction of Israel. Silence only serves his agenda. Blogs have an independence that the print media does not have. We don't have advertisers that we answer to or community organizations whose cooperation we need. We are not owned by families with vested business interests. We can speak out and join our voices together against the growing night.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Science News You Don't Have Time For

By On November 15, 2008
Ancestor of Crazed Homicidal Maniacs Traced Back to 560 CE Mecca

Genetic researchers investigating the origin of crazed homicidal behavior have traced back the vast majority of crazed homicidal maniacs to a common ancestor in the vicinity of Mecca around the sixth century.

"We don't quite know what to make of it yet," said Dr. Susan Anderson, "but we've found a clear correlation between crazed homicidal behavior with a common origin point in the Arabian desert. We don't know what causes it and so we can't offer any real hope for a cure, but this one single man appears to be the origin of a great deal of present day homicidal mania across the Middle East and parts of Europe, America and Asia."

In response to the release of this study outraged homicidal maniacs burned three Kentucky Fried Chicken franchises in Mecca and out of habit began boycotting Danish goods.

South Korean Scientists Clone Dog Smart Enough Not to Vote for Obama

In a major breakthrough in cloning technology, South Korean researchers have reported cloning a dog said to be smarter than many humans. In trials and tests, the canine dubbed Chad, showed superior intelligence by completing basic math problems, avoiding debt and refusing to vote for Obama.

"This dog we have created is extraordinary because he is not only smarter than ordinary dogs, he is also smarter than most humans on Digg and YouTube," said Dr. Suk Wook Pak. "His refusal to vote for Obama even after hearing the words "Hope" and "Change" repeated twelve times in a row and accompanied by a jingling bell, demonstrated a superior resistance to Pavlovian imprinting than has been displayed by the average Democratic party voter."

It is unknown what impact Chad the Wonder Dog and dogs like him will have on the political process, but worried Democrats have already called for a ban on their import to the United States.

Scientists Not Sure What's Wrong with Planet, but Sure Mankind is to Blame

At a meeting of IAHCS or the International Association of Hysterical Climate Scientists, climate scientists planning to write popularized science books have concluded that they have no idea what's wrong with the climate but that mankind is almost certainly to blame.

"Look here we're scientists," said prominent author and occasional researcher, Dr. Robert Charles Dawson, "you can't expect us to actually know whether the climate is warming or cooling. We have more important things to worry about, like trying to get on the New York Times bestseller list. And you can't do that unless you blame the whole thing on people the readers of the New York Times don't like, like Republicans."

After an extensive 3 day IAHCS conference in sunny Bermuda, everyone in attendance reaffirmed the importance of reminding everyone to worry about the earth warming or cooling and promised to write favorable reviews for each other on Amazon.com before flying home on jet planes to their homes in the suburbs.

Paleontologists Discover Darwin Fossil

In a striking discovery, paleontologist associated with Crichton University have located the elusive Darwin fossil on a dig in a valley in England. Said to be well over three hundred billion years old, this fossil of an aged Englishman is said to be a groundbreaking discovery in evolutionary theory.

"What this perfectly preserved fossil, Homo Darwinicus demonstrates is that evolutionary theory predates even the dinosaurs," said Dr. Michael Jones. "While we clearly knew that the dinosaurs themselves were intelligent enough to reject Intelligent Design and embrace Evolutionary Theory, this finally proves that Evolution is the oldest thing in the universe."

While critics have questioned how an evolutionary biologist could have existed billions of years in the past when conventional dating places him in Victorian England, schools have been forbidden to discuss the issue.

Obama Reinvents Internet

Major media outlets are giving Presidential candidate Barack Obama credit for reinventing the internet. While credit for inventing the internet had been previously held by Al Gore, his failure to secure the Presidency clearly demonstrated a lack of internet inventiveness.

"The Obama campaign's innovative uses of the internet, such as raising money over the internet, denouncing Republicans over the internet and having his staff put up videos attacking Hillary Clinton on the internet that he then disavows, clearly demonstrates that the Obama campaign has invented the internet all over again," said internet expert Frank Rich. "These are all clearly unprecedented uses of the internet which we should now begin calling the Obamanet.

Previous credit for reinventing the internet had gone to Ron Paul, Martin Van Buren and anyone the media supports in a national election.


Blog Archive