Two weeks after Obama paid a high profile visit to Putin, lavishly complimenting him for doing "an extraordinary job" and buttering him up while Putin sat there looking at him in contempt, Putin has managed to have another human rights activist killed. It's a small thing, but it's a ground level look at the wages of appeasement.
Obama came to the post-Democratic Russia, ignored the manifold human rights violations, the government seizure of private companies, the disenfranchisement of dissident political parties and the murder of political opponents, including one carried out in England. He ignored the Russian invasion of Georgia, its nuclear aid to Iran, the arms it has provided to kill US soldiers in Iraq and every ugly thing the Putin regime has done. And after all the flattery, he was treated with open contempt, denied even handshakes, and the murders go on.
These are the pathetic wages of appeasement. This is what Obama's diplomacy looks like. A murdered woman, a smirking dictator and the media propaganda organs of Russia and America repeating their individual party lines. Welcome back to 1939. Except this time the role of America will have to be played by someone else.
Meanwhile in Iran, Mousavi protesters are countering the Ahmadinejad supporters chants of "Death to America", with "Death to Russia" and "Death to China."
Inside the prayers — held on a former soccer field covered with a roof — some of the worshippers rubbed their eyes as tear gas from the scuffles outside drifted in during Rafsanjani's speech. They traded competing chants with some hard-liners in the congregation. When the hard-liners gave the traditional chant of "death to America," Mousavi supporters countered with "death to Russia" and "death to China."
I suppose that counts as progress by Islamic standards. And of course this can't help but remind me of this parody of Al Jazeera that somehow slipped by network standards
And in the "Death to Everybody" news front, more bombings targeting Western chain hotels in Indonesia's capital Jakarta. Which is pretty much what you can expect when the man behind the Bali bombing perps, Islamic "spiritual leader" Abu Bakar Bashir, head of Jamat Al Islamiyah, is free as a bird after serving only 2.5 years in jail. This after only 20 months for the Christmas bombings of churches in 2000 which killed 18 people.
That is what you get in Indonesia for the holy task of trying to kill infidels.
Abu Bakar Bashir has openly called for violence against Western tourists. He openly created a new terrorist organization after being released from prison. He supports Bin Laden and the attacks of September 11, he repeatedly issues calls for Jihad, and his agenda is a fairly simple one.
In answer to one reporter's question as to what the West and the United States can do to make the world safer, Bashir replied, "They have to stop fighting Islam. That's impossible because it is sunnatullah [destiny, a law of nature], as Allah has said in the Koran. If they want to have peace, they have to accept to be governed by Islam."
That is a message that more reporters and liberals need to listen to, because it's the simple zero sum endgame of Islam. Peace can only come through slavery. For non-Muslims to attempt to rule themselves, let alone over a land that has Muslims in it, is to the Muslim mind an abomination that can only be met with violence.
'The plan is breathtaking - to create one Islamic state from Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore to parts of the Philippines, Thailand and Myanmar
The Caliphate in Southeast Asia. It is behind the Islamic violence in Thailand and the Philippines. The US, under Bush obviously, attempted to extradite Bashir, but that failed. So instead Bashir continues to organize terrorist groups and terrorist attacks. The latest bombings in Jakarta, like the previous ones, are no doubt the work of the same smiling bearded man who is Southeast Asia's own Bin Laden, and walks free.
But finally the bombings should be a reminder to Western tourists not to visit Muslim countries. In Muslim countries you have no rights. You are an infidel and little better than an animal. Your life is worth less than a Muslim's. Your security is worth nothing.
Most Muslims have their own Bashir's who dream of nothing more than sending sexually frustrated young men to blow themselves to paradise in order to take you and your family with them in a shower of blood and bent nails. When you visit a Muslim country, you have a giant target painted on your back for them. Why make it easy for them to kill you?
Meanwhile the 40th anniversary of the moon landing has come and gone, reminding us of how little America has accomplished in space since then, as Debbie Schlussel points out.
Unfortunately, while we put men on the moon several times, the American space program has failed in many ways. We haven't done much since first landing on the moon.
Yes, American men landed on the moon another five times since. And we've sent many space shuttles out into the great beyond (with two of them, sadly, exploding).
But what else have we done? The many space shuttle launches are wastes of money. They don't achieve much except garner results for a few experiments. That's about it.
Forty years ago today, people envisioned a future with residential colonies on the moon, or at the very least somehow harvesting the moon for energy or some other resource. None of that has happened. And in fact, very little has happened in the 40 years since Apollo 11 or the five other manned landings. In fact, in terms of outer space exploration and colonization, we haven't done much since Neil Armstrong set foot on that rock.
Sadly, in 40 years, the most creative "visions" regarding moon and space exploration are the stories concocted by loony conspiracy theorists who claim we never landed there and that it's all a fiction perpetrated on a Hollywood set.
As someone who is fascinated by the universe and its planets and loves American history and sci-fi, our failure to advance further in space is a huge disappointment. But it should be a disappointment for all Americans. What held such great promise 40 years ago is now a broken promise.
Perhaps we could discover ways to humanly set foot on Mars and harvest or colonize that planet. It's not impossible. But the uncreative minds at NASA feel comfort in just doing the same old meaningless space shuttle missions. NASA has become just another government bureaucracy--another failed, bloated government bureaucracy. The pencil pushers and plain Janes and Joes who run the place lack imagination.
But it is not just the fault of the bureaucrats. It's the fault of the American population, as well. Through our own fault, through the undying devotion to pop culture and lackluster education, we've become ignorant. And in this dumbing down, we've given up our fascination with the endless possibilities and freedom of real science--space exploration, for the a dangerous obsession and endless slavery to the neuroses of fake science--"global warming," "climate change," the "green movement," etc.
While under Bush there was a far reaching plan for exploration, under Obama NASA is nothing more than a prop for the Global Warming Mafia, a problem which dates back much further than that. NASA is currently being co-run by an affirmative action appointee and Obama's space policy advisor.
Naturally that's the sort of thing another Obama advisor would like to get rid, not the mafia thing, but the criticizing the mafia thing, with Cass Sunstein, better known as Mr. Samantha Power, pushing the internet silence doctrine bit.
Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a "chilling effect" on speech that might hurt someone's feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.
Sunstein's book is a blueprint for online censorship as he wants to hold blogs and web hosting services accountable for the remarks of commenters on websites while altering libel laws to make it easier to sue for spreading "rumors."
Smith notes that bloggers and others would be forced to remove such criticism unless they could be "proven". The litigation expense would be daunting; the time necessary to defend a posting (or an article) would work to the benefit of the public figure being criticized since the delay would probably allow the figure to win an election before the truth "won out". The mere threat of retaliatory actions would be enough to dissuade many commentators from daring to issue a word of criticism or skepticism.
Often bloggers raise issues to encourage others (perhaps with more resources) to further investigate issues. Skepticism about candidates often begin on the web or talk radio-these steps (so vital to a democracy) would be chilled should Sunstein's ideas be put into practice. One should not dismiss that prospect: this is the most ideologically driven administration in many years. A Democratic Congress willing to do Barack Obama's bidding will not serve as a check on Sunstein (or Obama). Democrats know that criticism over their conduct often emerges from the web and talk radio since traditional media is so reliably in their corner. Sunstein did not join the administration for a title or to be close to his wife. He joined, as have other ideologues throughout history, to put his ideas into practice.
It would be ironic if after working to set up proxies for Iranian protesters, we should now have to set up proxies for Americans to be able to speak freely. Except I wonder what country would remain with enough free speech to help set up proxies for us, if under Cass Sunstein, Obama's regime joins the ranks of China and Iran.
Meanwhile in silencing people news, Meghan McCain dug deep into her intellectual reserves, and in an interview with Out magazine (put out by those fine people who like to throw themselves a pride parade each year demonstrating just how little they have to be proud of) called Joe the Plumber, a "dumbass".
Now Meghan McCain calling anyone a dumbass who can actually walk and chew gum at the same time ranks as ironic too. Especially when you consider that her brain is actually 2/3rds bubble gum and 1/3rd entitlement. But as she waddles through another interview, it's a good demonstration of why the Republican party needs to cleanse itself of the trash, before it can become competitive again.
Some choice quotes from the interview, with extra bubble gum;
On election night last November, McCain was understandably consumed with the results of the presidential race and, like many, “assumed that Prop 8 wouldn’t pass.” The next morning, however, she woke up in an already sour mood made worse by her BGF (best gay friend) Josh “telling me that on top of everything else, Prop 8 passed.” Like many others, McCain was swept up in a collective sense of grievance,
I'm sorry if you lost IQ points even reading that, but I'm not liable for that.
But what so recently seemed antithetical to mainstream Republicanism has lately gained support from unlikely supporters... And John McCain’s former campaign strategist, Steve Schmidt, told the Log Cabin Republicans that same-sex marriage was consistent with sound conservative principles.
This being the same guy who keeps leaking nasty stories about Sarah Palin,
McCain recognizes that she has yet to win over gays. “A lot of people in the gay community are skeptical of me as a Republican,” she says
I think pretty much everyone is skeptical of her as a Republican. Including the part of Meghan McCain's brain that actually works, if there is such a part.
And now for the dumbest Meghan McCain quotes from the article assembled in no particular order of ditziness,
"Does it sound campy to say I love gay men?” asks Meghan McCain, sipping an iced tea at the nouveau-chic Hotel Palomar in Washington, D.C.’s Dupont Circle... “My generation -- we like our celebrities,”... “I’d be flattered to be considered the anti–Ann Coulter, the anti–Rush Limbaugh,”... “My mom was always for gay marriage, but I think me being so vocal about it has made her want to be more vocal about it,” she says. “She texted me: ‘Gay marriage passed in Maine!!’ ”... she also views the fight for gay equality as “my generation’s civil rights movement.”
I would say that Meghan McCain has a learning disorder, except that being Meghan McCain itself seems to be a learning disorder. And finally to close it up...
“In general, I don’t get a good response from the conservative movement,”
I can't imagine why. Maybe it's because she's a liberal Democrat trying to build a career in a party her old man belongs to, which she also completely despises, and despite barely having 2 brain cells to rub together, continues "speaking out" on issues, or rather bashing every Republican she can in order to get attention from the liberal media who are the only ones to give her a forum, and doing it as articulately as a schizophrenic off his medication trying to report his brain missing.
Her big message now is that since so many in the conservative movement hate her, clearly it's because she's a straight talker with an important message. Except as the saying goes, "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Meghan McCain is definitely a lot closer to Bozo the Clown, than to any of the above. It's something she might want to consider. If not maybe her BGF can break it to her.
In further or is that fuhrer "Religion of Peace" news, Islam's big campaign to promote itself into the US came equipped with antisemitic flavoring. This somehow surprised the ADL
"The 'WhyIslam' campaign is ostensibly an effort to clear up misperceptions and to educate the general public about Islam," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "This endeavor would on its face appear to be the right thing to do. Unfortunately, when one follows through to learn more, the Web site provides links to conspiratorial anti-Semitic material as resources.
"We have always said that our concern is with extremists who promote hatred in the name of Islam," said Mr. Foxman. "In this 'WhyIslam' campaign, an otherwise positive effort to promote public awareness about Islam, providing links to sites that would be considered extreme by any measure in their expressions of hatred for Jews and Israel taints their message."
I would say then the Why Islam campaign was meant to clear up the misperception that many like Foxman have that Islam is a religion of peace and does not condone bigotry, violence or extremism. It seems to be succeeding.
It's inevitable that any resources for Islam would run into the widespread belief in the Muslim world that Jews are evil and that the Holocaust never happened. It would take a lot of work and billions more Saudi dollars to construct a seamless English Muslim internet that would be completely free of true Muslim beliefs simply to gull Westerners into joining the Religion of Peaceful Beheading bandwagon.
Besides Jews for Allah is as offensive as Jews for Jesus, or Jews for Obama, aka J Street. And while Foxman has condemned the two former, it would be nice if he addressed a hate group who claims to be Jewish, but in fact hates Jews and works to destroy them in support of Islam, aka J Street. On the bright side if J Street ever runs low on Soros blood money, they can always merge with Jews for Allah.
Finally a blog comment, not even from my own blog, but from the blog of a Rabbi Jaffe, in response to a post of his pointing out that Michael Jackson was antisemitic too. The comments are a scattered collection of claims that using "kike" is not antisemitic, intermingled with rabid antisemitism (references to Ashkenazi characterize those as being disciplines of Kevin McDonald or one of his even loonier imitators), but the more interesting material comes from Lilah, who claims to have been born Jewish, but not Jewish in identification, who goes through the classic Liberal process of defending an antisemitic bigot by blaming the Jews for causing his bigotry.
It's a fascinating study in self-hatred and proof once again that liberalism really is a mental illness. We can divide it into three parts. The first part is the affirmation of the bigot's essential goodness
Lilah 03 Jul 2009 at 8:04
I’m an Ashkenazi Jew. Well I am by heritage anyways, even if I’m not, as an adult, part of the culture or religion.
However I am a huge fan of Michael. I love him dearly and he loved me dearly. I am certain that he did not molest little children. He helped millions of them all around the world and did more for victims of war and famine than any other entertainer in history, period. He has a big heart, aside from his imperfections, and has touched people so deeply with is music.
That is the affirmation of goodness. This sets the premise for everything that follows. Since Michael is inherently good, he cannot possibly have behaved badly. His actions were clearly either misinterpreted, or caused by the objects of his hate. This is the crucial opening step. We see it done for example with Palestinian Arab terrorists who are characterized as inherently good, because they are fighting for freedom.
The second part that follows is the soul searching
I am trying to read as much as possible to understand the meaning of his words in the song. At first glance it looks really bad and anti-semitic, but I’ve also seen interviews where when questioned about these lyrics, he states that he loves and cares for everyone, Jews, Arabs, everyone. I’ve heard different theories on it that he was including Jews with Blacks in the song as a race that is unfairly picked on. I’ve also heard that it’s used in an anti-Jew context, which is the first thing that occurred to me.
During the soul searching, the apologetic comes to "grips" with what happened, experiencing some element of shock at say the comment, or a suicide bombing, and looking for alternatives before settling on.
Now comes part 3, or the turnabout.
If it was meant in an anti-semitic context, then it does have to do with the nasty people who happen to be Jewish who have assaulted him mentally and emotionally throughout his life. If so, we have to ask ourselves who we should be turning our blame on; Michael for reacting this way, or the cruel morons who assaulted him with their hatred in the first place and MADE JEWS LOOK BAD ENOUGH FOR ONE OF THE MOST CARING PEOPLE ON EARTH TO SAY THAT IN THEIR SONG.
Clearly. And the turnabout is the most crucial part. In Part 2, the soul searching, Lilah had to deal with a challenge to the basic tenet of her belief, Michael Jackson's goodness. Similarly liberals have to deal with challenges to their belief when they see a particularly grisly suicide bombing, and have to try to reconcile their belief in a Palestinian state with the ugliness of what they just saw. The turnabout is where those beliefs are reconciled by blaming the party in Part 2, thus reconciling their belief system with Part 1.
The crucial term is, "We should ask ourselves who we should be turning the blame on". Anytime this question is asked by a liberal, it usually means to turn the blame away from the perpetrator, either on to the victim or to some higher force above the perpetrator such as society.
At Family Security Matters, Dr. Walid Phares challenges Obama to call for freedom.
To close off the roundup, Isi Leibler has a solid article, The Case Against Obama, replying indirectly to Dershowitz. Isi Leibler may not be a name familiar to most, but he successfully took on the corrupt Bronfman junta running the World Jewish Congress and brought Bronfman senior down, even while being bombarded with a torrent of hate and called a "right wing dog" by the old bootlegger himself.
In the blog roundup meanwhile, Lemon Lime Moon has a suggestion for bringing some representation to the SCOTUS
At IsraPundit,Moshe Philips of AFSI asks, Who is Israel's Sarah Palin? and Arutz Sheva's Moshe Kempinsky on J Street, The New Impostors
It is usually easy to spot them.
Throughout Jewish history the embattled people of Israel have developed conditions and neuroses very similar to victims of abuse. At times, they have begun to blame themselves for the hatred that they have experienced hurled against them. At other times, they have begun to assume that if they would adopt more universal ideals and become more connected to the greater whole they would cease to be persecuted. As a result of such a desire they have eschewed uniqueness and national identity for the safe anonymity of “sameness”.
The New Centrist remembers the Victims of 7-7-05