scaramouche

Tuesday, 31 March 2009

"Free-speech" of convenience: The thing about those who support the likes of George Galloway and Israeli Apartheid week is that they constantly try to drown out the voices of those who disagree with their viewpoint, and who want to exercise their freedom to speak.

Funny, that.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:43 | link | comments

Karzai enshrines marital rape: Sure, he seems like a nice enough chap, and you can always count on him to be gotten up in some sort of colourful local garb. But since he presides over a country that hews to sharia law, he ends up doing stuff like this. From the Telegraph:

President Hamid Karzai has signed a law the UN says legalises rape in marriage and prevents women from leaving the house without permission.

The law, which has not been publicly released, is believed to state women can only seek work, education or doctor's appointments with their husband's permission.

Only fathers and grandfathers are granted custody of children under the law, according to the United Nations Development Fund for Women.

Opponents of the legislation governing the personal lives of Afghanistan's Shia minority have said it is "worse than during the Taliban".

Mr Karzai has been accused of electioneering at the expense of women's rights by signing the law to appeal to crucial Shia swing voters in this year's presidential poll.

While the Afghan constitution guarantees equal rights for women, it also allows the Shia community, thought to represent 10 per cent of the population, the right to settle family law cases according to Shia law…

Shia, shmia. This isn’t only about "Shia law" (Shia sharia). This is about the inequities built into Allah’s flawless law as a whole. The way it works is this: you can have sharia, or you can have “equality,” but as the UN Development Fund for Women well knows, you cannot have both. Thus, one cannot help but think there something fundamentally inconsistent—and very wrong—about kafirs fighting (and often dying) for the sake of sharia. (Especially since it’s not like those Canadian soldiers who keep getting killed in roadside bombs near Kabul get any virgins or anything.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:27 | link | comments (1)

The day the music died: Phyllis Chesler hails a young Arab woman who sought to bridge the divide between Israelis and Palestinians through music, and, in so doing, has been shunned and condemned by her own people. The women, Wafa Younis, conducted a 13-piece Palestinian children’s orchestra called the “Strings of Freedom.” Her big faux pas: she urged her charges to see Israelis as human beings, and not as despised “occupiers” (or apes and pigs). As a result, her orchestra has been shut down, and she has been told she cannot return to her home in the West Bank town of Jenin:

…Younis had not held the children hostage at gunpoint nor had she used them as human shields in the midst of a battle. She had not taught them that Israelis are “Nazis,” who are wantonly massacring the Palestinians. However, by allowing them to play for elderly Jewish Holocaust survivors she taught the musicians that the Holocaust did happen to Jews and that Jews, even Israeli Jews, are human beings, worthy of listening to music. Worse: Younis had allowed her charges to participate in a “Good Deeds Day,” an event which involved Jews and which had been funded by Israelis.

When a Palestinian attempts to teach Palestinian children the ways of peace, the concept that all people, including Jews, share a common humanity, that is seen as a dangerous act of insurrection. I am glad, that Younis is still alive…

She’s alive for now, anyway, but given her “outrageous” behaviour, I’d advise her to watch her step.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:02 | link | comments

School daze: One reason Obama’s “refocussed” mission in Afghanistan (which boils down to targeting al Qaeda and fuggedabout “democracy”) is destined to fail is because it ignores the central role Pakistan’s madrassas play in cranking out an inexaustible supply of new recruits for the jihad. (Another reason the mission will fail is because it can’t actually bring itself to use the word “jihad”.) From JWR:

KABUL, Afghanistan — The school seemed normal enough at first.

"For a year, they gave us religious lessons, and they would also preach jihad," said the young man originally from Helmand province in Afghanistan of the madrassa he attended in Pakistan.

Slowly, however, the lessons began to change and the school's true mission became clear.

"They started to tell us that we should go to Afghanistan and fight," said the youth, who asked that his name not be used because he feared reprisals from his former classmates. "They were preparing suicide bombers."

Only when he returned home for a brief visit and witnessed an attack did he decide to withdraw from the school.

"I saw how innocent people suffered in those attacks," he said. Still, he said, "I thought about my fellow students back at the madrassa. I could understand the suicide bomber."

With the education system in troubled Helmand province all but collapsed, an increasing number of young men are being sent by their parents to religious schools in nearby Pakistan to continue their education. While many are legitimate, others are little more than terrorist training grounds.

Helmand is especially fertile ground for such recruits. The province is not only one of the epicenters of the Taliban insurgency, but also leads the world in opium poppy production. The nexus of the drug trade and the insurgency means normal life has all but ceased in the area.

Many schools in the province have been forced to close over the past three years. According to the provincial Department of Education, about 54,000 school-age children regularly attend classes this year, less than half the number that attended school a year ago, and only one-fifth of an estimated 245,000 school-age youths in the province.

According to Sher Agha Safi, the head of Helmand's education department, schools are currently operating in only three of Helmand's 13 districts.

"We would like a madrassa in each district," said Safi.

So, while families might like to keep their sons closer to home for their education, they have no choice other but to allow them to travel to Pakistan.

While Gulab Mangal, the governor of Helmand, has promised to address the problem of higher education in his province, it remains a relatively low priority given the current security concerns.

"Those students who are in Pakistan are being misused," Mangal said. "Pakistan is brainwashing them and using them for suicide attacks. I call on all Helmandis to take their children out of Pakistan."

A high-ranking official in the education ministry, who asked that his name not be used because he is not authorized to speak to the press, said that Pakistani madrassas had been training radicals since at least the 1990s.

"It is true that jihadists are being recruited in Pakistan," he said. "I was a madrassa student in Karachi in the mid-1990s, and there were foreign students - Arabs, Chechens - training there then."…

What’s the point of getting rid of al Qaeda when all these young up-and-comers are, er, up and coming?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:06 | link | comments (1)

Reader query: A Toronto Star reader poses a timely question:

Re: Judge denies Galloway's bid to enter Canada, March 30

Our government's decision to deny entry to British MP George Galloway, calling him "odious," is itself not merely odious, but oderiferous with the stink of dying democracy, shrivelling civil rights and the rot of rising McCarthyism.

Go ahead and sue ... good luck, Galloway! It is time someone knocked some sense into the knuckleheads some misguided souls elected to represent our once-proud country.

I share Mr. Galloway's views. Does that make me a terrorist?

Shirley Bush, Toronto

No, Ms. Bush, but is does make you seriously delusional (ever though you do like to wield big words like “odiferous”). Something tells me that Ms. Bush isn’t nearly as passionate about the erosion of real civil rights, which are being clawed back by domestic and international “human rights” bodies.

Update: My letter:

I’d like to assure Shirley Bush, who’s terribly concerned that an “odiferous” McCarthyism is creeping into Canada, that the decision to bar British MP George Gallloway’s entry had nothing to do with wanting to curtail his—or anyone else’s— “free speech.” Had that been so, Galloway, who was cooling his heels in New York pending the federal judge’s ruling, would not have been allowed to rail against Israel via a big screen set up in the same venue on the same night that he was slated to appear there in person.

The fact is that there is only one reason why Galloway, a foreigner, wasn’t allowed into Canada. It’s because he raises funds for at least one of the groups on Canada’s list of outlawed terrorist organizations, and was therefore considered a security risk.

If Ms. Bush senses something “odiferous” and McCarthy-like about that, I suggest she consult a good dictionary (to look up the word “odiferous”) and a good history book (to read up on the appalling period in American history known as McCarthyism).

Update: A limerick for a Galloway groupie:

Shirley B. detects something “odiferous”

And has taken a really big whiff for us.

She’s a Galloway gal

With thoughts so banal

She composed this odiferous riff for us.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:50 | link | comments (1)

The Taliban toy with ex-Bev: The drama surrounding the “revert” captured by jihadis who are threatening to behead her continues. From the Toronto Star:

A close friend of a Canadian journalist being held hostage in Pakistan and threatened with beheading is frustrated amid reports the Taliban rejected a ransom offer for her release.

"I am weary of the situation," said Glen Cooper, who has known Vancouver-based Beverly Giesbrecht for more than 23 years.

Cooper said he understands the tense dynamic between the Taliban and the Pakistani government in ransom negotiations but added he "would have felt better if there was a more consistent message from kidnappers," whose demands constantly change.

Reports say the Taliban rejected an offer from the Pakistani government for Giesbrecht's release that was considerably lower than the $375,000 (U.S.) the Taliban demanded earlier this month to free Giesbrecht, 53, and two Pakistani associates grabbed in November in a tribal area of northern Pakistan.

An exhausted-looking Giesbrecht, who converted to Islam and adopted the name Khadija Abdul Qahaar after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, said in a video recently released by her captors that she feared decapitation if a settlement isn't made soon.

The Canadian embassy in Islamabad is apparently working with the Pakistani government to try to secure her release.

Cooper said Giesbrecht's anti-American views and compassionate view of Al Qaeda, expressed on a website she started in 2002, alienated many who know her.

Apparently, it hasn’t much endeared her to the jihadis either.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:37 | link | comments (1)

Monday, 30 March 2009

Heh!: George Galloway won’t be (dis)gracing us with his presence after all. A federal judge has upheld the decision to bar his entry. From the Toronto Star (a Galloway-sympathetic organization):

Controversial British MP George Galloway has been denied entry into Canada by a federal court judge.

Justice Luc Martineau ruled today the Canada Border Service Agency did not err in its decision to prevent Galloway, who the federal government accuses of being a terrorist sympathizer, from engaging in a four-city speaking tour. The decision means Galloway will not be appearing in person to give an anti-war speech this evening in Toronto.

"The admission of a foreign national to this country is a privilege determined by statute, regulation or otherwise, and not a matter of right," Martineau wrote in his ruling. "In this respect Parliament has expressly given the CBSA officers legal authority to exclusively determine whether a foreign national who seeks to enter this country is admissible"

The judge cited a letter written to Galloway by Canada's high commission in London that pointed to his "financial support for Hamas," a listed terrorist organization in Canada.

"Specifically, we have information that indicates you organized a convoy worth over one million British pounds in aid and vehicles, and personally donated vehicles and financing to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya. Your material support for this organization makes you inadmissible to Canada," the letter said.

The judge noted there is some evidence that may back Galloway's claim the matter had been "prejudged" and the result of "external lobbying" and "political influence," but he declined to overturn the decision "which is alleged to be one made in bad faith and politically motivated."

"It not necessary that I express an opinion on the admissibility or reliability of such hearsay evidence. Suffice it to say that the arguments raised by the applicants are not frivolous or vexatious," said Martineau.

Yesterday, lawyers representing groups trying to bring Galloway to Canada argued before a Federal Court judge that an injunction should be granted allowing Galloway to enter Canada for four days pending a judicial review.

Supporters gathered at the Canada-U.S. border at Lacolle, Quebec cancelled a solidarity caravan today that would have escorted Galloway into Canada. Instead, Galloway awaited the federal court decision in New York City and will deliver his speech at Toronto's Metropolitan United Church tonight at 7 p.m. via live video broadcast.

"Who's next if Galloway is not allowed in? It seems like all our rights could be targeted," said Laith Marouf, one of Galloway's speech organizers. "This is a slippery slope and it seems like this is just the beginning. We will appeal and go to the highest court if need be."…

No slippery slope at all. Here’s the deal: If you’re a foreigner who raises funds for one of the groups on Canada’s list of outlawed terrorist organizations, don’t count on gaining entry to our land.

Why, it’s so simple even a Jack Layton or a Judy Rebick could understand it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:46 | link | comments

The Arab League’s useful obsession: There’s a very good reason why Arab leaders would want to focus on such ephemera as the “peace process”. It’s because it provides them a convenient cover to devote far less time and attention to the heinous things going on within their own jurisdictions. From Al Jazeera English:

Arab leaders have begun talks in Doha over key issues confronting the region.

At the opening session of the 21st Arab League summit on Monday, the leaders called for a unified approach towards Israel's new government, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and the financial crisis.

Ban Ki-Moon, the UN secretary-general, who also addressed the opening session, urged Israel to freeze its building of settlements in the occupied West Bank.

"I remain gravely concerned about Gaza, and about where we stand in the search for an independent Palestinian state," Ban said.

"The way forward is a durable ceasefire, open crossings, and Palestinian reconciliation under president [Mahmoud] Abbas. Efforts to achieve this need your united support."

Defiant Bashir

Ban also used his speech to express concern at Sudan's suspension of international NGO activity in Darfur, a move that came after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, on charges of war crimes.

Al-Bashir, however in his speech at the summit, defended himself strongly.

The Sudanese leader is attending the conference, ingoring (sic) the arrest warrant. Qatar is not a signatory to the ICC and therefore not obliged to arrest al-Bashir.

Al-Bashir also used his speech to urge support for the Palestinians…

Well, yes, he would, wouldn’t he? That way he doesn’t have to go into all that unpleasantness in Darfur, a crisis that makes Gaza look like a tempest in a teapot.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:14 | link | comments

The defame game: An editorial in the Globe and Mail condemns the UN "human rights" racket's Big Chill—its resolution prohibiting “defamation” of religion:

..The notion of defamation of religion is vague to the point of meaninglessness. What is its reach? The text of the Human Rights Council's resolution says, “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human-rights violations and terrorism.” That suggests a vast range of discussion is off-limits. The UN itself has overseen several reports outlining how Arab societies (both secular and religious) have fallen into decay. “Why do Arabs enjoy so little freedom?” the authors, 40 Arab intellectuals, asked. (If defamation of religion is wrong, is defamation of ethnic groups allowed? Is there now a hierarchy of protected groups?) Islam can co-exist with modernity, they say, implying that it does not do so now. Did the UN defame Islam, then?

There is a good deal of ferment in the Arab and Islamic world, of which those 40 intellectuals are a part. There is also a good deal of silent acquiescence in the face of extremism. At the request of Pakistan, which put the resolution forward on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Human Rights Council is pushing a fanatical notion, rather than encouraging the ferment.

Is it wrong to say, for instance, that creationism should give way to evolution in school curriculums? If it is wrong, how is society to progress? Of course, there are hateful people who will lie about religions – the Jews have faced them over many centuries (significantly, the World Jewish Congress and some Muslim and other religious groups oppose the Human Rights Council resolution) – but the price of dealing with the hateful should not be to stifle everyone else at the same time.

The notion that Islam should be protected has played out in Canada, with a human-rights complaint about the writings of journalist Mark Steyn on Muslims in Europe that were inflammatory but well within the bounds of free speech. Democracies do not, or at least should not, have their debates overseen by human-rights tribunals.

The discredited UN Human Rights Council is trying to drag the world backward. Instead of the Enlightenment, medievalism. It is disgraceful, though not surprising.

Let’s be clear. What the Globe has couched as being any old "medievalism” is, in fact, one very specific “medievalism”—an Islamic one. Here’s my letter, which dares to mention the obvious:

As Ezra Levant points out in his new book Shakedown, the word “defamation” is nowhere present in Islamic texts. Rather, it is strictly a Western concept that has been borrowed because the Islamic word—“blasphemy”—is a much tougher sell to those of us in the West who still demand a distinct separation of church (or mosque) and state.

We should all be wary of efforts of “human rights” bodies, both locally and globally, to sell us this bill of goods, since what they are really doing is compelling us to go along with a core tenet of sharia law—i.e. the requirement that no one be allowed to say anything critical about any aspect of Islam or those who follow it.

Thus, under the guise of serving the interests of the entire world, the UNHRC is actually serving the interests of one very narrow religious ideology. Because, make no mistake: just as sharia law is predicated on mute acceptance, Western law is predicated on people being allowed to say whatever the heck they want, even if it offends, so long as it isn’t libellous or otherwise criminal. This latitude is essential if we in the West are to retain our hard-fought-for freedoms—as well as our entire civilization.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:37 | link | comments

Talking ourselves to death: The United Nations has a number of revolting offshoots, including UNRWA, the agency that ensures that the Palestinians’ status as refugees remains a going concern, and the UNHRC, the “human rights” body which is primarily devoted to shining a light on “human rights” infractions in a single nation—Israel. But the UN affiliate with the most grandiose-sounding (and emptiest) name has got to be the “Alliance of Civilizations”?

What the heck is that, you may ask? As mordant UN critic Claudia Rosett explains, it’s the fruition of an idea hatched by—wait for it—Iran . From Forbes:

President Obama is expected to travel early next month to Istanbul, where he will attend a meeting of a United Nations-spawned outfit called the Alliance of Civilizations. Under that grand title, hundreds of worthies will gather to pursue various aspects of "engagement."

Among those expected are Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, officials of Alliance co-sponsors Turkey and Spain and a former Portuguese president now heading the Alliance, Jorge Sampaio--and, though the Alliance this week would neither confirm nor deny, it's a good bet there will be representatives there from Iran.

Many activities are on offer. Obama can rub shoulders at working sessions on enhancing dialogue, bridging divides, reporting across divides, bridging cultures, strengthening bonds and building peace, as well as a session on "Islamic and Muslim Contributions to European Culture." (This appears to be a one-way bridge; there is no corresponding session listed on European contributions to Islamic culture).

But it is a well-known aspect of many U.N.-related events that the real agenda is not always fully explained in the official program. So, as a possible aid--if not to Obama, then at least to Americans who might be curious about this venue, which he chose for his first presidential full-body foray into the political mine fields of the Middle East--here's a brief unofficial history and guide to the real Alliance of Civilizations.

Headquartered across the street from the U.N.'s main offices in New York, the Alliance might more appropriately be called a U.N.-approved Slush Fund for Advancing Iranian and Other Islamic Interests. Both high profile and hard to pin down, it is first and foremost an Iranian brain child, which came to the U.N. by way of an earlier venture pitched in 1998 by Iran's then-president Mohammad Khatami for a "Dialogue of Civilizations."

With the eager support of former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the U.N. General Assembly adopted Iran's proposal, proclaiming 2001 the Year of the Dialogue of Civilizations…

Ah, yes, “dialogue”. Another of those yummy-sounding words— “racism,” “human rights” and “defamation” are others—that has been drafted to serve the cause of spreading the sharia under the guise of doing something good for the world. Thus, in no way can this be seen as an “alliance” in the Western sense of the word. Rather, it is a way for the world to show tacit—paving the way for permanent—acceptance of Islam’s primacy (the real reason there’s no session on "European Contributions to Islamic and Muslim Culture,” only the reverse). And as the “jaw-jaw” continues, the folks who conned Kofi into embracing their civilizational strategy have been able to proceed with their immediate plans for erasing one civilization—the Jewish one—from the map.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:13 | link | comments

Sunday, 29 March 2009

This just in: The anti-“apartheid” zanies are planning to picket the LCBO for having the audacity to stock “apartheid” vino (h/t TS):

A demonstration called "APARTHEID ISN'T KOSHER" is scheduled to take place on Sunday, April 5 at 1:00- 3:00 PM at the LCBO , 10 Scrivener Square( Summerhill subway) to boycott Israeli wines.

There will be pickets in support of the "Palestinian struggle for justice."

It is being organized by "Coalition Against Israel Apartheid" and "Not in My Name."

People in the Community should be at the liquor store on the afternoon of April 5 to buy the Israeli wines for the seders. That will counteract this disgraceful demonstration.

Here’s a recent scene of “apartheid” in the land in question--young Arab chicks enjoying a leisurely stroll near Jerusalem's Jaffa Gate:

You can see why the zanies are so upset.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:01 | link | comments

The most depressing thing I've read all weekend, and that includes all the Earth Hour malarkey: Rolling Stone magazine's 100 PEOPLE WHO ARE REINVENTING AMERICA. Numero uno, natch, is the happy hopeychanger himself--"the symbol of change for our time." His KEY QUOTE will tell you everything you need to know about the cut of his jib: "I wish I had the luxury of just dealing with a modest recession or just dealing with health care or just dealing with Iraq or just dealing with Afghanistan. I don't have that luxury, and I don't think the American people do, either."

Wow, Barack, that's really...deep. Sounds like the burden of power is weighing more heavily on your shoulders than you had imagined. If it's any consolation, no one says that you have to run again in '12.

Number 5 on the list is Obama's Jewish pitbull, Rahm Emmanuel. Everybody loves to hate Rahm--but in a really positive way. As Rahm himself points out in his KEY QUOTE: "I wake up some mornings hating me too." Tee hee.

Number 18--Al Gore--used to be the messiah, until a certain teleprompter-reading prodigy displaced him in the Leftist pantheon. His "deep thought": "We have the capacity to make this generation one of the generations that changes the course of humankind." That's kind of what we're afraid of, Al.

And then there's number 21--little Lord Haw Haw's missus, Naomi Klein. Naomi is billed as the "Superstar intellectual of a new left that hasn't caught up with her yet." Yeah, that new left sure is laggardly. Her KEY QUOTE: "There is no way to reconcile the public's vote for change with the market's foot-stomping for more of the same." Well, the hopeychangers have certainly silenced all that "foot-stomping" for now--as well as for the time being. And with their plans to vastly increase the number of things that fall under the government's purview while burdening future generations with a gargantuan debt, the stomping may not get going again for ages.

I won't tax you with a rundown of the entire list. However, I will leave you with the memorable words of Sean Penn, number 28: "If there's anything disgusting in the movie business, it is the whoredom of my peers." The lad sure has a way with words. And if he ever gets tired of movie whoredom, maybe he can essay a career in politics, like "professional whore" Jason Kenney (whose politics don't happen to mesh with Sean's or the Tinsel Towners', thank heavens).

Looking on the bright side, this week's issue does have an interview with Van Morrison.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:17 | link | comments

The truth about Gaza: There are those who would have you believe that the man-caused disaster that is Gaza (a “Holocaust,” according to some) was caused by Jews. Nonie Darwish—a woman who grew up there—and Salim Mansour—a vocal opponent of sharia law for all—know the truth to be vastly different. From the Toronto Sun:

Gaza is not exceptional in terms of poverty and despair. The conditions in places such as Darfur and the flood-afflicted areas of Bangladesh are similar, if not poorer, than what is found in Gaza.

But what makes Gaza stand apart is the Arab-Israeli conflict, and how this conflict makes demands on western governments for diplomatic and material assistance for Gazans.

The Gaza narrative of this conflict is rather simple. Israel blockades the territory, which has a population of 1.5 million squeezed into an area half the size of Toronto, and Palestinian resistance spirals into an asymmetrical conflict.

There is another narrative that rarely gets into print in the mainstream media. Nonie Darwish's rare personal account of Gaza as "an Arab-made misery," recently published in the Wall Street Journal, offers this other perspective.

Ms. Darwish was raised in Gaza in the early 1950s when the area was occupied by Egypt. Her father, Col. Mustafa Hafez, was the intelligence commander in Gaza sent there by Egypt's dictator, Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Hafez's responsibility was recruiting volunteers from among Gaza residents and Palestinian refugees for the "fedayeen" (those willing to self-sacrifice) operations against Israel. He was killed in an Israeli retaliation in July 1956.

Following the UN partitioning of Palestine in 1947 and the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948, Gaza was turned into the staging ground of terrorist operations against the Jewish state by Egypt, and it has returned to being the same since Israeli withdrawal in August 2005.

Cynicism

Ms. Darwish experienced the cynicism of Arab policy towards Palestinians as the daughter of the man who was killed in the process of executing it. Subsequently she immigrated to the U.S. bringing an insider's knowledge of Arab politics and culture to the West.

Ms. Darwish indicates the source of Gaza's problem is with the Arab states. She recalls "60 years of Arab policy aimed at cementing the Palestinian people's status as stateless refugees in order to use their suffering as a weapon against Israel."

Arab states have refused to absorb and settle refugees from Palestine partitioned on the basis of the UN-approved plan, arguing such measures would give relief to Israel.

Instead a policy of forcing Palestinian identity, as Ms. Darwish explains, "was designed to perpetuate and exacerbate the Palestinian refugee crisis." Through this period the UN Relief and Work Agency for Palestinian refugees, funded partly by Arab countries, has participated in administering this policy that condemns Palestinians to the unending misery of remaining refugees…

A policy of forcing Palestinian identity was designed to provide the “moral” pretext for putting an end to a Jewish Israel. So far it seems to be working out exactly as planned.

Update: The back story--how the British did the Jews dirt by taking away 4/5 of the territory that had been set aside for them and giving it to Arabs (the first "two-state solution" ).

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:39 | link | comments

The deterioration of American clarity: It’s gone from this, circa WW1

Over There, Over There
Send the word, send the word,
Over There
That the Yanks are coming,
The Yanks are coming,
The drums rum tumming everywhere.
So prepare,
Say a Prayer.
Send the word,
Send the word to beware.
We'll be over, we're coming over.
And we won't be back till it's over over there!

To this, courtesy Obama and his happy hopeychangers

Overseas! Overseas!

Overseas! Overseas! Contingency!

It’s an “operation”.

It’s desperation.

(Shhh! Please don’t call ‘em ‘jihadis’.)

Say a prayer.

No more ‘terror’

Say that word, say that word,

You’re in error.

We’ll be over, we’re coming over

Even though we won’t e’er bring ‘em to their knees.

Andrew McCarthy accounts for Obama’s seemingly bizarre phraseology (hint: there’s Saul Alinsky method in his madness).

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:21 | link | comments

A word speaks volumes: The following—an account of an encounter with an irrepressible force of nature—was written by Maclean’s Magazine columnist Andrew Potter and was posted on the magazine’s blog:

Ezra Levant swing by the office this afternoon; he was in town pimping his new book Shakedown, a pretty devastating look at the Human Rights industry in Canada. I’ve never met him before, but he seemed almost giddy when he showed up, fresh from a signing at a downtown Chapters where — apparently — there was a healthy lineup to get him to sign copies of the book.

Good on him. I was never a huge fan of Ezra’s political leanings, and the Western Standard was not really my cup of tea. But printing the Danish cartoons was courageous, and his subsequent fight with the AHRC was deeply principled and very nicely handled. Anyway, we had a nice chat for an hour or so, about everything from the origins of the human rights commissions to constitutional interpretation to the Galloway affair. He’s smart, engaging as hell, and his book is going to sell boatloads.

I’ll have a review of the book soon, and I might try to publish our discussion as a Q&A somewhere. Meanwhile, my personal takeaway from our discussion is the subject line of this post. More later.

“Pimping”? I’d say that one word reveals potty Potter’s true feelings re the man. (Hey, Andy, why not come right out and call him a “professional whore”?) As for Potter’s political leanings and writings—I was never a huge fan and they’re not really my cuppa.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:46 | link | comments

AFP ‘splains Obama’s Afghanistan policy “change”: As near as I can make out, it consists of "widening" the mission while “narrowing” the approach, which at the end of the day still leaves things "broader," yet also "narrower".

Here—see if you can make head or tail of it (my bolds):

Widening Afghan mission, Obama narrows goals

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President Barack Obama has vowed a broad new approach on Afghanistan but ironically has also narrowed the goals -- replacing democratizing zeal with a more straightforward mission to fight Al-Qaeda.

Experts say the Obama team's new strategy bows to the realities of Afghanistan -- the famed "graveyard of empires" -- and may also begin to lay the groundwork for an exit strategy in the nearly eight-year US involvement.

Obama, announcing his much-anticipated strategy on Friday, pledged a broader view of taking action both in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- whose lawless border areas have turned into the Al-Qaeda extremist network's headquarters.

While ordering 4,000 more US troops to Afghanistan, Obama also promised a major boost in civilian personnel and development assistance including tripling US aid to Pakistan to 7.5 billion dollars over five years.

But with some of Obama's supporters on the left balking at a new military commitment as he pulls from Iraq, the new US leader laid out explicit criteria for victory.

"I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future," Obama said.

Obama pledged to promote human rights in Afghanistan, whose Taliban regime ousted in a 2001 US-led military operation imposed a medieval brand of Islam.

But Obama's only talk of democracy was about supporting the fledgling civilian government in Pakistan.

Obama's detached tone marked a shift from his predecessor George W. Bush, who said on a farewell visit to Kabul in December that the United States hoped "to build a flourishing democracy as an alternative to a hateful ideology."

Marvin Weinbaum, who was a State Department analyst on Afghanistan and Pakistan until 2003, said Obama was both doing more and setting a more attainable goal.

"I think we were wrong initially to think that we could create a strong central government," said Weinbaum, adding that there was never a history of Kabul exerting control over all of Afghanistan.

"The Bush administration used that kind of rhetoric, that it's going to create a model democracy and meanwhile tried to do it on the cheap," said Weinbaum, now a scholar-in-residence at the Middle East Institute.

"It never really made the kind of commitment and then let things slip away."

Bruce Riedel, a former CIA agent who headed the strategic review, told reporters that Obama wanted "to make sure that this mission has a focus and a clear, concise goal."

He denied that the United States was lowering its aims, saying: "There is nothing minimalist about this approach."

Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy to the region, said that the US exit strategy was "pretty basic -- we can leave once the Afghans can deal with their own security problems."

But he warned that the "most daunting" aspect of the strategy was to tackle insurgents holed up in Pakistan, whose government switched overnight from Taliban backers to cornerstone US ally after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Holbrooke gave a blunt warning to Pakistan's powerful intelligence service, elements of which are widely believed to have tipped off militants about impending US military action.

Kamran Bokhari, a senior analyst at the Stratfor global intelligence company, said the Obama team had not yet shown how they would change Pakistani behavior.

He said that the Bush administration also tried to "dump money" into Pakistan -- through then military leader Pervez Musharraf -- but failed to persuade those Pakistanis who see through a "nationalistic prism."

"A lot of people say this is not our war -- if the US just pulled out, everything would go back to normal. And this is the majority sentiment in Pakistan," Bokhari said.

He said that even if Obama has narrowed the US mission to dismantling Al-Qaeda, it remained a very ambitious one.

"In theory it all looks good," Bokhari said. "The question is how do you operationalize all of this. These are very broad goals."

Well, that’s about as clear as swamp water.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:06 | link | comments

In honour of "Earth Hour": It's da Ali G Show.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:50 | link | comments

Rotten to the core: Melanie Phillips blasts lefty rag Ha’aretz for its part in spreading the latest blood libel:

In today’s Ha’aretz, Anshel Pfeffer has written a wounded defence of the paper’s publication of the claims by Israel Defence Force soldiers that their comrades had deliberately killed Palestinian civilians in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead, having been given explicit orders to do so. Pfeffer had nothing to do with the story but, feeling besmirched through ‘guilt by association’ as a result of being given a lot of grief over his paper’s behaviour, he seeks to defend it.

In particular, it appears he was mortified by my blog posts here and here about ‘the Ha’aretz blood libel’. Anshel makes his points in a gracious and rounded way, acknowledging the need to fight the onslaught of anti-Israel hatred and Zionophobia around the globe. But unfortunately he does not acknowledge the part played in this onslaught by his own paper.

His essential point is that such discussion about Israel’s ‘rotten apples’ must be brought out into the open, and that the angry responses have been merely to

brand Israelis who are sincerely concerned for their society and the actions of their government as traitors to the cause.

This is to miss the point by a mile. Of course valid criticism must be made of Israel’s ‘rotten apples’. But the whole point is that these were not valid criticisms because they were not true.

The article gave the impression of widespread war crimes having been committed, which in fact boiled down to two allegations of intentional killing of Palestinian civilians made by two soldiers. But there was zero evidence to support these allegations, and it rapidly became clear that they were no more than recycled rumour -- with one of the soliders admitting that he was relying solely on hearsay. Subsequently, the IDF said that one claim was a false rumour arising from a warning shot having been fired but which did not kill anyone, and the other incident never happened at all.

Furthermore, the transcript of the soldiers’ conversation, which Ha’aretz published on the second day of its running story, revealed that other soldiers in this discussion had not only cast doubt upon these false claims but had produced evidence of their own of the extraordinary lengths to which IDF soldiers had gone to behave decently towards the Palestinians. (As for Danny Zamir, the ultra-leftist instructor who presided over their discussion and whom Anshel defends, the transcript shows how Zamir perversely described an account of soldiers being instructed to wash the floor of a Hamas activist’s house as evidence of ‘an army with very low value norms, that's the truth...’). It was Haaretz that had chosen to spin this transcript – and indeed, its own published story -- in a way that was wholly misleading and most damaging to the IDF and to Israel.

Also disgraceful was the way in which Ha’aretz implied that ultra-nationalist rabbis were somehow instrumental in causing the IDF to behave in an unethical way – a suggestion which is wholly unfounded but which is now being taken up not just by enemies of Israel but by secularised Jews with obsessive scores to settle against religious Zionism, and who are now themselves thus contributing to the global auto-da-fe. The only disquieting part of the soldiers’ chat which actually stood up – the disclosure that soldiers were wearing tee-shirts with disgusting motifs glorifying ‘kills’ of Palestinians – rightfully drew instant IDF condemnation. But reprehensible as that practice is, wearing tee-shirts is not a war crime.

The Ha’aretz claim that Israel had committed war crimes provoked the widespread flak which has so upset Anshel Pfeffer because the story fell apart and was shown to be merely maliciously spun froth. Presented with such allegations made about the conduct of a war, any reputable paper would check them out before sailing into print with them. For Ha’aretz not to have done so in the current circumstances, with both the Arab and Muslim world and the western intelligentsia incited by the constant bombardment of such lies to genocidal frenzy against Israel, was beyond appalling.

Anshel makes it very clear that he recognises the pogrom-style atmosphere towards Israel in the UK. The contribution to that irrational hatred made over the years by the distortions and lies pumped out by Ha'aretz – which, consumed by the obsession with the disputed territories of its publisher Amos Shocken, long ago lost its journalistic marbles along with any claim to integrity – is incalculable. It is Ha’aretz that is one of Israel’s ‘rotten apples’…

Lefties (the jihad’s useful idiots) inside and outside Israel will be the death of us.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:44 | link | comments

Mastoora's mistake: A disgruntled former employee of Maple Leaf Meats, who was caught inserting needles and pins into packages of meat, was planning to launch a civil suit again the company. Silly woman! If she wanted to make a few bucks at the company's expense and punish it for doing her wrong (as she saw it), all she had to do was complain to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Maple Leaf would have been on the hook for its legal expenses while her gripe was being investigated--which could have dragged on for years, the tab for her legal fees would have been covered by the taxpayer, she could have picked up a pretty penny for her "hurt feelings," and she would be hailed as a heroine for standing up for her "rights" and sticking it to "the man" (or at least to the meat). Instead of that rosy scenario she is now facing a criminal charge and a good stretch in jail.

Dumb. Really dumb.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:28 | link | comments

Saturday, 28 March 2009

Question--What does Brit rag the Independent have in common with the Washinton Post?: Answer: They have both run disgustingly antisemitic cartoons.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:34 | link | comments

Moonbats on parade: The anti-Capitalism zanies were out in force in London, “protesting” against a meeting of the world’s industrialized nations. From AP via the Ceeb (in other words, from moonbats via moonbats):

About 35,000 demonstrators marched through central London on Saturday ahead of next week's summit for the Group of 20 nations in Britain's capital.

Protesters demanded action on issues ranging from climate change and the war in Afghanistan to the financial crisis. Those leading the march carried a large banner that read, "Jobs, Justice, Climate."

The demonstration ended with a rally in Hyde Park organized by labour unions, faith groups and charities under the title “Put People First.”

Elsewhere, thousands of demonstrators marched through other European cities, including Paris, Geneva, Rome and Vienna, to demand that governments focus on jobs, the economy and the environment.

Some 15,000 people gathered in Berlin, and a demonstration also was held in Frankfurt, Germany's banking capital, under the slogan: "We won't pay for your crisis."

In Paris, the main banner read, "People before bankers."…

Yes, and by the same token, pearls before swine, and look before you leap.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:25 | link | comments

One Jew-loather’s “professional whore” is another individual’s “righteous Gentile”: Extry! Extry! Get yer CAF “fact sheet” itemizing the organization’s many, many interactions with “professional whore” Jason Kenney. The relationship got off to a bad start back in January’06 when “Conservative government elected into power. CAF sent a congratulatory letter and received no response.” That seems to have set the tone for the endless slights and resulting hissy fits that were to follow. Should you have the time and inclination, you can peruse the exhaustive and exhausting list here. If not, here’s a taste—the CAF’s most recent gripes about Kenney dating from the time of his latest cabinet appointment:

• October 30th 2008: Jason Kenney appointed Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.

• January 15th 2009: “"It is shocking to think that flags of banned terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah are being flown in the streets of Canadian cities. The ideals these terrorist organizations preach are abhorrent to the fundamental values of the Canadian people and of all civilized peoples: freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.” – Minister Jason Kenney referring to rallies for Gaza that were organized by CAF, Palestine House and others.

• January 17th 2009: Comments made about Minister Jason Kenney at rally outside Peter Kent’s office.

• February 3rd 2009: “There is no need for you to send me your press releases. I am not interested in reading them. Thank you for your cooperation.” “Actually, on second thoughts, keep writing me. Your emails are hilarious.” – Minister Jason Kenney’s Director of Communications, Alykhan Velshi, responds to press releases CAF sent out during the attacks on Gaza.

• February 17th 2009: Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is poised to slash federal funding to Canada's largest Arabic group after its president called him a "professional whore" for supporting Israel. – Media outlets releases this story

• February 18th 2009: “These [Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) and CAF] and other organizations are free within the confines of our law and consistent with our traditions of freedom of expression, to speak their mind, but they should not expect to receive resources from the state, support from taxpayers or any other form of official respect from the government or the organs of our State. And I would encourage all other governments to take a similar approach to organizations that either excuse violence against Jews or express essentially anti-Semitic sentiments.” –Minister Jason Kenney at the anti-Semitism Conference in London England.

• February 23rd 2009: "This reinforces the whole, extreme, unbalanced rhetoric about Israel as an apartheid state, Israel as a racist state – to quote the Canadian Arab Federation – this creates an opinion environment which makes it acceptable to start shouting at Jewish kids who probably also happen to support Israel.” Minister Jason Kenney commenting on CUPE’s decision to boycott Israel.

• February 26th 2009: “But my point [in weighing whether to continue funding the CAF], is whether an organization … that distributes videos produced by Hamas and Islamic Jihad that glorifies terrorism [and] indoctrinates children into the cult of anti-Semitic hatred… is not an organization, in my opinion, that should be receiving taxpayer subsidies…I’m simply saying, when we make funding decisions we should take into account the character of the organization and its leadership. And if they’re promoting extremism, or [in the case of the CAF], implicitly promoting anti-Semitism, I think that should be a consideration.” – Minister Jason Kenney in an interview with Canadian Jewish News.

• February 28th 2009 at 12:11 PM from TwitterBerry: “1 caveat to Wente’s piece: I was calling for shunning groups like CAF long before they called me a ‘professional whore’. It’s about extremism.”

• March 2nd 2009: CAF sent an invitation letter to Minister Kenney for a meeting and so far has received no response.

• March 3rd 2009: “In discharging my duties as a of Parliament, I advocate and support funding for groups that provide support for settlement services in my riding…certain negative adjectives were used to describe the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The minister, disagreeing with their remarks, has publicly threatened to cut their funding. The minister is directly intervening, directing bureaucrats and ordering them to make certain decisions… Mr. Speaker, I ask for you to review such comments and matters and come back to this House with guidance as to the proper use of the language by members.” MP Jim Karygiannis in the House of Commons.

• March 3rd 2009: “Mr. Speaker, Jewish students across the country are under siege as anti-Semites unveil their plans for Israel Apartheid Week. Liberal MPs have been quoted in the media and even today in the immigration committee saying that anti-Semitic organizations like the Canadian Arab Federation should receive taxpayer support. Will the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism explain why the government believes that Israel Apartheid Week is anti-Semitic?” –Conservative MP Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC)

• March 3rd, 2009: Alykhan Velshi, spokesman for Kenney, described the complaint filed by Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis against Kenney with the Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson as “ridiculous” and said it was “disturbing” to see a Liberal MP standing up for a group that has made anti-Semitic comments.

• March 6th 2009: "Like many Canadians, I am deeply concerned about the activities associated with 'Israeli Apartheid Week'…It is disconcerting that university student groups would promote these gatherings in a manner that demonstrates a complete disregard for the safety and security of Jewish students and professors and the general well-being of campus life…As Minister for Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, I call on all Canadians to reject anti-Semitism." –Minister Jason Kenney’s statement on Israeli Apartheid Week.

• March 7th 2009: Jason Kenney admits there is no connection between the insult and the decision to cut funding to CAF and states “When I first became Minister over 2 years ago, one of the very first things I said to my bureaucrats on the very first day in my Department of Multiculturalism was that we would not be funding groups that promote extremism, defend or apologize for terrorism or terrorist organizations and promote hatred, and as I mentioned specifically two groups: the Canadian Arab Federation and the Canadian Islamic Congress.” Jason Kenney interview from AM 770 – Alberta.

All I can say is: Jason Kenney—you rock my world!

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:19 | link | comments (1)

Kids in the U.K.: British police have identified 200 children--yes, children--who they say could be potential terrorists.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:48 | link | comments

The eyes have it: The lawyer representing the woman who is refusing to remove her niqab when she testifies in court says there’s no need for defense attorneys or the judge to glean clues from her facial expression since her eyes (the only portion of her anatomony that's visible) and voice say it all. From CTV (my bolds):

TORONTO — A court battle in which a woman is fighting for the right to wear a religious veil while testifying had lawyers arguing Friday whether the eyes and a voice are enough to assess the credibility of a witness on the stand.

The woman, an alleged sexual assault victim, wears the niqab - a Muslim veil which covers the entire face except for the eyes.

While lawyers for the men accused of assaulting the woman argue seeing her face as she testifies is a fundamental right, the woman's legal counsel says the courts routinely observe and protect religious rights.

The case, unfolding in Ontario Superior Court, is believed to be the first of its kind in Canada.

The face is needed to assess a witness' demeanour and credibility, said lawyer Jack Pinkofsky, who represents the defendants in the sexual assault case.

"You can't separate the spoken word from the face," said Pinkofsky, who argued even the twitch of an eyebrow forms part of the evidence a judge or jury can use to convict.

"The face of justice cannot be faceless."

Wearing a veil wouldn't harm the court's ability to assess the woman's demeanour because the face is only part of the equation, her lawyers said.

Tone of voice and body language are important and the eyes complete the picture, they said.

"You can read everything in the eyes. The eyes are the window to the soul," David Butt, the alleged victim's lawyer, said outside of court.

Prabhu Rajan, a lawyer for the Ontario Human Rights Commission, called the question of wearing a niqab a red herring because of the other ways defence lawyers could assess the woman's credibility as a witness.

"I question the need to see her face at all," he told the court.

To force the removal of the veil, Rajan said, would be a "substantial" interference with her religious beliefs.

"The courts should not be the arbiter of religious dogma," he said…

True enough, but here in the West, where we are not yet subject to sharia law, we have a tradition of allowing people to face their accusers—and to see their accuser’s face. What with our HRCs, though—the “quasi-judicial” system which allows accusers to remain not only faceless but also nameless, and which already hews to at least once crucial element of sharia (state censorship)—that may well change in due course. (It should come as no surprise that Commissar Hall and her provincial buddinskies are insisting on putting in their two cents’ worth, and are pulling for the chick to be allowed to keep her mask in place.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:03 | link | comments (5)

Another dysfunctional Canadian system: When the National Post had the audacity to question Canadian Arab Federation President Khaled Mouammar’s record whilst he was a Liberal-appointee to Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board (he spent 11 years there, during which time it appears he rarely if ever turned down a landsman), Mouammar raced to defend himself, the board and all the “refugees” who have garnered its approval. In a letter to the paper he fumed

To imply that I, or any IRB member, had waived through refugees who are a danger to society and do not deserve to be here is an insult to the member, to public service employees, to the Minister and to the counsel who appeared before the member, not to mention the clients who were afforded state protection and are now citizens. The National Post should be wary of making claims it cannot support, especially those that undermine Canadian institutions and individuals who serve immigrants and refugees, like the IRB and CAF.

But a lawyer I know who has represented many clients before the refugee board over the years told me that the board is “a joke.” And the commissioners, he says, fit the mould of the clueless, self-important mediocrities you’ll find on Canada’s many (14!) “human rights” commissions. (As an aside, he says the digs of Commissar Babsy Hall’s Ontario Human Rights Commission—very posh.) For example, he says there is one current refugee board member who insists on being referred to as “Dr.”, and who takes umbrage at—and will immediately correct—anyone who dares address him as plain old “Mr.” It seemed to the lawyer that this gent was a bit light in the brains department, to say the least, which made him curious to learn the name of the august institution that had granted his doctorate. Well, after a bit of digging, the lawyer discovered that the chap had, ahem, matriculated at a diploma mill, which has since gone belly up. Hence the punchline to that old Borscht Belt joke about the dentist: “To your mother you’re a doctor, to your wife you’re a doctor, to you you're a doctor, but to a doctor, you’re no doctor.”

Oh, and here’s another fascinating tidbit. The lawyer is certain that during Khaled’s time on the refugee board, he wasn’t the only Mouammar there: his wife was also a commissioner. The lawyer never had the pleasure of appearing before Mister Mouammar, but he did tangle with his Missus several times. He says she had very strict standards as to the sort of “refugee” she thought should gain entry. For instance, any time he represented a non-Muslim, it was no dice, but the one occasion he represented a Muslim from Turkey, she was so much friendlier and more amenable.

And you’ll never guess who was on the refugee board at the same time as the dynamic Mouammar duo. None other than Mrs. Harpoon Siddiqui!

So nice of the Liberals to provide gainful employment for such well-connected Muslimas, no?

Update: In an e-mail to me, Post reporter John Ivison has confirmed that the two above-mentioned wives were indeed on the refugee board at the same time as Mouammar.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:45 | link | comments (3)

Friday, 27 March 2009

Obama's foreign policy gets curiouser and curiouser: One minute he's all John 'n' Yoko, taping a video dating message for Iran's kooky nuke 'em mullahs; the next, shades of Duke Wayne by way of George Dubya, he's vowing to "get rid of al Qaeda".

What gives? Is he peacenik or cowboy, or, as my late Bubbie might have said, "nicht a hin und nicht a hair" (neither one not the other)?

Update: A Reuters analysis has a go at explaining it. Apparently,Obama is shifting away from Dubya's fixation (Reuters' word) on Iraq toward a focus on Afghanistan, since that's where most Americans think it should be. (Someone want to tell Reuters' that since "the surge" worked, there's no longer much need to "fixate" on Iraq?)

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:43 | link | comments (2)

Gee, ya think?: "Bombing of Pakistani mosque likely to further inflame the region."

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:23 | link | comments

Sense and the HRC sensibility: I have a relative I’ll call Joe. Now, Joe is a nice enough fellow—affable, outgoing—but, unfortunately, he has a significant handicap. No one has ever been able to give it a specific label—it isn’t a something “syndrome” or any kind of developmental “delay”. The best way I can think of to describe it is like this: Joe has not a whit, not a scrap, not an ounce of common sense. His complete lack of “sechel” (Yiddish for “sound judgement”) means that this otherwise intelligent chap has gone through life making one lame-ass decision after another—decisions that no one possessed of common sense would ever make, and that baffle those of us forced to bail him out whenever he makes them.

It struck me as I was reading Ezra Levant’s new book Shakedown, his damning but amusing indictment of Canada’s bizarro world “quasi-judicial system,” the HRCs, that all the “judgements” he mentions—the ruling that staff at a Vancouver McDonalds couldn’t be compelled to wash their hands (because of one female employee who complained that the soap chapped her hands; the ruling that the freakishly tall and deep-voiced transsexual must be employed as a counsellor at a rape-crisis centre, and the rest—have one thing in common (aside from having occurred in the context of Canada’s Through-the-Looking-Glass “justice” system, where everything is the polar opposite of our regular English Common Law-based justice system, I mean): they all sound like they could have been made by Joe. In fact, the next time he’s out of work, I’m going to suggest that he seriously consider a career as a human rights commissioner, because his way of thinking—i.e. his profound lack of good judgement—seems fully in synch with the “rights” types. (Just kidding, of course. The last thing Canada needs is yet another sense-challenged “rights” apparatchik. Also, since he’s not a leftist ideologue, or a woman, or a member of a visible minority, or a former president of the Canadian Arab Federation, there’s little chance he’d be considered.)

The other thing that struck me about these rulings is how inconsiderate they are of anyone else. It’s as if the person making the complaint, no matter how outlandish it is, is the only one who counts, and the impact that satisfying his gripe is likely to have on others is given far less—if any—weight. Take the case of rape crisis centre, for example. Why should the desire of a mannish-looking (and not entirely stable) transsexual to become a rape crisis counsellor trump the needs of rape victims, who, in their vulnerable and emotional condition, need to be able to talk things over with someone who doesn’t, you know, freak them out? Why should his desire (because, let’s be clear, this was a desire and not a “right”) take precedence over their needs? Isn’t that just plain rude?

In view of the fact that these HRC “Solomons” have about as much common sense as my judgement-impaired relative Joe; and since their rulings, in validating rudeness and a complete lack of consideration for others, seem to embody the worst aspects of “Me Generation” psychology (not that there are many positive ones); and given that the entire apparatus is rotten to the core and fundamentally inconsistent with a free society, there is only one thing to be done. In the words of Ezra Levant, that paragon of common sense, the St. George who is leading the charge to slay this rampaging dragon: FIRE. THEM. ALL.

On second thought, it occurs to me there is one more thing you can do: BUY. THIS. BOOK.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:44 | link | comments (2)

Thursday, 26 March 2009

Old haters, er, habits die hard: Charles “Chas” Freeman, formerly a paid shill for not one but two totalitarians nations (China and Saudi Arabia), employs a tried and true method to account for his own failure—blame it on the J-E-W-S; al Jazeera’s English division approves, (but uses an inappropriate word in its headline—where are all those former Ceeb types who first language is English and could help the Arabs with faulty usage?):

Ex-US envoy slates Israel influence

A former US ambassador has blamed conservative Israeli activists for his decision to withdraw his candidacy for a senior US intelligence post.

Charles "Chas" Freeman, told Al Jazeera's Riz Khan on Thursday that groups "closely aligned" to parties such as Likud and perhaps Yisrael Beitenu made it clear they would use his presence in the role to "discredit" US intelligence reports.

Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, withdrew his nomination for chairman of the National Intelligence Council earlier this month, saying the
pro-Israeli lobby in the US had used "despicable methods" to try to discredit him.

"In this case it was a small group of people who are closely aligned with Likud and perhaps the Yisrael Beitenu movement in Israel, the far right in Israel, who have their supporters here as well," Freeman said on Thursday.

"They took this up and essentially they created a situation in which it became apparent that my presence at the National Intelligence Council would be constantly used to denigrate its products and to discredit them.

"I concluded with Admiral Blair [Dennis Blair, director of National Intelligence] that it would be in the best interests of the council and my country for me to step down."

Benyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister-designate and leader of the Likud party, is attempting to form government that could see Avigdor Lieberman, the leader of Yisrael Beitenu, become foreign minister.

Freeman also told Al Jazeera that members of US congress had a "basic intolerance ... for any viewpoint that didn't conform to their preconceptions or policy preferences"…

And that must be because of the pernicious Jewish/Zionist/Likud lobby, and not because of Freeman’s disturbing C.V and statements, right? Oh, and back to the odd wording in the headline. “Slates”? Surely it should have been “outlines” or “details” or something like that.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:58 | link | comments

Oh, Coward: In honour of a pro-Hamas blowhard's non-appearance at a downtown Toronto chuch, I've revised one of my favourite Noel Coward numbers. If you know it, please feel free to sing along:

Don’t bring your blarney to the church, Mr. Galloway,

Don’t bring your blarney to the church.

We've had plenty of it already on the Ceeb and in the Star.

Not to mention their fuss about Hamas

And Mr. and Mrs. Arar.

There are loud louts who aren’t afraid to slam the Jews

Because it seems they still refuse to let Islam go first.

I affirm, Mr. Galloway, you worm, Mr. Galloway,

Don’t bring your blarney to the church...

Don’t bring your blarney to the church, Mr. Galloway,

Don’t bring your blarney to the church.

You’re a bit of a pudgy fascist, of that there is little doubt.

And a view of your bum in a bright red condom

Is a sight we could do without.

It’s a shrill voice, bombastic and quite demagogic,

Sounding like a rutting hog who’s been left in the lurch.

On our knees, Mr. Galloway, like dhimmis, Mr. Galloway.

Don’t bring your blarney to the church.

Don’t bring your blarney to the church, Mr. Galloway,

Don’t bring your blarney to the church.

Though they adore you up in Gaza

And Hezbollah thinks you’re swell,

The fact of it is we’re tired of your fizz

And prefer that you go to Hell.

You have big fans--Jack Layton and his missus, Chow,

But even so we must avow you really are the worst.

That's a wrap, Mr. Galloway. Crap!, Mr. Galloway.

Don’t bring your blarney to the church.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:08 | link | comments (1)

Remembering Aqsa: Aqsa Parvez, the Ontario teenager who was murdered by her father and brother in a bid to “restore” the family’s honour (which she had besmirched by acting uppity and refusing to wear a head covering to school) finally has a fitting memorial in an appropriate spot. Robert Spencer has the details (my bolds):

Some time ago, as you may recall, Pamela Geller took up a collection to provide honor killing victim Aqsa Parvez with a headstone -- at present Aqsa lies in an unmarked grave, plot #774 in Meadowvale Cemetery in Brampton, Ontario. I was honored to be able to join Pamela in this effort.

However, Aqsa's family rejected the grave marker we had offered to place at her gravesite, which only contained her name and dates and the legend "Beloved, Remembered, Free." But then the Canadian town of Pelham passed a resolution to honor Aqsa, and to stand up for victims of honor killing. And now, after craven dhimmis blocked many attempts to construct a monument for Aqsa and victims of honor killing in the U.S. or Canada, Pamela has arranged to have a grove of trees planted in American Independence Park in Jerusalem, Israel, through the Jewish National Fund. There will also be a plaque in American Independence Park, inscribed "In Loving Memory of Aqsa Parvez and All Victims of Honor Killings Worldwide." Pictures, details, and further background here. I think it is fitting that this remembrance of Aqsa should end up in Israel, a state that is on the front line of defense against the global jihad -- against, that is, the forces that wish to expand the scope and power of the Islamic laws and cultural attitudes that led to Aqsa's murder…

Hear, hear (and good on you both, Pamela and Robert).

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:18 | link | comments

Fog men: Was it the fog of war or the fog of leftism that compelled several IDF soldiers to claim that Israelis had engaged in war crimes during the Gaza incursion? Probably a bit of both, I’d wager. From the Jerusalem Post (my bolds):

Allegations that IDF soldiers deliberately shot and killed Palestinian civilians in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead have been found to be categorically untrue in official army investigations, an IDF source told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.

The source spoke on condition of anonymity because the results of the investigations have not yet been officially released to the public. He stressed, however, that the investigations were close to completion.

The investigations examined claims made by graduates of the Rabin Pre-military Academy during a conference held last month, which were later written up and printed in an academy pamphlet. Some Israeli media outlets, including Haaretz, then seized on the claims, and the allegations went on to make headlines around the world.

During the conference, one soldier claimed a marksman opened fire on a mother and two of her children, after a squadron commander told them to walk into a no-entry zone.

"All of the soldiers who were involved in the conference were questioned - not as a punishment - but in order to understand whether they had witnessed these things. From all of the testimonies we collected, we can safely conclude that the soldiers who made the claims did not witness the events they describe," the source said.

"All of it was based on rumors. In the incident of the alleged shooting of the mother and her children, what really happened was that a marksman fired a warning shot to let them know that they were entering a no-entry zone. The shot was not even fired in their general direction," the source said…

Alas, the damage has been done, as the media has been delighted to pick up this toxic football and run with it. Since the “truth” seems to matter only to those who support Israel’s right to exist—which includes Israel’s right to defend itself via its military—the harm these foolish young men have done to the IDF, the Jewish state and the Jewish people may be incalculable.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:32 | link | comments

Dueling obfuscators: The Obama administration isn’t the only one prone to employing a nifty Orwellian euphemism now and then (“man-caused disaster” for terrorism; “Overseas Contingency Operation” for the War on Terror). Iran’s supreme holy rollah is quite taken with them, too. MEMRI has a translation of the speech he gave in response to Obama’s YouTube overture in which he comes up with an inventive way of saying “tighten your belts, folks, because the country is in desperate straits due to decades of the disastrous economic policies of kooky theocrats”:

...Khamenei labeled the coming year as the "Improved Consumption Patterns Year," and called to reduce the gap between the wealthy and the poor in Iran, describing this task as "difficult but possible." He also called to fight the social and economic corruption in Iran, stating that a social model based on justice requires leaders who have vision and are faithful, courageous, and pure-hearted. He stressed that correcting the individual and collective consumption patterns of the Iranians would be a real step towards progress and justice, adding: "In light of the willingness and the sound foundation that [already] exists, the great and dear Iranian nation will turn the fourth decade of the [Islamic] Revolution [regime] into a great step and a significant leap [forward] in the journey towards realizing its original ideal of 'progress and justice.'"...

Is it just me, or does that sound a lot like something Obama would say (aside from the “Islamic Revolution” stuff, I mean)?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:12 | link | comments

How low will he go?: Iran’s holy rollahs—quel surprise—have rebuffed Obama’s friendly YouTube offer to put the past behind them and embark on a brand new day full of sunshine and flowers. As Claude Cartigenese writes in FrontPage Magazine, the mullahs have a few “modest” demands the Americans must first satisfy if they want to get on their good side. They include:

· a complete overhaul of U.S. foreign policy;

· the release of all frozen Iranian assets;

· an end to America’s “unconditional support” for Israel;

· the lifting of all U.S. sanctions against Iran;

· a U.S. apology for having organized the ousting of Iran's democratically elected government in 1953, and for other U.S. “involvements” in Iran;

· an end to America’s allegations that Iran is seeking nuclear arms;

· the cessation of “hostile propaganda” and accusatory remarks directed against Iranian leaders.

In exchange, what does Tehran offer in furtherance of better bilateral relations? Nothing. Indeed, the Iranians want all of the aforementioned changes implemented before they will even sit down…

I wouldn’t call it “nothing”. In demonstrating its total submission to the glorious Islamic revolution, America (demoted from “Great Satan” to one of the devil’s lesser minions) could be in line for the perks that go along with dhimmitude, including:

- the right to debase yourself to your superiors by paying them an exorbitant annual monetary “tribute”—the jizya;

- the right to wear funny clothes and shoes that make your inferior status instantly clear to all;

- the right to tug your forelock, and bow and scrape and grovel as you allow your betters to walk all over you.

We’ll see if that’s enough to entice Obama to embrace his inner dhimmi.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:26 | link | comments

Wednesday, 25 March 2009

History repeats: The passage below is from George Steiner’s 1965 essay, “A Kind of Survivor”:

In one of the vilest episodes in modern history, the militia and police of European appeasement and European totalitarianism collaborated in handing over Jews. The French delivered to the Gestapo those who had fled from Spain and Germany. Himmler and the G.P.U. exchanged anti-Stalinist and anti-Nazi Jews for further torture and elimination. One thinks of Walter Benjamin—one of the most brilliant representatives of radical humanism—committing suicide lest the French or Spanish border-guards hand him over to the invading S.S.; of Buber-Neumann whose widow was nearly hounded to death by Stalinist cadres inside a Nazi concentration camp; of a score of others trapped between the Nazi and the Stalinist hunter…Which bestial bargain and exchange at the frontier made eloquent the decision to hound the Jew out of European history. But also the peculiar dignity of his torment. Perhaps we can define ourselves thus: the Jews are a people whom totalitarian barbarism must choose for its hatred. (Steiner's emphasis.)

It is chilling to read these words, written so many decades ago, when once again barbaric totalitarians and their appeasers are trying to hound the Jews out of history, this time out of the history of the Middle East.

Update: We Jews like to think that the example of the Holocaust acts as a deterrent, making it far less likely that another one could ever occur. But what if we're completely wrong about that? What if, instead of it making another Shoah less likely to happen, it makes it more likely to happen, because it makes the unimaginable imaginable?

More and more that's how it's looking to me, anyway.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:30 | link | comments

As clear as mud: George Orwell, who knew a thing or two about how governments hide behind weasely euphemisms, once wrote

Political language—and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists—is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

George would have loved the Obama administration’s windy new phrase for the “Global War on Terror” (itself a euphemism for a war against violent jihadis for whom terrorism is a tactic). From now on it will now be known as the “Overseas Contingency Operation.”

Um, come again?

Update: A rhyme for the new lingo:

The “Overseas Contingency Operation”

Is a phrase that’s now sweeping the nation.

Don’t speak of “jihad”.

(To do so is bad)

Just give in to Big O’s obfuscation.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:27 | link | comments

Hamas devotees on the attack: George Galloway supporters on both sides of the 49^th are planning to raise a ruckus on their hero’s behalf. From CanWest:

OTTAWA — Supporters of British MP George Galloway are planning to lead a "solidarity caravan" early next week to the Canada-U.S. border to protest the Canadian government's decision to bar the outspoken anti-war crusader from the country.

"We will not cease and desist. We will take this right to the very end. Mr. Galloway has the right to speak in Canada," peace activist and Galloway supporter Larry Rousseau said at a news conference on the steps to Parliament on Wednesday.

Organizers say Galloway supporters are expected to give speeches on both sides of the border. Some supporters on the Canadian side are expected to cross over to greet the British MP, currently in the United States on a speaking tour.

Galloway was to hold a similar speaking tour in Canada starting Monday, but was informed last week that he would be denied entry to the country. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has refused to intervene in the case, saying he does not want to "second guess" the decision by border officials to block Galloway on national-security grounds.

But James Clark, an organizer for the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War, says the minister doesn't agree with Galloway's views.

"This represents a clear attack on free speech in Canada, on Mr. Galloway's rights to air his views, and more importantly, on the rights of Canadians to hear Mr. Galloway's views and to decide for themselves whether they support or reject them.

New Democrat MP Olivia Chow and Bloc Quebecois MP Serge Menard attended the news conference, but no Conservative or Liberal MPs were there.

The ramping-up of the pro-Galloway campaign came as lawyers for him and his supporters prepared to file a court challenge against the federal government's decision to bar the British MP from entering Canada, Canwest News Service has learned.

Galloway and his supporters will ask the Federal Court to overturn the government's decision and issue an order allowing Galloway to enter the country, a lawyer representing the group said Tuesday.

The group will argue that Canadian border officials misapplied the law in deeming Galloway to be inadmissible based on national-security grounds, said Hadayt Nazami, a lawyer at Jackman and Associates in Toronto.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, foreign nationals can be denied entry to Canada on national-security grounds for "engaging in terrorism." Galloway, an outspoken anti-war crusader and supporter of the Palestinian movement, recently led a humanitarian convoy to the Gaza Strip, where he donated money and supplies to the Hamas-led government.

Hamas is on Canada's official list of terrorist organizations, making it an offence to "contribute" to Hamas activities, even indirectly.

But Nazami said it is a "stretch" to equate Galloway's activities with terrorism. "They are, in essence, saying he's a member of Hamas and he has engaged in acts of terrorism, which is unfounded," he said. "This decision is more political than legal. It doesn't have a finding in law."

Not so much of a stretch, really:

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:31 | link |

Obama’s Catch-22: “He needs growth to fund his radical expansion of government, but is pursuing policies that will make expansion unlikely at best.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:18 | link | comments

The “useful idiot” phenomenon as it pertains to Israel and the Palestinians: The smartest move that fugly terror chief Yasser Arafat ever made was when he took the Soviets’ advice and reframed the Arab jihad against Israel as a Palestinian struggle for “national liberation.” That allowed all the soft-hearted-and-headed leftists who might have been harbouring vestigial sympathy for “David” Israel fending off attack from the Arab “Goliath” to re-jig the configuration. Henceforth, the fight was perceived as being giant, powerful Israel doing its level best to prevent the “powerless” Palestinians—a small, weak, Third World (and thus inherently virtuous) people—from realizing their dream of ending the “occupation” of their land by trespassing “Westerners.” (As an aside, it’s interesting to note that, pre-Israel, when Jews were dispersed throughout the world, they were viewed in Europe as being “Oriental”—i.e. a foreign people of the exotic east. Fast forward to our day, and the charge is that Israelis, at least half of whom have their origin in Arab/Muslim lands, are “Occidental”—i.e. a foreign people of the West. Do you get the sense that, for some people, “the Jews,” the eternal stranger, have no rightful place anywhere?)

This repositioning was a stroke of genius—for it enabled the Western left (whom Vlad Lenin rightly and memorably pegged as “useful idiots”) to sign on to the jihad project in the guise of serving justice and morality. Now, getting rid of the world’s only Jewish state could be presented not as an expression of the vast Arab/Muslim world’s desire to obliterate an uppity dhimmi enterprise (one which kept humiliating them militarily, but as a matter of trying to correct an grave wrong that had been done to Arabs, whose land had been “stolen” out from under them by rapacious “Zionists”.

It is helpful to bear all this in mind when reading this vomit-inducing article by the Toronto Star’s Antonia Zerbesias:

Kim Elliott speaks in tones so soft that it's sometimes tough to hear her.

But she uses her voice effectively, making her more courageous than many other Canadians who shout a good game about human rights and freedom of expression, but who slink away when it comes to talking the talk about Israel's invasion of Gaza.

That despite the awful allegations about Israeli army actions that started to dribble out last week: children being used as human shields, civilians being shot for not instantly obeying commands, units buying T-shirts depicting pregnant Palestinian women with targets on their bellies.

Elliott not only speaks out but, as the publisher of the online magazine Rabble.ca, walks the walk.

This month, she went all the way to and around Gaza where she, along with 59 other (mostly women) peace and human rights activists, entered at the invitation of the United Nations.

"There was this doctor we met who told us of `caged rats syndrome,'" she tells me. "It's like putting a bunch of rats in a cage and seeing what happens. It's limiting their movement and packing them in really densely so they turn on each other. They want to get out but can't. Anger just boils over."

Among her fellow sojourners are five Canadians, including Sandra Ruch, one of the Jewish women who occupied Toronto's Israeli consulate in January in protest of the invasion, as well as American author Alice Walker (The Color Purple) and Code Pink leaders Medea Benjamin and (former colonel and diplomat) Ann Wright, whose peace activism in the U.S. led to their being barred from entering Canada in 2007.

(On a side note: never in my life had I been ashamed of my country until the Stephen Harper government began to transform it into NeoConada. Last week's banning of British MP George Galloway for unspecified security reasons was just the last straw.)

The group had freedom to tour at will, Elliott insists. "We didn't have anything to do with Hamas other than that they stamped our passports. We wandered around by ourselves all night. We were safe because, as we'd heard, Hamas had so cracked down on the gangs that had started to take over."

Elliott, whose interest in the Palestinians began long ago and who has visited the Middle East many times, went to Gaza so she could bear witness to the effect of the attack and Israel's long-running siege, which strangles the movement of food, medical supplies and other necessities into Gaza.

Which is why there are tunnels from Egypt.

The media emphasize that the tunnels are used to smuggle rockets and weapons into Gaza – true – but everything from zoo animals to seedlings also move underground. Just this week, Egypt seized 560 sheep that were being herded through.

"The inhumanity of the border is, oddly enough, what left the most striking impression – more than the incredible destruction of homes," Elliott explains. "The Red Crescent Society said they need at least about 1,000 trucks a day to go through every day to properly sustain the people. On average since the siege, it's about 100 trucks. Some days, there are none. Most of what is feeding the people is going through the tunnels."

So, with all the injustices around the world, why focus on Palestinians?

"I got my human rights background at Amnesty International and, up until very recently, they wouldn't touch this issue, in Canada especially. People felt so threatened!" she says.

"So, not only were the Palestinians suffering enormous human rights abuses...but the focus of the media in disenfranchising them and the way people are attacked for working this issue motivated me."

Ah, yes: “injustice,” “seige,” “disenfranching”—hot button words for the incessantly self-righteous. I hate to break it to these useful idiots, since they're so enjoying their righteous indignation, but you, my huckleberry friends, have been scammed by masters. You are now an integral part of the Islamic annihilationist plan (a.k.a. the jihad) that is currently barrelling along to its ultimate—its horrible—conclusion.

How proud of yourselves you must be!

Update: My letter:

When I read the overwrought charges against Israel in Antonia Zerbesias’s article-- “children being used as human shields, civilians being shot for not instantly obeying commands, units buying T-shirts depicting pregnant Palestinian women with targets on their bellies”--I couldn’t help but think of Thelma Ritter’s line in the classic movie All About Eve: “What a story! Everything but the bloodhounds snappin’ at her rear end.”

It should be obvious that these utterly ridiculous tales are the blood libels of our time--the latest version of stories about Jews poisoning wells or using the blood of young Christians or Muslims to add moisture to their holiday baked good. In earlier times, such fables helped lay the groundwork for the genocide of Europe’s Jews--the Holocaust. Today, they are being used to smear the world’s only Jewish state so that its destruction can be justified on “moral” grounds.

It is shameful and irresponsible for any journalist--even one like Zerbesias, who constantly champions the Palestinian cause--to present such libels as fact.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:35 | link | comments (2)

Oh, great: Netanyahu says his government with be "a partner in peace" with the Palestinians.

Godspeed with that one, Bibi.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:53 | link | comments

Tuesday, 24 March 2009

The “root cause” of the Islamic rejection of Israel: It looks like Benjamin Netanyahu will become Israel’s next prime minister. At such a time, it’s a good idea to recall his words, spoken not long after the 9/11 attacks:

These militant Islamics don't hate America because of Israel. It's the other way around. They hate Israel because of America. They see us – by the way, correctly – as an outpost of common values, our common values of freedom. They hate that freedom. They hate our way of life. They hate our respect for individual rights, our ideas of free choice, our free society, our free press.

They think all of that is Satanic. It has to be disposed of. They call you the big Satan. We're only the little Satan. Now, they could destroy the little Satan, but it doesn't get the world dominion that they want. They want to destroy America in their mad fantasies, or at the very least, to bring it to its knees. That's why they are going to attack you again and again and again.

Much as it must be comforting to think this way, Netanyahu is dead wrong. Sure, the “militants” hate Israel because it’s an outpost of freedom in the Muslim world. But the downfall of Israeli leaders (most of whom have been secular) has always been their failure to comprehend Islam, to understand that both militant and non-militant “Islamics” hate Israel because it is Jewish, and because the existence of a liberated dhimmi state of sovereign Jews on land claimed for all time for Allah is inimical to—and irreconcilable with—Islamic beliefs.

Israel may be the “little Satan” because of its size, but “the Jews”—who long predate both America and Israel—loom huge in Islamic texts, including the Koran, fully one third of which is pre-occupied with the Jews and their Satanic evil.

For the sake of our survival, it would behove Israelis, Jews and all freedom-lovers to finally clue in to the true source of Islamic Judenhass—a hatred rooted not in Gaza, not in Israel supposedly depriving Palestinians of their “human rights,” not in Israel serving as Mini-Me to America’s Great Satan, but in core Islamic teachings.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:30 | link | comments (5)

Guilty!: That’s the verdict of a judge in the Brampton courtroom where one of the “Toronto 18” (downsized to the “Toronto 14”) was tried for his part in a massive terrorist plot. The judge ruled that the defendant—who, at the time of his arrest, was a young “revert” aged 17—was not entrapped by the Crown’s (kooky) informant (a gent paid mucho dinero for his inside info). From the Toronto Star:

Paid police mole Mubin Shailkh did not entrap a youth into an alleged homegrown terror cell, a judge ruled this afternoon in a Brampton court.

Justice John Sproat did not read out his 51-page ruling but did deliver his "bottom line ruling."

"There has not been any entrapment and there has not been any abuse of process," Sproat told the court.

"It's clear the application must be dismissed."

Shaikh's status came under unusual scrutiny, given the unprecedented nature of this landmark case involving 14 men and four youths, who were charged in the summer of 2006 with belonging to a cell plotting to detonate truck bombs.

To date, four adults and three youths have had their charges stayed. The remaining youth, who is now 21, was found guilty of terrorism-related offences in September, but his lawyers put forth a motion alleging their client was lured into the group by Shaikh and entrapped and should have his charge stayed.

Court heard that Shaikh originally worked as an agent for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, which tasked him to infiltrate the group in November 2005.

In early December, his services were transferred to the RCMP, where he initially preferred to work as an informer, rather than an agent, because he wished to remain confidential and did not want to testify.

But Shaikh eventually agreed to become a police agent and it was the timing of that transition that came under debate in these proceedings.

Court heard that Shaikh helped set up a terrorist training camp in December 2005 and took on the role of a trainer, leading military-style exercises and pushing those in attendance to work harder so they'd be selected for a second camp.

Defence counsel Mitchell Chernovsky and Faisal Mirza argued that at the time of the camp, which took place near Washago, Ont., Shaikh was acting as an agent and instigator who committed criminal acts.

By encouraging the youth to perform better during activities, training him in the use of a firearm and offering a militant view of Islam, the defence argued that Shaikh was teaching the accused teen how to be a criminal.

At the time, they say, their client was an impressionable 17-year-old convert to Islam who was desperate for acceptance and religious guidance.

But Crown prosecutors John Neander and Marco Mendicino argued that Shaikh was a confidential informer at the time, who was not tasked or given direction about what to do. He was, however, expressly told not to break the law. They say Shaikh only became an agent in February 2006.

They also portrayed Shaikh as someone who tried to moderate the tone of the camp with a speech he delivered that tempered the ringleader's jihadi rhetoric and his exhortations to destroy Rome, a reference to western nations.

Prosecutors also pointed out that Shaikh encouraged the troubled teen to return home to his parents, from whom he was estranged at the time, and encouraged him to seek guidance from knowledgeable people.

I’m glad this guy was nailed, but it still seems odd to me that Shaikh supposedly set up the training camp solely to do a “gotcha” on these jihadis. Is it possible he was into it, too, at first, but later changed his mind and decided to turn informer?

Guess we’ll never know for sure, eh?

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:18 | link | comments (2)

How the CHRC is assisting the jihad and endangering Canadians: Hands up all those who think that, given that the vast majority of terrorist acts in our time are carried out by jihadis, Canadian authorities should perhaps pay a wee bit more attention to the goings-on at radical mosques than to, say, the meetings of the Knights of Columbus.

You can put down your hands, you "Islamophobes".

According to Canada’s federal “human rights” body, the one helmed by Canada’s doyenne of state censorship, Jennifer Lynch, keeping extra tabs on members of one particular group (also known by the perjorative “racial profiling”) just won’t do in Pierre’s Trudeaupia. Here’s how the CHRC describes its newfound resolve to force police to eschew the “racist” practice:

Canadian Human Rights Commission and Canadian Race Relations Foundation urge the collection of data to address profiling

(Ottawa, March 20, 2009) – In a joint position released today, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and the Canadian Race Relations Foundation (CRRF) urged policing and security agencies to systematically collect human rights-based data as a tool to help prevent discrimination.

This position flows from a study, The Effectiveness of Profiling from a National Security Perspective, commissioned by the CHRC and CRRF and carried out by researchers from the Université de Moncton. The research concluded there is insufficient evidence to legitimize the practice of profiling and recommended more rigorous data collection to demonstrate whether or not profiling occurs.

"On the eve of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, we feel it is important to underscore the message that a democratic and pluralistic society like Canada can safeguard the security of its citizens while protecting human rights, " said Ms. Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. "Incorporating the protection of human rights into our security systems requires law enforcement and security agencies to employ accurate and reliable tools and implement proper accountability measures."

"The CRRF is pleased with its cooperation with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in sponsoring this important study on profiling," said Dr. Ayman Al-Yassini, Executive Director of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. "As the fabric of Canadian society continues to evolve, there is a need to affirm the equality of all members of society regardless of their background. We believe that profiling is inconsistent with Canadian values and commitment to human rights, openness and transparency, and that collection of human rights-related data is the first step towards effective policing and better serving our communities."…

I know I for one will sleep much better at night knowing that Canada’s police and security officials are “incorporating the protection of human rights” into their probes. And if and when some Canadian landmark goes up in smoke, or a dirty bomb explodes in downtown Toronto, we will all have the satisfaction of knowing that those who pulled off the attacks did so without being “profiled” and with their “human rights” intact. Because, hey, isn’t that what’s really important?

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:07 | link | comments (1)

Don’t know much about history: George Galloway is both confused and enraged by Canada’s refusal to allow him entry. After all, George, that champion of social justice and Palestinian “victims,” is only seeking to redress an historic wrong. As he explains to the Toronto Star (a rag that’s most receptive to his warped message),

“If someone arrived here and took our country, and drove us away, and lived in our house, and refused to allow us to return, would we resignedly shrug or would we fight for that which was ours?” he said.

“That’s what the Palestinians have done.”

I don’t know what’s more sickening—the fact that Galloway is a pompous fascist twit who’s aiding and abetting the jihad, or that he’s such a huge ignoramus.

Back to the history books for you George. Here, you might want to start with this, from Chapter 60 of Andrew Bostom’s massive work of scholarship, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemtism:

This region [“Palestine”] was not a territorial unit, nor have the Arabs ever in their history made a claim to it. Contrary to the myth that is repeated today so incessantly yet without evidence, we are talking about a region that for much more than a millennium was ruled, exploited, and devastated by alternating tribal chiefs, who were often of Turkish descent. The unbearable living conditions drove people out and made Palestine an almost empty, ruined land as the logical result of the Islamic system.

For this land, ultimately, cannot have been cultivated by Arabs, at least not by Muslim Arabs, because farming itself is not among the priorities of Islam, but only the exploitation of agriculture through taxation. Thus numerous accounts of travel in Palestine from the modern [i.e. post-Renaissance] period depicts the details of dhimmi life, namely, the cultivation of the poor land, along with the practice of trades and running of small businesses by Jews and Christians, and their exploitation by local potentates.

Repeated often enough, they myth has become accepted as history: according to it, “millions of Arabs” were driven out of Palestine, the land which for thousands of years (or, as the official version goes, “from time immemorial”) was their home. This view found its logical continuation in the subsequent refugee policies. With England’s support, an illegal yet officially tolerated immigration of Arabs was developing already during World War II, while an attempt was made by all means to prevent the immigration of Jews, who were often stopped at the borders; some of them were even sent back to Europe, where they perished in the Nazi gas chambers…

After the founding of Israel and the loss of the war waged by the Arabs in 1948, the refugee camps were preserved as human rights monuments which commemorated the Arab claim to Palestine; meanwhile every constructive solution to the situation was refused…

I know, I know. What’s the point of detailing the Arabs’ tenuous claim to “Palestine” when Islam’s position is that once a patch of land, no matter how piddly, has been claimed for Allah, there’s no going back. In other words, the sticking point, as always, is Islam’s intractable supremacism, which includes a heaping helping of Judenhass. The imagined theft of Arab land—and Palestinian “victimization” by thieving Jews—is merely the vehicle Arabs and other Muslims (including the shrieking Shias) and their useful imbeciles on the left are using to force the landscape to “revert” to its Islamic default position.

Update: Another poem for George:

They managed to send George G. all away

(Tho’ the backlash for now’s yet to fall away).

But since there’s no shutting down

This Hamas-loving clown

There'a no way we can send George’s gall away.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:06 | link | comments

Clueless in the U.K.: British authorities say that the risk of a “dirty bomb” being detonated somewhere in the U.K. is higher than ever. But don’t worry. They’re pretty sure they know what’s at the “root” of the potential bomb-droppers’ grievances. (Hint: it’s not the desire to see Islamic law prevail far and wide.) From the Evening Standard (my bolds):

THE risk of terrorists obtaining the material to mount a "dirty bomb" attack in Britain is rising, the Government claimed today.

In a report to Parliament on the current state of the terrorist threat, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith claimed an increasing amount of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear material has become available around the world and that it could fall into the hands of extremists living in Britain.

It says that some of these substances are being sold via the internet and warns that the growing supply, coupled with an existing "demand" among militants, means that new measures are needed to protect the public.

Today's report says that British extremists have sought "dirty bomb" material and suggests that they are more likely to succeed because substances are being trafficked more than ever around the world.

It also reveals increasing concern in Whitehall that sports stadiums, shopping centres, night clubs and cinemas could all be targeted in a "crowded places" attack.

There is also a claim that a potentially growing threat is posed by "self-starting" terror groups only loosely linked to al Qaeda.

The 160-page report, called Contest Two, updates a counter terrorist strategy first published in 2003. Other sections describe the current causes of radicalisation in Britain, such as the Palestinian conflict and a lack of integration among some Muslims, as well as the 20-year-old roots of Islamic extremism in this country.

It says a number of factors are driving radicalisation, including discrimination, social and political grievances, recent migration and a lack of integration into local communities.

It also sets out the principles that ministers and officials will follow in seeking to tackle such alienation and says that among them will be the promotion of "shared values" and respect for the human rights of all members of British society…

Yeah, that’ll work. (Memo to the Brits: time to ixnay the errorism-tay. Why not take a page from those smarties in America, who would refer to an exploding “dirty bomb” or the toppling of two giant office towers as a “man-caused disaster.” It makes the “self-starters” feel so much less “discriminated” against, don’t you know?)

Update: Here's a real man-caused disaster.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:22 | link | comments

Wahida’s shocking assumption: The lovely and talented Wahida Valiante, Elmo’s successor as president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, sets the, ahem, “presumptuous” National Post straight:

Re: Arab Group Risks Funding, Immigration Minister Says, March 14.

Your article attributes a statement written by me to a "Mr. Valiante."

To set the record straight, I am the national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, my name is Wahida Valiante and, perhaps shockingly to some at the National Post, I am a woman.

Wahida Valiante, Thornhill, Ont.

Um, why does she assume “some at the National Post” would be shocked by her gender? Surely the sight of a woman helming an Islamist organization would be far more shocking to, say, the Wahhabis among us.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:02 | link | comments (2)

Monday, 23 March 2009

"That's a lovely country your have there, Mr. Ayatollah. Perhaps one day Wallace and Theodore and myself could come visit": Americans thought they were electing a cool, saavy Messiah--JFK, MLK and JC rolled into one. Instead, they ended up with this guy--a major league suck-up.

Update: Leave It To Washington

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:26 | link | comments (3)

An open and shut case: At the same time that Obama was making overtures to totalitarians intent on obliterating the Jewish state (because its existence is irreconcilable with Islam, and because they want their occluded Messiah to come out, come out, wherever he is) he was slamming the door on Israel. Melanie Phillips writes

While giving Iran its most important asset -- time -- to enable it to reach the finishing line and develop the nuclear weapons with which it intends to destroy Israel, Obama's policy towards Israel is also undermining Israel's ability to defend itself against that genocidal goal. More and more people are now coming to realise what I have been saying throughout: that he is an enemy of America’s only true ally in the Middle East.

This is obvious through the Israel-bashers and Jew-haters with whom he has surrounded himself, aided and abetted by new realist appeasers and (often Jewish) useful idiots on the left within his administration, all of whom are intent upon pursuing with far greater ferocity the change in strategy towards Israel that was already apparent when George W Bush became fatally weakened -- forcing Israel to sacrifice its security, all for the illusory goal of a Palestine state that would almost certainly become yet another proxy for Iran and which, far from helping defang the Middle East, would result instead in regional instability and a yet more terrible war.

If anyone was in any doubt that Washington had now turned against Jerusalem and was intent on appeasing Iran, they were disabused in the starkest terms by the fact that when Israel’s Chief of the Defence Staff Gabi Ashkenazi went last week to brief the US government on Iran’s nuclear programme, he failed to gain access to any US Cabinet member including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, while his counterpart, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also found he had a pressing prior engagement.

Barack Hussein Obama—feh!

Update: Claudia Rosett comments on Obama's deranged happy hopey outreach shtick (my bolds):

Scarcely did we have time to absorb the full import of Barack Obama becoming — in the portentous phrase that has been all over the news — “the first sitting president to appear on the Jay Leno show.” And now here he is in a White House video wishing happy new year to “the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Maybe President Obama should have put the two together, and wished Iran happy new year, or Nowruz, from the set of the Jay Leno show instead of the White House. At least that might have left the mullahs wondering if this was just some oddball American attempt at humor.

As it is, Obama has just presented himself as the personification of Hillary’s toy “Reset” button, given to Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov earlier this month. That has almost certainly provided the Russians with a few chuckles — and not just because of the mistranslation that went with it.

Seriously, as foreign policy, Obama’s latest is not only nuts, but dangerous. Obama speaks as if he were campaigning in Peoria. The cadences are those of the Hope-and-Change stump: “The promise of a new day, the promise of opportunity for our children, security for our families, progress for our communities, and peace between nations…shared hopes… common dreams.”

Had Obama limited his salutation to the people of Iran, fair enough. But he blew right past them when he also addressed “the leaders” — who are apparently to be included in the new Iranian happy land he envisions. How does that compute? The folks ruling Iran are not exactly leaders. They are messianic and ruthless rulers. They are subscribers to a totalitarian system that leads the world in juvenile executions. They train and support terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which teach children to aspire to the “opportunity” to become suicide bombers. Their idea of peace and community progress does not extend to a world in which anyone disagrees with their edicts...

This is what "the leaders" Obama is kissing up to do to homosexuals:

Does Obama seriously believe that "leaders" who could do such a hideous thing to young boys (these two "swingers" were teens when they were murdered by the state) are amenable to his happy hopeychange? If so, he is the most delusional American president--and quite possibly the most delusional American politician, and perhaps even the most delusional American--in history.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:59 | link | comments

The fallout from the Galloway ban: In verse, with links:

George G.’s “banning” has folks hopping mad.

They say nixing his “freedom” is bad.

“He’s a hero,” they glower.

“He speaks truth to power.”

Re a Quisling who helps the jihad.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:34 | link | comments (1)

Druggies: The Taliban and Hezbollah both depend on revenues from the drug trade to keep their jihad up and raging.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:56 | link | comments

Guess who?: Well, the Iranians may not be too thrilled about Obama's new kid glove approach, but one of the mullahs' lackeys is sure delighted.

Way to go, O!

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:41 | link | comments

No taxpayer shekels for Arabs hate-mongers: A Calgary Herald editorial approves of the government withholding funds from the CAF:

It is only common sense that granting taxpayers' money to groups that promote or apologize for terrorists is insupportable madness.

Yet, with Canada's ethnic politics, such things have happened. Politicians eager to purchase support in cultural enclaves have occasionally assisted unworthy, even illegal causes. And somehow once the Canadian Arab Federation began receiving federal grants, it was treated as a birthright.

In the current year, the CAF has had $447,000 of taxpayers' money, ostensibly to run English-language classes for new immigrants.Yet whatever good it did is set at naught because its leaders, including incumbent Khaled Mouammar, showed egregious disrespect for the very Canadian values of inclusiveness and decency that made granting programs for cultural groups a priority in the first place.

Now, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has put a stop to it: the CAF is off the list as of March 31, and Ottawa has begun a review of grant recipients to ensure similar hatefulness elsewhere receives no public support.

Good.

The CAF was not always the pawn of men who loved terrorists and hated Israel. Noted Canadian Muslim commentator Tarek Fatah recalls it as a once "great Canadian institution built as a meeting place for Canadian Arabs of all political and racial hues," whose honours he was delighted to receive as recently as 2001.

However, under Mouammar's leadership, the group has lobbied Ottawa on behalf of terrorist entities Hamas and Hezbollah, condemned the Israeli army as a terrorist organization, and defended the circulation of a flyer during the Liberal leadership campaign in which Bob Rae's Jewish wife was the subject of a vicious personal attack.

And a few weeks ago, Mouammar condemned Kenney as a "professional whore."

That is not why Kenney stopped their funding. A hardcore free-speecher, he takes no personal offence to this bluster, remarking only that an organization aspiring to teach English should recognize the redundancy contained in the phrase.

The CAF has been cut off and deserves to be cut off because in identifying with terrorist groups, it stands shoulder-to-shoulder with those who believe the state of Israel has no right to exist, and who are prepared to maim and kill until they prevail. We would not support the Aryan Nations; neither should we give the credibility of state funding to such as these.

Perhaps there may be a role for the CAF in the future, but first it must return to its roots.

That means serious housecleaning, and permanently separating itself from harbingers of hate.

What, no more Zionhass? But what would they do for fun?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:36 | link | comments

Obama's confounding mixed message: He grovels to the likes of the Grand Ayatollah, but is set on fighting in Afghanistan? Anyone other than me and Marty Peretz see a contradiction there?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:24 | link | comments

Gender apartheid in Wahhabiland: They’ve encased them in heavy black shouds. They’ve barred them from driving. They’re prohibited them from going anywhere in public without a close male relative. Now they want to prevent them from appearing in the media.

Welcome to the wacky world of Saudi misogyny. From AOL News:

A group of hard-line Saudi clerics urged the kingdom's new information minister to ban women from appearing on TV or in newspapers and magazines.

In a statement, the 35 clergymen also called on Abdel Aziz Khoja, who was appointed by King Abdullah February 14 as part of a wide reform drive, to prohibit the playing of music and music shows on television.

"We have great hope that this media reform will be accomplished by you," said the statement. "We have noticed how well-rooted perversity is in the Ministry of Information and Culture, in television, radio, press, culture clubs and the book fair."

The clerics' recommendation will probably have little effect because the king's reshuffle removed a number of hard-line figures and is believed to be part of an effort to weaken the influence of conservatives in this devout desert kingdom.

Like that’s going to work.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:11 | link | comments

Your morning smile: A letter in the Windsor Star avers that Canada's Obama is--wait for it--Taliban Jack Layton.

Surely he's more like Canada's Galloway, no?

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:50 | link | comments

Sunday, 22 March 2009

How to get chicks really hot: An Egyptian gent gives author Paul Theroux some insight into female sexuality, as recounted in Theroux’s 2003 book Dark Star Safari: Overland from Cairo to Cape Town:

A pretty Egyptian woman, traveling with an old woman who might have been her mother, sat in the seat across the aisle.

“Egyptian women very sexy,” Ihab said in a confiding whisper, his mouth full of saliva. He shifted, canting his body toward me so the woman would not hear, and said, “She cut.”

I had a good idea of what he meant, but pretended I didn’t so he would have to explain. This he did, first making a specific hand gesture, inserting a clitoral thumb between two labial fingers.

“She cut here,” he said, slicing at his thumb with his free hand.

“Painful,” I said.

“No bain! She small—leetle. One week, one month maximum, she cut.”

Infant clitoridectomies were new to me but much on the mind of feminists in the West and the women’s movement in Egypt as well. I asked the obvious question: What’s the point?

“Better for her—make her more sexy,” Ihab said. “If she cut, she like sex all day.”

This conceit, echoed by many other men I met on my trip, went against all medical evidence and was a bit like saying that sex for a man was more fun when his goolies had been snipped off. I also heard the opposite and more believable reason: it dulled the woman’s pleasure and made her faithful. Ihab was so rhapsodic on the subject he had begun to raise his voice, and I feared the women might hear and be offended.

“A woman who cut like this, you touch her,”—he grazed my leg with his knuuckles—“she get so excited.”

“Imagine that.”

“American woman, no. But in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi, woman who cut, they get so excited if you just touch something.” He smiled at me. “Touch feenga. Touch skeen.”

He showed me his hand and made the gesture again with his fingers.

“When you blay in zees blace,” he said, emphasizing his thumb, “she go crazy.”

You don’t say. Funny how “cutting” has never caught on among us hyper-sexed kafirs. But who knows? In the fullness of time, maybe one day the whole world could become a clitoris-free zone, as, generally speaking, the Arab Middle East is now.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:37 | link | comments

‘Splaining the lefts’ masochistic mindset: In a fairly lengthy piece in the New English Review, the great Ibn Warraq dissects the left’s alarming affection for totalitarians and moral relativism. Here’s a snippet, to whet your appetite:

…One survivor of the Holocaust was asked what lesson he had learned from his experience of the 1940s in Germany replied, “If someone tells you that he intends to kill you, believe him." [36] Unfortunately, many liberals, lefitists, and humanists, even after September 11 have yet to learn this lesson. One may note here that many leftists are not just self-critical they are inverted nationalists. They identify with their nations' enemies just as Whig radicals empathized with Napoleon, Kim Philby and his cohorts made the Soviet Union their adopted homeland, and the hard left Israeli academic Ilan Pappe identifies with Hezbollah.

It is instructive to note what the two groups of apologists of Islam I have singled out for discussion, the Christians and Western Leftists, have in common. Both have recourse to cultural relativism to justify their inaction, both share an unwillingness to confront reality or even to deny it, and a willingness to blame Western civilization, institutions and values.

As James Burnham wrote, "For Western civilization in the present condition of the world, the most important practical consequence of the guilt encysted in the liberal ideology and psyche is this: that the liberal, and the group, nation or civilization infected by liberal doctrines and values, are morally disarmed before those whom the liberal regards as less well off than himself". [37]

On the world stage, this attitude leads to selective indignation. Burnham was talking about the period leading up to 1964, but little has changed. The Left refuses to criticize the murders committed by Islamists in Algeria where more than a hundred thousand Algerians have been killed by other Algerians, or the massacres of Christians and African Muslims by the Arab Muslim forces of the Islamic government of the Sudan, and of course, the never-ending killings in Iran.

"The guilt of the liberal is insatiable. He deserves, by his own judgement, to be kicked, slapped and spat on for his infinite crimes," wrote Burnham in 1964.[38] Instead of moral outrage at the atrocities of the Islamic terrorists in September, 2001, we have the attitude well-summed up by Nick Cohen as "Kill Us, We Deserve It", the title of a chapter in his book, What's Left. How Liberals Lost their Way, published in 2007…

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:03 | link | comments

A glorious thing to behold: Victor Davis Hanson, righteously indignant, and on a tear:

…We also are wearied by a certain crassness in American society in ways we have not seen before—or at least since the mid-19th century. Sorry, I don’t want my President joshing about the Special Olympics on Leno. I don’t want him on Leno at all in his perpetual PR mode. I don’t want him drawing out his picks for the final four on TV. I don’t want him paid for rewriting/revising/ condensing/whatever his earlier book while he’s supposed to be President, or ribbing Gordon Brown about his tennis game in patronizing fashion, or giving the British a pack of un-viewable DVDs after they, in exchange, offered a tasteful gift of historic importance.

I was always an advocate of informality, of casualness, but now when on a plane, in a restaurant, at Starbucks, I am struck by the rare well-dressed person who does not crowd. How odd the extra-polite woman, who conducts herself with charm and grace at the counter, or the gentleman who opens doors, says excuse me, and whose intelligent conversation I enjoy listening in on—like a dew drop to someone thirsting in the desert. In contrast, when the punk walks by, with radio blaring, mumbling obscenities, flashing the ‘I’ll kill you’ stare,” it all leaves me in depression.

Worse still, on the opposite end of the scale, is the master of the universe who elbows his way onto a plane while he blares on the telephone and blocks the aisle. I feel creepy after walking through an electronics store and seeing some of the video game titles and covers.

In short, I don’t want to hear any more Viagra or Cialis ads, no more douche commercials—please no more talking heads about penises that are enlarging, hardening, stimulated on the public air waves.

The sum of these foul parts is smothering us. I don’t want to know that there is a new sex clinic opening in Fresno, or hear another ad about how I can skip out on my credit card debt, or that some sort of food is stuck to my intestinal walls like spackle and paste unless I buy some gut cleansing product.

At some point, we need to say enough is enough, and try to find some sense of honor and decorum in these times of crisis. My god, the entire country has become some sort of Rousseauian nightmare, as if the Berkeley Free Speech Area circa 1970 is now the public domain, as if the culture of the Folsom cell block is now the national ethos…

A Rousseauian nightmare, indeed—and the ignoble savages are running the joint.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:08 | link | comments

And speaking of a fine “bromance”…: The long-standing love affair between an Official Jew and a bespoke Islamist appears to have run into a bit of a snag. Oh, sure, when the subject was their mutual regard for state censorship via HRCs or for a wacky Wahhabi king’s Bamboozle the Jews “twinning” scam, it was all “I love you, man.” But when the object of the Jew’s affection couldn’t keep a lid on his flagrant Zionhass, the Jew felt compelled to draw the line. Here’s his "Dear Harpoon" letter in the Islamist’s rag:

Haroon Siddiqui has applauded the extremely small number of Canadian Jews who have broken from the mainstream of our community to attack Israel and, more specifically, Zionism itself.

But while he apparently lauds this tiny group of Canadian Jews who relish their role as anti-Zionists, he fails to explain to his readers one pertinent fact. The "combative declaration" issued last week by 160 Jewish Canadians includes the ongoing calumny of an alleged Jewish conspiracy. According to this fringe group, "... B'nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress has led campaigns to silence criticism of Israel on university campuses, in labour unions and in other groups. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff unquestioningly echo the views of these particular Jewish organizations."

While Canadian Jewish Congress proudly wears its love and support for the Jewish state for all to see, the allegations that governments and society in general do our bidding is a stark reminder of historical poisons uttered in the past against Jews.

Bernie M. Farber, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Jewish Congress

Guess that means Harpoon receiving this year’s Saul Hayes Human Rights Award is out of the question.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:41 | link | comments (3)

A Fine Bromance: The latest Judd Apatow-like comedy opened this past Friday. It features leader of the free world Barack Obama as Bud, a friendly American looking to expand his circle of friends to include some more Muslims. In a naked bid to hook up with Al, a kooky Shia cleric played by the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, Bud uploads a video of himself to YouTube. When Al, who hosts a "Death to America" barbecue in his backyard every year, tells Bud to take a hike, Ronny, Bud's intense Jewish pal (played by White House chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel) tries to set his friend staight: "He's just not that into you, man," explains Ronny, "But he might be if you offer to help him get rid of that Zionist "cancer".

In a subplot, Shelley (Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi) is looking to hook up with Al, too, and tries "sexting" him. By accident, she sends the message to Bud's Blackberry, where it is intercepted by Midge (Michelle Obama), Bud's wife, who freaks out and breaks all the new White House china...Rated PG-13, with brief toplessness (by that sexy minx, Pelosi) and lots of bleeped out swearing (by the potty-mouthed Emmanuel).

Update: Bud's love song to Al:

A fine bromance, with no conditions.

A fine bromance, with smooth transitions.

You used to think of us as a great big Satan

But now we vow to drop our imperious dominatin’.

A fine bromance, we’re much nicer.

A fine bromance, we’ll pay your price. Er,

You want us to kick the Zionists in the pants?

They haven’t got a chance.

This is a fine bromance.

A fine romance, I’m so humble.

I take romance, you still grumble.

I’m searching for a way

To display my devotion.

How low will you make me go

To evoke your warm emotion?

A fine bromance, you’ve gone fission.

A fine bromace--s'what I’m wishin’.

Do you think your Mahdi’s returing post haste, perchance?

I’d never look askance.

This is a fine bromance.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:27 | link | comments

Saturday, 21 March 2009

Stickless and stoneless: William Kristol, like me, is disgusted by Obama’s sniveling YouTube performance:

"Liberty" isn't a word you'll find in President Obama's Iranian New Year message to "the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran." Nor is "freedom." Nor "democracy." Nor "human rights."

Nor will you find any expression of solidarity with the people of Iran--though you'll find plenty of solicitude for their rulers. The president bends over backwards to reassure the mullahs that our government wishes them well.

You'll find a paragraph addressed to "the people and leaders of Iran," as if the people and leaders were in harmony, and shared a need to be reassured that we seek "a future with . . . greater opportunities for partnership and commerce."

You'll find two paragraphs devoted to speaking directly to Iran's leaders. Obama reassures them of his commitment to diplomacy, and to an engagement grounded in "mutual respect." Of course expressions of respect for the people of Iran are nothing new--President Bush reiterated our respect for the people of Iran many times, including a year ago on the occasion of Nowruz, as they call their New Year. No, what's distinctive about Obama's statement is his respect for the "leaders," the clerical dictatorship.

Indeed, "the United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations." Note: "the Islamic Republic of Iran." Does Obama routinely refer to Pakistan as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, its formal name? Of course not. But Obama goes out of his way to mention (twice) "the Islamic Republic of Iran." He's kowtowing to a regime that is anything but republican, implicitly forswearing any plan--any hope--of regime change to free the Iranian people.

Now it's true that Obama's message isn't all sweetness and light. He does urge upon Iran the realization that it cannot take "its rightful place in the community of nations" unless it assumes its "real responsibilities" and realizes "that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions." That's vague enough to be nonthreatening--which is good, because Obama believes the process of building "constructive ties among the United States, Iran, and the international community . . . will not be advanced by threats."

So there's no reiteration of the demand--heretofore the position not just of the United States but of its European allies--that Iran stop its program for developing nuclear weapons in return for such constructive ties. After all, to demand a stop to the program is implicitly to threaten that there might be consequences if the program isn't stopped--and Obama doesn't believe in threats. He believes that we should speak nicely to our enemies, and carry no stick…

No stones, either.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:23 | link | comments (1)

My neologism/acronym: Announcing a new name for the self-loathing Jews--Noam, Naomi, Norman, Avi, Abe, Jason, etc., etc., etc.--who are serving as the handmaidens for Israel's destruction, the final Final Solution. I call them JuJis--the Jihad's useful Jewish idiots.

Feel free to borrow it whenever you'd like.

JujyFruit.jpg Jujy Fruit image by eram100

Update: JuJis and other lefties are selfless humanitarians who long only to redress
social wrongs and defend the defenceless against the grasping imperialist hegemon, right?

Well, not exactly. As Jamie Glazov, author of a new book exploring the left’s
pathologies, tells Phyllis Chesler, something else is afoot.

My book is written to expose the Left. I wish for United in Hate to help rip the mask off of the Left – the mask that helps leftists pretend that they are humanitarians who care about social justice. But they couldn’t care less about social justice. If they did, they would be screaming with moral indignation in the streets in defense of the victims of honor killings behind the Islamic Iron Curtain. They would be outraged at ideologies and systems that impose forced segregation and forced marriage and forced veiling on women. They would be engaged in mass demonstrations against the reality that 6,000 girls a day are genitally mutilated in the Muslim world and they would demand a denunciation of the Islamic teachings and ideologies that engender that holocaust against women.

If leftists cared about real actual people and real actual human rights, the name Aasiya Hassan would be constantly on their lips. She is the Muslim woman who was recently beheaded by her husband Muzzammil Hassan in Buffalo. Where is the Left in its demand for an international investigation of this crime? Where are the Women’s Studies Departments all across American campuses calling for committees and government and non-government bodies to immediately launch investigations into what Islamic theologies inspired and sanctioned this beheading? Where are their cries that such theologies be immediately repudiated and brought to account?

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:25 | link | comments

Au contraire, Barry: The happy hopeychanger is under the impression that there is such a thing as "moderate" Taliban. The Taliban beg to differ.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:15 | link | comments

A query for the happy Hopeychanger-in-Chief: What part of "Death to America" don't you understand?

Update: A query for Americans--aren't you mortified by the YouTube diplomacy of the hapless weenie you put in office for at least four years?

Update: Another query for Obama--did you really think a nation that celebrates an annual "Death to America Day" would succumb to your video-taped blandishments? Are you certain that's only nicotine you're smoking?

Update: Hey, hey, ho, ho, Satan Great has got to go...

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:52 | link | comments

Hateful creativity: I am in awe of the seemingly endless inventiveness of the Jew-hater. For instance, this writer insists that "Little Jason Kenney roars for (the) Likud lobby in Galloway ban."

I've heard of the Israel lobby and the Jewish lobby, but the Likud lobby? That's a new one on me.

Also--have you seen Jason Kenney? Dainty he ain't-y.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:47 | link | comments

“It’s our Al-Quds”; “No, it’s our Al-Quds”: Fatah and Hamas both tried to declare Jerusalem (a city never mentioned by name in the Koran) as the “Arab cultural capital”. Guess what happened next. From Xinhua:

GAZA, March 21 (Xinhua) -- Jerusalem's title of the rotating Arab cultural capital has been tarnished as the split between Hamas and Fatah went beyond politics and Israel banned Palestinians' celebrations in the holy city.

The Fatah-dominated Palestinian National Authority (PNA) launched a series of activities to celebrate Arab culture ministers' nomination of Jerusalem as the Capital of Arab Culture for 2009 in West Bank that it controls, but failed to hold any event in Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip and the Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem.

Two weeks ago, Hamas' deposed government of Gaza has launched its own version of celebrations with different slogans and logos for the same event.

Nemer Hammad, an aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, accused Hamas of "preventing the organization of the festival in Gaza Strip."

"Unfortunately, the block by Hamas coincides with Israel's decision to ban the celebration of the event in Jerusalem," Hammad added.

But Salah al-Bardaweel, a Hamas lawmaker, slammed Hammad's statement. "We did not hear that Fatah wanted to stage a festival in Gaza Strip on this occasion."

"It seems that Nemer Hammad has also forgotten that Gaza government had staged and launched this festival days ago," al-Bardaweel added.

He recalled that Hamas has asked the PNA to talk on this issue in order to come out with a united festival "but this request was turned down."

Bardaweel also recalled that the PNA and Fatah "prevent Hamas from carrying out any activity in West Bank."

On Saturday afternoon, Abbas would launch the celebrations that are originally scheduled to take place in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Gaza Strip, Nazareth and Mar Elias Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon.

But Israel beefed up security in Jerusalem to prevent the celebrations and arrested several PNA officials who are based there. It also bans the event in Nazareth, the largest Arab city in the Jewish state.

The world wants to take away the Jews’ state and give it to these Bozos (for the sake of “justice” for Palestinian “victims,” of course, not because the world hates Jews). Does anyone doubt that these two couldn’t run a hot dog cart together, much less a nation? But then, the real goal isn’t to establish Palestinian sovereignty (an obvious non-starter). It’s to oust (raus) the Jews.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:00 | link | comments

Arabs for anarchy: In its most recent event-packed weekly bulletin, the Canadian Arab Federation, which used to feed off the taxpayers’ teat until that unfortunate imbroglio with “professional whore” Jason Kenney, pimps for anarchy:

5-Montreal's 10th Annual Anarchist Bookfair, MAY 16-17, 2009, Montreal

The Montreal Anarchist Bookfair -- and month-long Festival of Anarchy -- brings together anarchist ideas and practice, through words, images, music, theatre and day-to-day struggles for justice, dignity and collective liberation. The Bookfair is organized in a spirit of openness towards the different traditions, visions, and practices of anarchism. Together we share a commitment to promoting anarchism through the values of mutual aid, grassroots democracy, direct action, autonomy and solidarity, while opposing oppression in all its forms. The Bookfair principles are linked here: http://www.anarchistbookfair.ca/en/node/4...

I can see why Islamists would want to hook up with anarchists. Anarchy in our parts would provide a convenient opening for “orderly” sharia to swoop in and take over. And the anarchists, useful dupes of the jihad that they are, don't even realize that they'd be among the first to be jettisoned by their former compadres, as happened in Iran to the “leftists” when Khomeini came to power.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:36 | link | comments

Three guys named Mo*: Diana West introduces us to the Islamists heading up the Sharia wing of the U.S. government’s mega-bailout recipient/recently purchased insurance company AIG. They’re the ones ensuring that all the shekels that flow through their division are kosher, so to speak:

Meet Moe, Larry and Curly. I mean, Mohamed, Muhammad, and Mohammed.* As members of the AIG Takaful Shariah Advisory Board, they really work for you and me, the American taxpayer, ever since we the people bought an 80 percent stake in the bankrupt insurance company.

How's that for bait and switch? While we agonize over chump-change AIG bonuses, we ignore the fact we're paying for the subversion of liberty and justice for all by funding AIG's promotion and entrenchment of sharia--Jew-, Christian-, and humanist-hostile supremacist Islamic law. As of December 2008, by the way, AIG Takaful insurance products went on sale in the USA under the ironically named Lexington Takaful Solutions.

Lexington, Lexington--wasn't that where our experiment in liberty began with the shot heard round the world? Must have been a dream. At this rate, Lexington will go down in history as the beachhead of US taxpayer-funded sharia. From "taxation without representation" to taxation to support sharia: How the free have enslaved themselves.

But back to the Sharia team on Uncle Sam's payroll.

Mohamed #1 is Mohamed Ali Elgari, born Makkah, Saudi Arabia. The AIG Takaful website boasts that he's the winner of "the Islamic Development Bank prize in Islamic Banking and Finance for the year 1424H."

1424H? That's 2004 for infidels. (Do the Islamic math here.)

Someday, we'll consider Elgari's career trajectory typical. That is, where once our elites went from say, Groton to Yale College to Harvard Law School, now, pace Elgari, they go from from King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia to the OIC to Harvard Law School.

There, not far from the statue of John Harvard, the crews rowing on the Charles, and, of course, Harvard Yard, the Saudi sits on "the advisory board of Harvard Series in Islamic Law."

In other words, the cancerous advance of sharia into our institutional organs has already reached a critical stage.

Read about the rest of AIG's Sharia Team here....

*Actually, one of them is named Nazim, but “Two Guys Named Mo and One Named Nazim” doesn’t have nearly the same oomph.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:08 | link | comments

Big splash in Afghanistan: As if making a YouTube video to try to connect with deranged, triumphalist mullahs wasn’t loopy enough, the gormless leader of the free world is also encouraging Afghanistan’s president to “negotiate” with “moderate” elements of the Taliban under the auspices of—wait for it—the wacky Wahhabi potentate. (Well, he did facilitate that Abrahamic weekend of “twinning” that Bernie was so keen about.)

It’s official: the madness of the world has jumped the shark. From the Ceeb:

Afghanistan's top Muslim clerics urged President Hamid Karzai on Friday to push ahead with a proposal for talks with the Taliban that would be mediated by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah.

Calls for negotiations between Afghanistan's government and the Taliban have been mounting as the militant group has stepped up attacks in recent years despite efforts to defeat them by Afghan and international forces.

U.S. President Barack Obama has urged the Afghan government to encourage moderate elements of the Taliban to reconcile with the government, and Karzai has repeatedly said he is open to talks with top Taliban leaders, but has made few apparent moves to start such a process.

However, Karzai has previously asked King Abdullah to facilitate contacts with the Taliban. Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief met with top officials in Afghanistan in January in a move seen by many as part of a quiet effort to open a line of communication.

The leaders of Afghanistan's powerful Muslim clerics' council pressed Karzai in a meeting Friday to push the talks forward, said Faiz Mohammad, a council member from Kunduz province. They proposed a meeting that would include government and Taliban representatives as well as former jihadi leaders, other prominent Afghans and representatives of neighbouring countries, Mohammad said.

Karzai's office issued a statement summarizing the meeting, without saying whether it would take any action.

"The government is working for permanent peace with all its power," the statement said…

“Peace” in the Islamic sense, that is—the “peace” that will be in place once God’s law is the law.

Oh, wait. That’s already the case in Afghanistan, whose constitution hews to the sharia. So what’s left to discuss?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:40 | link | comments

Protocols of the Elders of Up-the-Wazooistan: Some tribal mucky-mucks are trying to spring ex-Bev. From the Globe and Mail:

BANNU, PAKISTAN — Elders in Pakistan's lawless tribal region are negotiating with Taliban militants for the release of a Canadian woman threatened with beheading, according to a tribesman in the region.

“Two tribal elders are in talks between the local government and the Taliban,” local tribesman Amer Jan said by telephone from the rugged area.

The news comes a day after The Globe and Mail received a video of Beverly Giesbrecht, 52, pleading with authorities in Canada and Pakistan to do something to save her life, saying her captors have told her they will cut off her head if their demands aren't met by March 31. They have asked for $375,000 (U.S.) for her release.

“The matter will be settled, but secretly,” Mr. Jan said.

When contacted, one of the elders involved in negotiations asked that their identity not be revealed, and said they are not authorized to talk until a deal has been reached. But he did acknowledge that he was shuttling between the parties involved.

Neither Pakistani authorities nor the Canadian embassy responded to requests for comment on the news of the negotiations…

I thought the captors were demanding $2 mill. Guess the price has been slashed since no kafirs seemed to be racing to ex-Bev’s rescue.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:14 | link | comments

By Jimminy: Further to my thoughts about Obama “Petering out,” Michael Wolff seems to be on the same wavelength. To add injury to insult, though, Wolff throws in a comparison to a certain unbearably earnest Georgian:

Sheesh, the guy is Jimmy Carter.

That homespun bowling crap on Jay Leno, followed by the turgid, teachy fiscal policy lecture, together with the hurt defensiveness (and bad script for it) that everybody in Washington "is Simon Cowell… Everybody's got an opinion," is pure I’m-in-over-my-head stuff. Even the idea of having to go on Jay Leno to rescue yourself from the AIG mess is lame. Be a man, man.

The guy just doesn’t know what to say. He can’t connect. Emotions are here, he’s over there. He can’t get the words to match the situation.

This began, I’d argue, from the first moment. He punted on the inaugural. Everybody ran around like crazy trying to praise it because if Barack Obama couldn’t give a speech then what?

But now, at week 11, we’re face-to-face with the reality, the man can’t talk worth a damn.

You can see the fundamental mistake he’s making. Having been so successfully elected, he’s acting like people actually want to hear what he thinks. He’s the great earnest bore at the dinner party. Instead of singing for his supper, he’s just talking—and going on at length. The real job of making people part of the story you’re telling, of having them hang on your every word, of getting the tone and detail right, the hard job of holding a conversation, he ain’t doing.

He’s cold; he’s prickly; he’s uncomfortable; he’s not funny; and he’s getting awfully tedious.

He thinks it’s all about him. That we want him for himself—that he doesn’t have to seduce, charm, surprise, show some skin.

So Jimmy…

So true.

Update: Rex Murphy on Showbama:

...And where is Barack Obama in all this. Well, Mr. Obama is acting curiously. He doesn't so much preside over the crisis as act like America's chosen master of ceremonies, who appears on stage to introduce its component segments. Good patter, well-chosen appearances. There's no centre to his performance. We hear as much about the First Dog (chosen, but yet to be installed) as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner (installed, but yet to act).

Mr. Obama drops in to everyday events more than he actually manages them. He's very cool, as always, but he lacks affect. He doesn't seem to connect with the great swirl of events around him. He shows up. He doesn't act. He likes to tour, and visit happy places. He was, for example, on Jay Leno this week. If things get really bad, I expect he'd take the centre seat of that dread couch on The View. Chat up Joy and Whoopi. The President of the United States as permanent celebrity guest. And if things go completely berserk, there'll be a Barbara Walters special, the President emoting to Babs, sandwiched between teary featurettes on OctoMom and Lindsay Lohan.

The American presidency as a four-year celebrity guest spot. "Say hello to the band, Mr. President."...

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:03 | link | comments

Appeasers on the precipice: If there is a more imbecilic, clueless, useless group of weenie appeasers than the denizens of Turtle Bay, one would be hard pressed to find them. At the moment, the “realists” are waiting for some sort of sign—a smoke signal, perhaps?—that the mullahs have taken in the Great Santa’s (ho, ho, ho—I just realized those two were anagrams) YouTube message, and are willing to, you know, let bygones be bygones.

Hey, it worked for Neville Chamberlain, right? VOA has the ghastly details:

The State Department said Friday U.S. officials are looking for a reciprocal gesture from Iran after President Barack Obama's conciliatory holiday message to the Iranian people and government Thursday. Mr. Obama said in a broadcast for the Iranian new year holiday Nowruz that the United States wants "honest engagement" with Tehran based on mutual respect.

State Department officials say the broadcast overture by the President is only one of several gestures planned by the administration to back up its expressed interest in better relations with Iran. And they say they're hopeful Iran will at some point respond in a similar fashion so that the two countries - without formal relations for three decades - can open a real dialogue.

At a news briefing, State Department acting spokesman Robert Wood said that the crux of the President's message was that despite the serious differences that have marred the relationship over time, the Obama administration is committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues with Tehran.

Senior Iranian leaders have not given any direct response but Wood signaled patience, saying the process is at an early stage.

"We're at the beginning of this process," he said. "The President has made it clear we're going to engage diplomatically with Iran. We intend to do that. It will be up to the Iranians how they want to reciprocate."

"But I also want to emphasize we still have some very difficult issues that divide us. And what the President has said is that we want to work with Iran on trying to deal with these differences. We're willing to diplomatically engage. It's really going to be up to Iran," he added.

Wood said the problem issues in the relationship include Iranian threats toward Israel and other countries in the region and its nuclear program, which U.S. officials believe is weapons-related despite statements from Tehran that it is for peaceful purposes only.

The administration is continuing a wide-ranging review of policy toward Iran in furtherance of President Obama's assertion shortly after taking office that he is ready to extend a hand of peace to Iran if that country "unclenched its fist."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has welcomed expected Iranian participation in a ministerial-level conference on Afghanistan at the end of this month at the Hague, though officials here have said there are no plans for the secretary to formally meet with the Iranian delegates there.

Say your prayers, Western civ. The gormless leader of the free world is preparing to throw mama from the train.

And now, the comedic stylings of Sir Noel Coward, with a song to speed us on our journey to oblivion.

Update: Oh, say can you see—quicker’n you can say Barack Hussein Obama, Great Santa has his reply (from VOA again)

Iran's supreme leader is dismissing calls from U.S. President Barack Obama for a "new beginning" in relations between the two countries.

Speaking in the holy city of Mashhad Saturday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that, despite Mr. Obama's words, he sees no change in U.S. policy toward Iran…

Translation: “There hasn’t been nearly enough grovelling, oh gormless one.”

Update: Khamenei sings.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:50 | link | comments

Friday, 20 March 2009

Galloway went thataway: Odious British MP George Galloway, friend to the jihad, had been hoping to regale Toronto's Hamas devotees with the story of one pudgy fascist's erotic journey from Milan to Minsk, er, Kandahar to Gaza. Sadly for him, the Harper government has told him that his absence is requested due to his presence being viewed as a secuity risk.

Kudos to the Harper Tories (and in particular "professional whore" Jason Kenney) for having the cojones to stand up to this creep, and for making it clear that his kind is not welcome here.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:03 | link | comments

Petering out: As I was watching Obama manifest major sturm und drang und bombast re the AIG bonuses—bonuses which his administration ensured would come to pass, since Senator Chris Dodd wrote them into the hilariously misnamed “stimulus” package—I was struck by an insight: Obama is an exception to the Peter Principle. In case you don’t recollect it, the principle states that, in a hierarchy, individuals rise to the level of their incompetence. Obama, I’d say, was probably a fairly competent “community organizer”—whatever that is—and reached his level of incompetence back in the Senate (where he voted “present” more often than not). Now he’s Commander in Chief, the leader of the free world, and it’s plain to see the poor man is flailing. He’s punching way above his weight (so to speak), and it looks like he may be going down for the count.

The only reason he can sound even marginally on top of things is because he is quite possibly the most adept teleprompter-reader in the world. Take away his electronic cue cards, though, and he can come down with a terrible case of foot in mouth disease—viz the off-the-cuff Special Olympics bowling “witticism” on last night’s Leno.

My laugh of the day was this exchange between Mark Steyn and Hugh Hewitt about Obama’s dependence on the teleprompter, and what often happens when he can’t avail himself of it:

HH: Well, here’s what happens when he goes off prompter. Today, in Costa Mesa, he’s talking about AIG, cut number one:

BHO: Even though it makes you angry because you’re thinking I was responsible, and these folks are irresponsible, and somehow I’m paying for them, it was the right thing to do to step in. The same is true with AIG. It was the right thing to do to step in. Here is the problem. It’s almost like they’ve got, they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up, but you’ve got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger.

MS: (laughing)

BHO: We’ve got to, over the next several months…

MS: (laughing)

BHO: …come up with a plan that separates out the bad assets, the loans that shouldn’t have been made, these credit default swaps, et cetera. We’ve got to separate out some of those from the good assets, because there are a lot of very healthy banks, the vast majority of banks are healthy…

MS: (laughing)

HH: Mark Steyn?

MS: Well, I see now there was a reason why he’s decided he’s not calling people at Gitmo enemy combatants.

HH: (laughing) He’d call them bankers.

Stop it you two, you’re killing me.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:47 | link | comments

CAF chief hits back: In a letter to the National Post, the beleaguered bully-in-chief of the Canadian Arab Federation, an organization in the forefront of slandering the Jewish state in order to justify its demise, defends his record with the Immigration and Refugee Board:

Recent articles in the National Post have called for an investigation into my work history on the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). This is unfortunate as the National Post missed an opportunity to inform its readers as to how this important Canadian institution actually works.

The articles implied that my solidarity, as president of the Canadian Arab Federation (CAF), with the struggle of the Palestinian people for self-determination, and opposition to Israel's violations of international and humanitarian law, disqualified me from presiding over and objectively judging refugee claims from the Middle East.

What the articles failed to mention is that every case that comes before the IRB is decided fairly on its own merits, with the input of many individuals. A Refugee Protection Officer (RPO), who is a public service employee of the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, researches the claim in full and is regularly present at hearings to pose questions to the refugee claimant. The RPO is also responsble (sic) to ask the minister to intervene in cases where criminality (such as terrorism) is an issue and to request the minister to appeal a questionable decision by any member.

Moreover, if a lawyer has any doubt about the integrity of a member's decisions, he/she has an obligation under the Law Society to uphold the administration of justice and to inform the tribunal of its binding responsibility to uphold national security. In short, it is incumbent on all participants in the hearing to ensure the integrity of the refugee determination process.

Given his status as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the involvement of Jason Kenney in a distasteful attack on my character is both regretful and disturbing. Smearing the refugee determination process to score partisan points, by accusing the Liberal government of having operated a biased and faulty system, is irresponsible. Attempting to gain the support of Canadians by pitting long-time citizens against refugees is unacceptable and not befitting of an Immigration Minister.

Khaled Mouammar, national president, Canadian Arab Federation, Toronto.

To be clear, during his time as a gatekeeper, Moammar reportedly never encountered a Middle East “refugee” who failed to pass muster. If you were an Arab from, say, “Palestine” or Algeria or Syria, and you drew Mouammar as your commissioner, it was like winning the “Get into Canada Free” lottery. He’s right to say that that (i.e. an Arab who supports the jihad against Israel being given leave for 11 years to greenlight Middle East “refugees”) constitutes a grave insult—but not to him, or his august co-commissioners or all the “new citizens” who benefitted from his largesse. It’s an insult—an outrageous affront—to the intelligence of the Canadian people.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:39 | link | comments

Travails of a Wii fanatic: A former “refugee” from Egypt named Mohamed Zeki Mahjoub, an associate of one Osama bin Laden, had not been enjoying his stay at the Ottawa pokey affectionately known as Guantanamo North. After a great deal of concerted kvetching, including hunger strikes and the like, the terror suspect was allowed to return home (home to his wife and kiddies that is, not home to Egypt, since it was feared he’d face torture there). Alas, the stringent terms of his “house arrest”--"no Wii for thee"--were not to his liking either, and he persuaded a judge to let him return to jail. The lesson here, as an editorial in the Globe and Mail points out: alleged terrorists can be prima donnas—and major pains in the butt:

…This is surely one of the strangest cases in the international terror file. First, this bin Laden associate obtains refugee status. (He neglected to mention the bin Laden connection.) Later, a judge declares him a threat to Canada's security, on the basis that he was probably a member of Islamist terror groups in Egypt. He is difficult to deport because of the possibility of torture in Egypt. During his 6 ½ years in jail, he tries three times for release on bail. He also mounts hunger strikes over his treatment. Finally, Canada's courts lose the stomach to hold foreign terror suspects indefinitely, and he is released. Free at last.

But bail came with a set of conditions. He was essentially housebound - though he could go out with his wife or stepson, after seeking permission. He could be alone at home during the day - but not with his young children. He couldn't use the Internet (hence the confiscation of the Wii, which had an Internet connection). His mail was photocopied by the state.

When Mr. Justice Richard Mosley ordered Mr. Mahjoub released two years ago, he did not say he wasn't a risk to Canada's security. Far from it. He said the risk exists, but could be controlled by strict conditions amounting to house arrest. Apparently Mr. Mahjoub thought that meant complete freedom. Some people are hard to please.

Indeed. You think we could get him to go back to Egypt if we tell him the prisons now have Wii?

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:03 | link | comments

His mouth runneth over: Speaking of Obama on Leno—it seems that even a really smart ex-community organizer/son of God can have occasion to trip over his tongue a la “dumb” Dubya. From the CSM :

...In a lighthearted conversation, President Obama told Jay Leno that he recently bowled a 129 at the White House bowling alley.

“Very good,” Leno said sarcastically.

“It was like Special Olympics or something,” Obama replied.

Realizing the potential magnitude of the mistake, the White House addressed the president’s remark to reporters aboard Air Force One.

“The President made an offhand remark making fun of his own bowling that was in no way intended to disparage the Special Olympics,” Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton told reporters. “He thinks that the Special Olympics are a wonderful program that gives an opportunity to shine to people with disabilities from around the world.”

I don’t know what’s funnier—that Obama goofed up, or the Obama flack’s excruciatingly p.c. “apology” for it.

No contest—the flack wins.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:28 | link | comments (2)

Not-so-Great-Satan: What a busy guy is the Prez these days—a veritable whirligig of hyper-activity. There he is in Washington, justifying the claw-back of AIG bonuses when, without skipping a beat, he shows up in L.A. to josh and chuckle and kick back with Leno. And, oh lookee here, he’s taped a video in which, yet again, he endeavours to “reach out” to the good people of Iran and the wretched totalitarians who have a hammerlock on the place. Let’s see how that last one’s working out (from the Guardian—with the most puke-inducing portions bolded by moi):

…In the video, which was shown on a number of TV networks in the Middle East, Obama said he wanted to "speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran" to make clear his desire to establish "constructive ties" between the two countries.

"My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us," the president said. Strikingly, though, he mentioned none of them: not Iran's nuclear programme, its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, nor its profound hostility to Israel.

The timing and format of the TV broadcast, with Farsi subtitles, emphasised its broad appeal – to an entire country at a time of traditional celebration rather than solely to a government whose internal complexities compound the difficulty for US policymakers.

"For nearly three decades relations between our nations have been strained," Obama reminded his audience. "But at this holiday we are reminded of the common humanity that binds us together."

The message for Iran's leaders at this "season of new beginnings" was a reprise of the approach he signalled in his inaugural address: commitment to engagement – and in an emollient tone that again contrasted sharply with that of George Bush, who included the Islamic Republic in his "axis of evil".

"This process will not be advanced by threats," the president said, hinting perhaps that Americans as well as Iranians needed to take that lesson on board. "We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect."

Despite avoiding the tangled nuclear dossier – specifically Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment – Obama did warn that "terror and arms" did not sit well with the "real responsibilities" that went with Iran's "rightful place in the community of nations"…

Wouldn’t you love to be a fly on the wall at the Ayatollah’s digs? Can’t you just hear
him and Ahmadinejad chortling with wicked glee about this ridiculous naif, this pathetic
excuse for a Great Satan, and how they, the righteous ones, the summoners of the
Mahdi, are going to have no problemo chewing him up and spitting him out?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:47 | link | comments (2)

Unspun and undone: I’m trying to summon up some sympathy for Khadija Abdul Qahaar (a name that reminds me of on old song). Khadija is a Canadian woman being held by non-moderate Taliban, who are promising to treat her—a true believer—like any old Polish kafir, and sever her noggin from her neck. The reason why the warm feelings are slow in coming: in her former incarnation, she was a West Vancouver chick named Bev Giesbrecht. Khadija is the name she chose upon ‘reverting’ to Islam not long after 9/11. Ex-Bev/Khadija, who embraced her new faith with great zeal, to say the least, started a website—Jihad Unspun—which is devoted to shilling for Islam and slandering “Zionism”. But that wasn’t enough for our Khadija. She wanted to get her hands dirty in the rough and tumble of darkest Pakistan. Bad move. The Taliban scooped her up, and she’s been enjoying the hospitality of real unspun jihadis ever since.

There’s a certain grim poetic justice in that, I’d say.

Here’s the National Post’s account of ex-Bev’s current predicament, which, unless an exorbitant ransom is coughed up pronto, is likely to include a rendezvous with a Taliban, er, un-header:

A Canadian woman being held hostage in northern Pakistan says her captors are planning to behead her at the end of the month if a $2-million ransom is not paid.

In a video provided to a Toronto newspaper Web site, a pale and haggard-looking Khadija Abdul Qahaar, 52, begins to cry as she says her "time is very short and my life is going to end.

"I'm going to be killed, as you can see," Ms. Qahaar says on the video, pointing at a long knife hanging behind her.

"I'm going to be beheaded just like the Polish engineer, probably by the end of the month. The deadline is by the end of March."

Polish geologist Piotr Stanczak was beheaded by a Pakistani Taliban group on Feb. 7, 2009.

In a shaky voice, Ms. Qahaar said she is being held by the Taliban "someplace near the Afghan border in either Pakistan or Afghanistan. I'm not quite sure where I am."

"A previous video has been made and distributed to my embassy, the Pakistan government, to various different NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and groups in order to try to get the demands that they're making met.

"Unfortunately nothing has happened."

The former West Vancouver resident was kidnapped in November along with three guides while travelling to record video.

Ms. Qahaar, who changed her name from Beverly Giesbrecht after converting to Islam in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, is the owner and publisher of a controversial pro-Islamic Web magazine called Jihad Unspun, which is registered to a West Vancouver address.

Ms. Qahaar's Web site was criticized by the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, which flagged it as "a Canadian pro-terrorist website."

Lisa Monette, a spokeswoman for the Department of Foreign Affairs, told Canwest News Service last night that officials were "aware of this video, but we have no further comment."

Shortly after the tape was released, the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression said those holding Ms. Qahaar were demanding a ransom of $2-million.

"It is apparent that the kidnappers are increasing the pressure to get ransom money for her release," said group president Arnold Amber in a release.

Ms. Qahaar had been visiting the tribal regions of Pakistan near the Afghan border, collecting material for a documentary for the Al-Jazeera network at the time of her kidnapping, the group said in a statement.

The group said it is "extremely concerned by the lack of progress in both this kidnapping case, and the Somali case in which Canadian journalist Amanda Lindhout and Australian journalist Nigel Brennan remain in captivity after almost seven months."

Jihad Unspun, which has been publishing Mideast news since 2002, posted a note on its Web site.

"With almost no resources, this tiny but remarkable woman raised the bar for courageous reporting," it says. "She knew that her integrity would be attacked by both sides.

"Her primary goal is independent journalism that provides an alternate voice to Western media. She was aware of the risks involved in her latest journey, but had faith in those who were supposed to protect her."

She had faith in the jihad. That was her undoing.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:11 | link | comments (2)

Thursday, 19 March 2009

Hickory dickory Falk/The capo began to squawk/"The Jews are Nazis/Hamas, the patsies"/Hickory, dickory Falk: Richard Falk, a Jew, is UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories. In that capacity it is Dick’s duty to act as capo for the UN/OIC diplomatic jihad against the Jewish state, a job he performs with exceptional dedication and elan, as is evident from this Reuters report:

GENEVA, March 19 (Reuters) - A United Nations human rights investigator said on Thursday that Israel's massive military assault on densely populated Gaza appeared to constitute a grave war crime.

Richard Falk, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, said the Geneva Conventions required warring forces to distinguish between military targets and surrounding civilians.

"If it is not possible to do so, then launching the attacks is inherently unlawful and would seem to constitute a war crime of the greatest magnitude under international law," Falk said.

"On the basis of the preliminary evidence available, there is reason to reach this conclusion," he wrote in an annual report submitted to the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Falk gave the same death toll from Israel's offensive -- 1,434 Palestinians, including 960 civilians -- as the Palestinian human rights center.

Israel, which lost 13 people during the war, disputes the figures and has accused Hamas militants in Gaza of using civilians as human shields during the conflict.

Falk called for an independent experts group to be set up to probe possible war crimes committed by both Israeli forces and Hamas.

Violations included Israel's alleged "targeting of schools, mosques and ambulances" during the Dec. 27-Jan. 18 offensive and its use of weapons including white phosphorus, as well as Hamas firing of rockets at civilian targets in southern Israel.

Falk said that Israel's blockade of the coastal strip of 1.5 million people violated the Geneva Conventions, which he said suggested further war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.

The aggression was not legally justified and may represent a "crime against peace" -- a principle established at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi criminals, according to the American law professor who serves as the Human Rights Council's independent investigator.

He further suggested that the Security Council might set up an ad hoc criminal tribunal to establish accountability for war crimes in Gaza, noting Israel has not signed the Rome statutes establishing the International Criminal Court.

As for Hamas’s genuine war crimes—purposely putting women and kiddies in harm’s way; summarily executing members of rival Fatah—well, let’s just say that for obvious reasons that’s not one of Dickie boy’s priorities.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:34 | link | comments (2)

Buh bye "roadmaps" and "peace processes": Hello, "conflict management". An idea whose time came quite a while ago, but which we are getting to only now.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:28 | link | comments

To err is Zionist; to be Judenrein is sublime: The Toronto Star’s resident shill for the Islamist agenda is delighted to report that, despite the Harper government’s refusal to fall in line with the Judenreiners' jihad against the Jews, Canadians are finding ways to get around the official recalcitrance. Ever the triumphalist, Harpoon crows that the jihad (tarted up in the brilliant disguise of “social justice” and “human rights”) is still all systems go:

…In Canada, Gaza energized the pro-peace camp and breathed new life into this month's Israeli Apartheid Week on university campuses.

Despite the political and media establishment's consistent efforts at censoring or suppressing criticism of Israel and demonizing its critics, many Canadians are finding ways to have their voices heard. They are going beyond street marches to Barack Obama-like grassroots mobilizing through Web networking, seminars and teach-ins with prominent speakers.

This emerging movement is increasingly multi-ethnic, multilingual and multi-faith, motivated mainly by secular, humanitarian and human rights concerns.

In January, more than 80 professors and other staff at Quebec universities and colleges placed an ad in Le Devoir, criticizing Harper for condemning "Hamas, an elected government, as a terrorist organization yet consistently supporting Israel, which has used weapons causing mass destruction on a mainly civilian population, including attacks on children and schools."

A Feb. 18 open letter, signed by more than 350 professors from 40 universities across Canada under the banner F4P (Faculty for Palestine), defended freedom of speech and assembly on campuses.

Alan Sears, professor of sociology at Ryerson University, said the signatories wanted to "defend the right of people to hold and speak during Apartheid Week, even if they themselves wouldn't use that term."

He was gratified that "the university administrators, to their credit, didn't buckle."

A combative declaration was issued last week by 160 Jewish Canadians, including Anton Kuerti, Ursula Franklin, Naomi Klein, Meyer Brownstone (recipient of the Pearson Peace Medal) and Judith Deutsch, president of the Canadian group, Science for Peace.

"We are appalled by recent attempts ... to silence protest against Israel. We are alarmed by the escalation of fear tactics (which) bring the anti-Communist terror of the 1950s vividly to mind."

But both Deutsch and Sears say they feel far less lonely these days than they used to.

"There has been a real shift over the last few years where being a marginalized troublemaker is less marginalized and more acceptable," Sears said.

That seems in tune with broad Canadian sentiment. The annual BBC World Service Poll, based on interviews with 13,500 people in 21 countries and released last month, showed that while Germany and Canada enjoyed the highest ratings, the three most negatively rated countries were Iran, Israel and Pakistan.

While Iran had the poorest average rating (55 per cent), Israel was seen negatively in the largest number of countries – 19 out of 21.

Israel's rating: on average, 21 per cent positive, 51 per cent negative. In Canada, the breakdown in attitudes toward Israel was 28 per cent positive, 52 per cent negative.

And that was before Gaza.

Hip, hip hurray! The Big Lies have gained traction! The madness is spreading like wildfire! And in no time at all that international embarrassment, that sole impediment to global perfection, will be toast. The only question now: who gets to inflict the coup de grace—the “socially just” internationalists, through their “diplomacy” and boycott/divest/sanction schemes, or the mad, Mahdi-minded mullahs, with a nuke?

Stay tuned for Israel Gets Its Comeuppance (alternate title: Genocide Now) coming soon to an insane little blue planet near you.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:46 | link | comments (1)

Jason vs. the Jew-haters: “Professional whore” Jason Kenney (his CAF designation), Canada's Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, says there’s no reason why the government should have to foot the bill for ‘anti-Semitic’ Islamists. From the National Post:

TORONTO -- As part of a "zero tolerance approach towards anti-Semitism," the federal government is reviewing all its public service grants to remove state support from groups that advocate hatred or express support for terrorism.

"We are just at the beginning of the process of trying to formalize and operationalize that principle. In my department, we will be engaged in a cross-government process," Jason Kenney, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, told an audience on Wednesday at the University of Toronto, co-hosted by the campus Hillel and Conservative Party clubs.

He said Ottawa is looking to Britain as an example, citing the "really robust" community outreach programs that were developed in the Home Office after the London Underground bombings of 2005.

"Unfortunately, the federal government is a huge, complicated machine," he said.

You know, it's over $200-billion budget, hundreds of thousands of people, and sometimes not everyone gets the message," Mr. Kenney said. "I think there is a tendency to be a little bit naive in Canada. We're so self-congratulatory about the success of our model of pluralism and diversity that surely no one could really mean ill in Canada. ... We don't necessarily all subscribe to Canadian values, and we should be willing to recognize those that don't."

He gave the example of discovering last year that the Canadian Islamic Congress had been providing sensitivity training sessions to the Canadian Air Transportation Security Authority.

"No comment," he said. "They're no longer doing that."

Referring particularly to the CIC and the Canadian Arab Federation, he described the targets of the funding review as groups with "no real constituency. They have an e-mail account. They have a fax machine. And they have a blowhard who's willing to get on television and say the most audacious things that attract media attention. We, as a government, should not give them additional credibility."...

Indeed. Particularly since they get all the credibility they need from the Liberals, the NDP, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the CBC, the Toronto Star and the rotters of academe.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:59 | link | comments

Shades of genocide: A professor at Tel Aviv U, an expert on Iran and its history, told a lunchtime audience in Toronto last week that, despite reports to the contrary, the situation in Iran is not “black and white.” Why, there are plenty of liberal young’uns—“youths”—who despise the mullahs, and who, just you wait and see, any day now, maybe even a week next Tuesday, could yet rise up and challenge them. (Of course, that’s unlikely to happen anytime soon, what with Obama determined to hold a “dialogue” with the Shia theocrats--a dialogue of which the professor does not disapprove. Also, the merest hint of any involvement in sedition, and a “youth” would get whisked off to an Iranian jail, never to return--ed.) And we here in North America should not require Israel to fight on the frontline of the jihad. (Even though, by virtue of geography, that’s where Israel happens to be situated--ed.). So knock it off, already, Diaspora Jews, with calls for a pre-emptive Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities--at least while Obama holds his “discussions” and Iran's liberals keep on "burgeoning".

Now, I’m no learned professor, and as it’s been pointed out to me, I have no right to judge since I’m not sending my kid into battle. I’m merely a “righteous” (i.e. self-righteous) Canadian blabbermouth who knows her Shia eschatology (i.e. that the extinction of the Jews goes hand-in-hand with the return of the long-occluded 12^th imam, the Shia messiah), and who understands that the majority of a population doesn’t have to be onside with a genocidal agenda for the genocidaires running the joint to have their way (viz Germany post-1933).

So while the professor may see the situation as being nuanced and chock full of shades of grey, it seems to me that “black and white” exactly describes it. The black: Israel can be a sitting duck and wait to hit by a Shia nuke (because make no mistake, it’s a-coming). The white: Israel can refuse to be a sitting duck, and take steps to neutralize the nuke before it strikes. Alternatively, Jews could get the hell out of the line of fire, although, as happened during the 1930s, Jewish "refugees" are likely to have a hard time finding countries willing to take them in, especially during economic hard times (shades of the dirty Thirties again), and especially since they would number in the multi-millions.

Sorry, but that’s how this “righteous,” judgemental, colour-blind Diaspora Jew sees it.

Update: More words of wisdom from the sage professor, as reported by the Jewish Tribune’s Atara Beck (my bolds):

TORONTO – At a business lunch lecture sponsored by Speakers Action Group and Tel Aviv University, Dr. David Menashri, one of the world’s foremost authorities on Iran, told a packed boardroom at Fogler, Rubinoff LLP that “if you want to weaken Iran, solve the Arab-Israeli problem.”

According to Ted Belman, editor of the online blog Israpundit, “Iran won’t let Israel solve the problem. It was a simplistic statement coming from an academic sophisticate. Iran is also giving trouble in Iraq. He’s coming from the left, with illusions.”

Pointing to a profound fear of Hamas and Hezbollah – Iran’s proxies – shared by countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, and acknowledging Iran’s combination of nuclear capability and radical ideology, Menashri suggested there should be a Middle-Eastern-made, rather than an Israeli-made, solution to the Iranian nuclear threat. “We are all facing a common enemy,” he said. “What about the Saudis? What about the Turks? They are also afraid.”

Challenged regarding Israel’s uniquely dangerous predicament vis-a-vis Iran, particularly in light of its geographic location, he declared:

“It’s very easy to preach in Canada to go to war. It’s my children in the army, not yours.”

Menashri expressed strong resentment of any comparison of today’s political situation to the pre-Holocaust period.

He stated his position in favour of dialogue with Iran and opined that pressure – both economic and moral –should be applied.

“I think dialogue is important, although I don’t think it will solve anything,” he said. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that the longer the world waits, the stronger Iran’s nuclear capabilities will be.

Concerning the most recent Israeli election, he said a new government wouldn’t make much difference vis-a-vis Iran if it doesn’t include Labour and Kadima. He also expressed deep admiration for former Israeli prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Rabin, who made profound compromises in negotiating with the Palestinians.

The lecture was informative in terms of the situation of the Iranian people. A foremost expert on the history and politics of Iran, he was a student there during the last two years of the Shah’s oppressive rule.

“The roots of the [1979] revolution were not Islamic, but it’s the result,” Menashri explained, and he quoted a leading Ayatollah who declared that there is no mercy in Islam…

The roots were not Islamic? What were they then—Episcopalian?

I hate to say it, but this prof, with his love of “profound compromises” (as if that ever brought Israel anything other than false hope, profound heartache, and two intifadas) is a complete dolt.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:22 | link | comments (1)

Mythical creatures: Sasquatch. Nessie. Moderate Taliban.

Update: This one (which I've posted before) goes out with hugs 'n' stuff to a "dolittle" hopeychanger, currently off on a wild goose chase in pursuit of the fantastical and the non-existent:

If we could talk to the Taliban,

Just imagine it,

Chatting with jihadis in Pashto.

Imagine intellectual wrangles,

Discussing all the angles.

Who knows just how far it all could go?

If we could talk to the Taliban,

To the ‘moderates,’

Find a way to ‘moderate’ their game.

They could read stuff from the Koran,

You know it won’t be borin’.

In essence, isn’t everyone the same?

We could converse with clerics who despise us,

And they would curse our presence in their land.

If they should ask, “Do you like the caliphate?”

Say for the helluvit, “It’s grand!”

If we could talk to the Taliban,

Open up that door,

Think of all the thing we could discuss.

If we could talk to the Taliban,

Flock to the Taliban,

Honk and squeak and squawk to the Taliban,

No way they’ll talk to us.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:13 | link | comments (1)

Bad paintings of the happy hopeychanger: This one's my fave. Check out some more here:

Barack Obama has swallowed the White House

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:07 | link | comments

Wednesday, 18 March 2009

Seeing things: Modern. Moderate. Forward-looking. Progressive. According to a (delusional) Saudi Arabian governor, that definitely describes Wahhabi Islam. From Arab News (my bolds):

JEDDAH: Makkah Gov. Prince Khaled Al-Faisal yesterday denounced propaganda by certain westernized Muslims that Islam and Islamic values are the reason for the backwardness of the community.

“Islam, on the contrary, is a religion of progress, civilization, justice, equality and freedom,” the governor told students and faculty members of King Abdulaziz University while giving a lecture on Saudi moderation.

“A Saudi youth nowadays finds himself caught between two forms of extremism — each ideology tries to take him to its side leaving him confused and in need of knowing who he is and what his culture stands for,” he said.

“Moderation is the way of life of a progressive Arab Muslim. Society in this country firmly and confidently says ‘no’ to extremism and westernization and ‘yes’ to moderation in thinking, politics, economics and culture,” he said.

Prince Khaled also announced a plan to establish an academic chair — entitled Al-Faisal Chair for Deepening Saudi Moderation — at the university.

The governor’s lecture was followed by a question and answer session. “We are in a quick information age; information is now vast, fast and accessible to anyone ... the world now seems small in this era of information,” he said.

The lecture was part of a series of meetings and discussions that Prince Khaled has been holding on a regular basis since the start of the year. He explained how Saudi moderation overcame and defeated extremist ideologies since the time of King Abdul Aziz, the founder of Saudi Arabia.

Prince Khaled has broached the idea of establishing a cultural council in Makkah province to serve as one of various development mechanisms, particularly to promote moderate thinking.

Prince Khaled dwelt on the basic principles that mould the character of the people of Saudi Arabia. These principles, he said, did not come from the Kingdom’s oil wealth but from Islam.

He said one of the most important aspects of reformation programs in the region was to not just build on the character of individuals but society as a whole.

In other words, a “holistic” approach. (I once heard former Canadian Islamic Congress chief Mo Elmasry use “holistic” to describe the Islamic way of life. So much earthier and more crunchy granola-sounding, I thought, than that unappealing synonym for "holistic": totalitarian.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:30 | link | comments (1)

Checkpoint chicanery: An alumnus of Queen’s University I know who gives a substantial (well, substantial to him, anyway) donation to his alma mater every year was concerned after reading this in the Canadian Jewish News (my bolds):

…Meanwhile, Josh Zelikovitz, president of Hillel at Queen’s, said he is communicating with his school’s administration about students’ complaints.

“An issue we’ve been having is with professors setting up fake checkpoints outside of their classrooms at the request of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights [SPHR] and forcing the students to go through these. We’ve been speaking to the university about this,” Zelikovitz said.

He said that in one instance, students didn’t have the option of not going to their Gender and Diversity class, because there was an assignment due that day.

“Once inside, students had a 25-minute presentation from SPHR, a slide show that was obviously completely one-sided and the professor discussed it for a while after.

Patrick Deane, Queen’s vice-principal academic, said “students have the right to attend class without restraints, and they also have the right to choose whether or not they take part in any political debate, presentation, or enactment.

“It has been stressed to all faculty that there must be no coercion and no impediment to free access. We have clearly stated that it must be made clear to all that this is an illustration, and students must not feel that that they are obliged to pass through a ‘checkpoint’ if they do not wish to do so.”…

The alumnus phoned Queen’s and spoke to a senior member of the administration. “If you don’t mind me asking, what is the ethnic background of the professors mentioned in the CJN article, the ones making students go through simulated checkpoints?”

Anyone care to hazard a guess about that one? I’ll give you a hint. They are neither Buddhist, nor Wiccan, nor Seventh Day Adventist.

Nor Muslim.

They are—as I am sure you have probably figured out by now—Jews.

For once I am at a loss for words.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:43 | link | comments (2)

Sinister Zionist cabal scores another victory: Who’s to blame for the Ceeb’s drastic cutbacks? A commenter on the Ceeb’s message board claims to know:

The neo con's hate the CBC because it's the only media in Canada that reports the news without a right wing spin. If the CBC is forced to make cuts it will be easier for the Conservatives to spread their disinformation. Sad.
CTV is nothing but Fox News in disguise.

Speaking as one of “the neo con’s” I’d like to point out that the Ceeb is only one of many, many Canadian media outlets (including CTV, whose Gaza coverage was appallingly one-sided in favour of Hamas) that report the news without a right wing spin. But if you want to blame the Ceeb’s sorry financial state on us “neo con’s,” I think I can see where you’re coming from.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:10 | link | comments

Dirty double dealers do a diplomatic tap dance: In the wake of Obama’s apparent rejection of Durban II (he left the door open to going, should the unabashed Judenhass be removed from the agenda), the organizers of the fetid fête have been forced to do damage control. They are now scrambling to keep the fête afloat, employing their most creative diplomatic bafflegab to mask their true intentions (which is akin to putting a mask on Godzilla and calling him Snow White). Anne Bayefsky (in JWR) says it won’t wash:

Under the growing threat of a boycott by the United States and European countries, negotiators planning the U.N.'s Durban II "anti-racism" conference made a new move in Geneva Tuesday. They released a modified version of a draft declaration that is expected to be adopted at the April melee. The draft jettisons much of the extra baggage Islamic states had piled on throughout the 10-month drafting process (for the sole purpose of "compromising" at the end). The improvements, however, do not meet the minimal conditions that the Obama administration delineated for U.S. participation. It is time to end the equivocation and get out.

Durban II represents a global showdown on the ideological battlefield between Democrats and anti-Democrats, between tolerance and intolerance. For years, the worst abusers of human rights have commandeered U.N. vehicles to trample rights and freedoms. Given the close relationship between spewing hatred and reaping violence — which the first Durban Declaration adopted on Sept. 8, 2001, made abundantly clear — the stakes are high.

Two weeks ago, the Obama administration set out four conditions for U.S. participation in Durban II. The new version of the Durban II declaration must be: "shorter," "not reaffirm in toto the flawed 2001 Durban Declaration," "not single out any one country or conflict" and "not embrace the troubling concept of "defamation of religion." On some of these counts, the document makes substantial changes. It is somewhat shorter, removes grotesque allegations like calling Israel an apartheid state and deletes the words "defamation of religions."

But most important, it refuses to disavow the 2001 Declaration. On the contrary, it "Reaffirms the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) as it was adopted at the World Conference against Racism ... in 2001." That declaration says Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism — with Israel the only U.N. state found guilty of racism. And though today's draft divides provisions into the negotiable and non-negotiable, it announces that reaffirming Durban I is text which does not "remain to be negotiated."

This "new and improved" document, therefore, breaches President Obama's key conditions. It "reaffirms in toto the flawed 2001 Durban Declaration." In so doing, it does not satisfy the demand that no country or conflict be singled out. Unsurprisingly, behind the scenes, Palestinian negotiators in Geneva are expressing satisfaction with today's result.

For Americans, to reaffirm the Durban Declaration is to affirm precisely what our government rejected on Sept. 4, 2001, when the United States — led by Congressman and Holocaust survivor Tom Lantos — walked out from Durban I in disgust…

Disgust is the only sane response to this jihad against the Jews, this final Final Solution, masquerading as concern for “racism” and “human rights”.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:27 | link | comments

Old Smokey: The other day in the Globe and Mail, the behijabbed Sheema Khan, the Globe’s ebullient resident Islamist, wrote that young chicks can excel at math and stuff if only they set their minds to it. When I read her words my reaction was, “Hmm, looks like old Sheema realizes that Islam’s misogyny is its Achilles heel here in the West, and she’s blowing lots of smoke to try to cover it up.”

Well, one can live with the smoke, or one can dispel it, as anti-sharia feminist Phyllis Chesler does here:

Sometimes, I despair of ever being able to convey the disdain for women that one may encounter in the Muslim world.

First, many Americans and Europeans simply do not want to believe it; they absolutely refuse to surrender their belief that all people are both “good” and the “same.” Some westerners do not think it is politically correct, or even polite to say so–especially if people really are “different.” Thus, for both reasons, westerners will deny the extent to which most women are despised, feared, controlled, and punished in the Muslim world. Some westerners also say: “Women are oppressed here as well. It’s racist to single out an entire culture and people for the ways in which women are mistreated everywhere.”

Many Muslims, who live both in the West and in Muslim lands, will deny, outright, that Muslim women are mistreated. First, precisely because this is true, they are well trained to deny it–it is shameful to say so; doing so, disgraces and endangers the family and the Muslim nation. Also, most people are trained not to “see” that which is normalized all around them.

Some time ago, I met with a small group of charming, heartbreakingly sophisticated, educated, assimilated, modern, secular Muslims. They drank, they smoke, they danced with members of the opposite (and of the same sex), they did not limit their friendships to Muslims-only, they were divorced men and women. From an Islamic/Islamist view, they were mighty sinners, maybe even “heretics.” Of course, I loved them, they were so cosmopolitan.

Nevertheless, they hotly denied that honor killings exist because, in their circles, they had neither seen nor heard of any such thing. In their experience, most Muslims are tolerant and fun-loving. They glided over the facts of polygamy and child marriage because, in their lives, it was a very rare occurrence. They viewed America as the greatest “terrorist” power and sympathized with Islamic terrorists who had been “driven to terrorism because they’d seen either their parents or their children murdered or maimed;” they believed that Islam had been “far kinder to Jews than Christianity had ever been.” As for Muslim dissidents and feminists? “They are only a handful of people whom the West rewards for generalizing from their own bad experiences. What they are saying is not true for most Muslims.”

Trust me, I more than held my own in this discussion but, emotionally and intellectually, it exhausted me. These are the “good” Muslims. They are not personally violent, they do not sponsor violence, they move easily in both the Western and Eastern worlds, and yet, their knowledge base is restricted to their own experience and to the mainstream media in the West which encourages precisely such beliefs. Perhaps they are also part of an alarmingly selfish generation which relates everything back to themselves and lacks compassion for others who are not like them…

Sorry, Sheema. For those who know the truth, your smoke is quite transparent.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:56 | link | comments (1)

How he learned to relax and love abject submission: The happy hopeychanger has surveyed the scene on the ground and, scanning gazillions of impassioned true believers, he’s decided that the best way to deal with sharia--both the creeping and the galloping variety—is, quite simply, to let it be. Frank Gaffney in FrontPage Magazine explains how that works:

President Obama last Friday reiterated for the umpteenth time his determination to develop a “new relationship” with the Muslim world. On this occasion, the audience were the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and the Philippines.

Unfortunately, it increasingly appears that, in so doing, he will be embracing the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood - an organization dedicated to promoting the theo-political-legal program authoritative Islam calls Shariah and that has the self-described mission of “destroying Western civilization from within.”

As part of Mr. Obama's “Respect Islam” campaign, he will travel to Turkey in early April. While there, he will not only pay tribute to an Islamist government that has systematically wrested every institution from the secular tradition of Kemal Ataturk and put the country squarely on the path to Islamification. He will also participate in something called the “Alliance of Civilizations.”

The Alliance is a United Nations-sponsored affair that reflects - as, increasingly do most things the United Nations is involved in - the views of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The OIC is made up of 57 Muslim-majority nations. Thanks to support from Saudi Arabia and its proxies, the Muslim Brotherhood has become a driving force within the Conference and their agendas largely coincide.

For example, in 2005 a communique issued after a summit in Mecca declared: “The Conference underlined the need to collectively endeavor to reflect the noble Islamic values, counter Islamophobia, defamation of Islam and its values and desecration of Islamic holy sites, and to effectively coordinate with states as well as regional and international institutions and organizations to urge them to criminalize this phenomenon as a form of racism.”

Ominously, as part of its bid to “criminalize” Islamophobia, the OIC is seeking “deterrent punishments.” It insists that not only freedom of expression but all human rights be circumscribed by the OIC's 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which concludes with the caveat that, “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shariah.” Translation: Liberties enshrined in the United Nations' foundational Universal Declaration of Human Rights are largely rendered null and void.

The demand that no criticism of Islam be permitted is the pre-eminent feature of the Muslim Brotherhood's efforts in the West. In fact, it is but the leading edge of the Brothers' bid to suppress public awareness of the threat posed by their program in societies that pride themselves on religious tolerance, thereby facilitating seditious penetration and influence operations by the Shariah-adherent…

The happy hopeychanger’s theme song:

When I find myself in times of trouble

Muslim Brothers call to me

Speaking of sharia:

“Let it be.”

And in my hours of blindness

They are ragin’ right in front of me

Speaking of sharia:

“Let it be.”

Let it be, let it be, let it be, yeah, let it be.

Speaking of sharia:

“Let it be.”

And when the broken, humbled kafirs

Have been turned into dhimmis

Bros’ll crow in triumph:

“Let it be.”

For though they may be broken

There is still a chance that they’ll break free

Bros’ll never say then:

“Let it be.”

Let it be, let it be, let it be let it be.

Speaking of sharia:

“Let it be.”

I hear the call of “Allah Abkar!”

A siren cryin’ out to me.

Sayin’, “We love sharia,

Let it be.”

Let is be, let is be, let it be, let it be.
Tomorrow will bring sorrow.
Let it be.

Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be.

Speaking of sharia:

“Let it be.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:06 | link | comments

Shop till you drop: A marketplace in Swat, the region that Pakistan recently turned over to the Taliban, used to be swarming with women. But who wants to go shopping when there’s a chance some psycho misogynist could lop off your head? From the (Pakistan) Daily Times:

MINGORA: It has been more than a month since the government and the Tehreek Nifaz-e-Shariat Muhammadi (TNSM) signed a peace deal in Swat but the shopkeepers at Cheena Market, once the busiest in Mingora city, are still waiting for female shoppers.

The Swat-based Taliban had banned females from going to markets and schools for education. However, girls are back in schools after Taliban leader Fazlullah agreed to a peace bid by his father-in-law, TNSM’s chief Sufi Muhammad but women are still avoiding going to bazaars.

“Business has still not returned to normal despite a marked change in the situation,” a shopkeeper, Ikramullah Khan, told Daily Times.

The reason for women staying away from the once popular place is obvious – threats from the Taliban.

On March 8, a bearded man, who the shopkeepers believed to be a Taliban, pulled out a dagger in a shop and said, “Who wants to be beheaded first?”

The incident was enough to frighten the women and prevent them from going to the markets…

You can see how it might take the fun out of the whole shopping experience.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:22 | link | comments

Potential recruit for the hopeychange cabinet?: Symbionese Liberation Army recruit Sara Jane Olson (talk about yer blast from the past) has been released from prison.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:02 | link | comments

Quagmire! War-mongering! Stupidity!: Those are three charges that would have been hurled with great zest had George Dubya been the one said to be thinking about expanding the 'covert' war in Pakistan. But since Godalmightyobama is the one doing the considering, all you're likely to hear is the sound of one hand clapping.

Funny how that works.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:56 | link | comments

Tuesday, 17 March 2009

The madness of Official Jewry: How could any Jew in his/her right mind believe that taking part in the OIC/UN anti-Zion fiesta, Durban II, would be "good for the Jews"—or any other freedom-lover for that matter? Nevertheless, here in Canada, CIJA, the added (and superfluous) layer of bureaucracy that presides over Jewish advocacy groups (including the CJC), was chomping at the bit for a chance to go. This even though Prime Minister Stephen Harper had already made it clear that Canada had no intention of participating in—and thereby lend credibility to—this Muslim-sponsored hate-fest. Was CIJA concerned about what amounted to a slap in the Prime Minister’s face? Heavens, no. It lobbied all the harder, only to be rebuffed by—the gorge still rises—Iran. Yes, Iran. Ayatollahville. The entity that hopes to “purify” the landscape that’s been “tainted” by sovereign Jews. The site of 'orrible Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust-denialpalooza. And only after being turned down by Iran did the CanJews bow to the inevitable, and, tails between their legs, withdraw their request.

As in Canada, so in the U.S., where David Harris and his American Jewish Committee were, for some unfathomable reason, just as keen on attending. Three much smarter cookies, experts in the field of Islamic Judenhass as it is manifested in international fora—Melanie Phillips, Anne Bayefsky and Caroline Glick—gave Harris a good what-for. Harris didn’t take too kindly to the tongue lashing, and fought back in a nasty attack. That elicited an article co-written by the three for the Jerusalem Post, which Phillips quotes on her blog:

…It stands to reason that that David Harris would be sensitive to criticism of the AJC's participation in planning "Durban II." After all, by taking part in the Durban II planning process on a US government delegation, AJC contemptuously ignored repeated calls from Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Minister Isaac Herzog for the United States government to stay away and announce it will not participate, period. Israel's priority, and the priority of much of the American Jewish community was to delegitimize the hate-fest, not place an AJC representative on its planning committee.

The fact of the matter is that the only reason the US made a tactical retreat from the process was the pressure created by criticisms such as ours, along with protests made by Israel, Canada, and other American Jewish organizations and leaders.

For more than a year, the AJC has conducted an extensive lobbying campaign of the American government and of foreign governments to stay in Durban II.

On December 11, 2008 Harris told The Jerusalem Post: "We can't afford to declare Durban II lost without more focus on diplomacy." On January 12, 2009 the AJC's human rights arm, the Blaustein Institute, wrote to Secretary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice: "The Durban Review Conference provides an opportunity to review states' progress in the implementation of their commitments to combat racism made in 2001... While some organizations are calling for a US boycott, we believe that is the wrong decision at this time." As recently as February 22, 2009 Harris told the Post: "Our position on Durban II is clear. We have publicly praised France and the Netherlands, among other countries, for insisting on clear red lines and threatening to withdraw if they are breached."

If they are breached? The AJC's own UN monitoring body, UN Watch, reported the breach had occurred on October 28, 2008, in a report aptly called "Shattering the Red Lines: The Durban II Draft Declaration." Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice-chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations told the Post on December 11, 2008: "We clearly see that all the red lines that have been enumerated by the Europeans have been violated."

Under the guise of ever-shifting red lines (that in any incarnation Israel and the rest of the Jewish world understood were crossed long ago), AJC has caused great damage to Israel's diplomatic standing...

I have my own thoughts as to what causes Jews to be so blind, so self-destructive. In a nutshell, it is being hobbled—enfeebled—by a Leftist worldview.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:33 | link | comments (5)

The “science” of headscarves: An Islam Online article tries to provide a scientific basis for why women should cover up. In brief, it goes something like this: “research” has shown that, due to the way their brains are wired, men are lustful beasts who cannot control themselves in the presence of “immodestly” dressed chicks. So dress accordingly, impudent sluts, or deal with the consequences of your saucy state of (un)dress:

…According to Fiske, the results of the study have important implications for women, especially in the workplace as it has previously been shown that viewing sexualized images of women can affect how men perceive women and interact with them afterwards. (Landau, Sample)

A sexism study conducted by Lawrence University professor, Peter Glick, also found that professional women who wear provocative attire in the workplace are perceived by their co-workers as being less competent and less intelligent, especially when they are in positions of power. According to DiversityJobs.com, Glick's study suggests that "women in higher level and high power jobs may need to dress more modestly and conservatively to win the respect of their colleagues." (DiversityJobs.com)

Several studies further demonstrate the link between viewing pornography and committing violence against women, including rape and sexual assault. In the wars of Bosnia and Iraq, soldiers who committed atrocious crimes and dehumanized the other side were often found to be regular consumers of pornography, even viewing pornography on purpose to "psyche themselves up" for the work of killing. (Chew, Rejali)

Fiske compared the results of her study to studies showing that viewing television can desensitize one to the effects of violence. "You have to be aware of the effect of these images on people," Fiske told The Daily Princetonian. "They’re not neutral. They do have an effect on how people think about other women." (Eshleman, Alleyne)

Dignity and Confidence

Despite mounting evidence showing the benefits of modest and conservative dress, media portrayals of the hijab frequently depict Muslim women as victims of oppression, mind-control, and abuse.

Karen Danielson, however, maintains that wearing the hijab gives her both dignity and confidence. Danielson, an American living in Jordan, first wore the hijab more than two decades ago, shortly after embracing Islam in 1983.

"When I walk in public, I cannot be looked at or judged based on my sensuality or lack of either, or how I attract or not attract men," she explained to IslamOnline.net. "I define myself based on my upright behavior and intelligence—what my dress upholds—and I am humbled in my modest dress."

"I feel that I can be myself, a unique individual with her own voice to speak," added Sumayah Finnigan. "I am not conforming to the majority in what they say and wear and thus I am me - which is thoroughly liberating."

Balqees Mohammed, an American who embraced Islam in 1979, holds similar views and told IslamOnline.net that the hijab "promotes modesty...for the woman as well as all those around her."

Mohammed, who lives in Saudi Arabia and covers her face in addition to the rest of her body, says that her way of dressing "causes others, particularly men, to not be so free to engage in unnecessary discussion."…

Nor, come to that, are women so free to engage in unnecessary, er, freedom. Which, pace researcher Fiske, is kind of the whole point of being compelled to wear an all-encompassing black shroud.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:14 | link | comments (1)

Moonbat alert in Calgary: Former president George W. Bush was in town to give a talk, and you know what that means. The “peaceniks” were out in full force, a-fuming and a-fussing and demanding that he be apprehended and held to account for his “war crimes.” The local rag has the details:

A series of events aimed at protesting the impending visit of former United States president George W. Bush to Calgary launched Thursday afternoon with a short-lived demonstration on downtown's Stephen Avenue.

Hanging two banners--one black to reflect the events that unfolded while the United States was helmed by Bush and one white bearing messages looking toward the future--peace activists tried to engage passers-by.

According to Toby Pollet, a former peacekeeper who served in Croatia and Yugoslavia, Bush should be facing war crimes charges under the Canadian Criminal Code.

"Now we're inviting him here for a chat. It's ridiculous," he said as he helped hang the black banner.

Fellow activist Tavis Ford said he was shocked to learn not only that Bush was coming to Calgary, but that the Chamber of Commerce was welcoming him on behalf of Calgarians.

"What are we doing?" he asked. Besides the banner event, the People vs. Bush group has planned a fake trial of the former leader--complete with actors and a script -- for his alleged crimes.

Ford said it doesn't matter that Bush is no longer the leader of the United States.

"If we let Bush go, what do we tell future leaders?" he said.

Bush is set to talk on March 17 at the Telus Convention Centre.During the private event, called A conversation with George W. Bush, the former president is expected to talk about his eight years as the head of the United States and what challenges the world now faces.

Event organizers would not say how ticket sales for the event are progressing. Previously, they said they expected about 1,500 people to attend.

Mount Royal College political scientist Keith Brownsey called the strong dislike of Bush"profound,"but said it is "in many ways" deserved for leading the United States into a war in which thousands have lost their lives.

"The hopes that were dashed with George W. Bush, the policies he pursued, have put the United States in a profoundly difficult position, both domestically and worldwide," he said. But he added he is interested in hearing what the former leader has to say.

The activists' arguments echo those from a group of lawyers who have asked the RCMP to bar the former president from entering the country, saying there is"overwhelming evidence that he has committed, outside Canada, torture and other offences."

The group, called the Lawyers Against War, wrote a letter to the national police service's war crimes section, copying Prime Minister Stephen Harper, other federal ministers and opposition MPs and has asked for a reply prior to Bush's arrival in Canada…

Unfortunately for the peace-minded attorneys, the P.M. had other things on his mind—like trying to keep one of his ministers from getting brained by irate Arabs.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:45 | link | comments

Dar al-Books: In the Western world the literacy rate is high, and there are annual awards that acknowledge literary merit—in Canada, the Giller, in the U.K., the Booker, in France the Prix Goncourt, etc. Desirous of gaining some intellectual cred, as well as wanting to counter the perception that the only works being read in their part of the world are the Koran and Mein Kampf, the oily Emirates have dipped into their deep pockets and endowed an annual literary prize. This year’s winner: a novel by an Egyptian Arab that delves into early Christianity. (Hands up all those who think that the reverse—a book by a Christian examining early Islam—would earn the author a fatwa and not an award?). From the Ceeb (my emphasis):

Controversial Egyptian author Youssef Ziedan has captured the second-ever International Prize for Arabic Fiction.

Beelzebub, which means the Devil and stems from an old Hebrew word that translates as "Lord of the Flies," chronicles the conflicts over doctrine among 5th-century Christians in the Middle East.

The novel, published last year, caused an uproar among Coptic Christians in Egypt.

Church leaders felt the author was challenging their authority as well as countering their exclusive claim to Egyptian history between the end of paganism and the arrival of Muslims.

The Egyptian Coptic Church released a statement last year that said the author "intended to destroy authentic Christian doctrine."

Ziedan is a former professor who specializes in Islamic philosophy and Sufism and has written more than 50 books.

Ziedan's win was announced at a gala in Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates.

Beelzebub was chosen among six finalists, which included:

· Mohamed El-Bisatie for Hunger (Eygpt).

· Fawaz Haddad for The Unfaithful Translator (Syria).

· Inaam Kachachi for The American Granddaughter (Iraq).

· Ibrahim Nasrallah for Time of White Horses (Jordan/Palestine).

· Habib Selmi for The Scents of Marie-Claire (Tunisia).

Each of the six finalists received $10,000 US ($12,723 Cdn), with the winner getting an additional $50,000 US. The winner is also guaranteed an English translation of his work.

Last year’s inaugural prize went to Egyptian writer Baha Taher for Sunset Oasis.

The award, funded by the Emirates Foundation, is modelled after the prestigious Man Booker Prize, which honours the best in English-language literature among the Commonwealth countries.

It is run in association with the Booker Prize Foundation and with the financial support of the Emirates Foundation, a philanthropic entity.

Dare one call it a literary jihad?

Speaking of Mein Kampf and its enduring appeal in the Arab/Muslim world, I had often wondered how its author who, as we know had some firm (and nutty) ideas about “race,” could reconcile his alliance with Arabs since, being “Semites,” they were members of what he considered an "inferior race." Oh, sure, for the sake of expedience, he was willing to endure some strange bedfellows, including that Bolshevik Stalin. And, certainly, the Nazis and the Arabs had their enmity of Juden in common, as well as a common desire to get rid of this scourge. But still, if “race” is your thing, then a Semite is a Semite. So how could Hitler split hairs, so to speak, and say Jewish “Semites” were bad but Arab “Semites” were okey-dokey?

As it happens, I came upon the explanation yesterday while reading Andrew Bostom’s invaluable and eye-opening work of scholarship, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism (no home library should be without it). Bostom quotes this passage from one of Albert Speer’s memoirs which reveals that, while the Fuhrer didn’t think too much of the “inferior” Arab “race,” he was a huge fan of their ideology:

Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temprament [emphasis added]. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire [emphasis added]. Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking, “You see, it’s been my misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us that Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity, with its meekness and flabbiness?

Quel ironie! Hitler and his Aryan Ubermenschen are long gone, and the “inferior Mohammedans”—consumed by their own ideas about the human pecking order—continue to take their cues about Jewish genocide from Mein Kampf, Hitler’s blueprint for Jewish destruction (not to mention the "wisdom" they glean from that daft Czarist confabulation, Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Koran's account of how Islam's founder handled his Jewish "problem").

Hey, Emirs, what say you to a posthumous prize for the man who is such a constant source of inspiration for the Arab world? I can think of no one who’s more deserving.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:56 | link | comments (1)

Monday, 16 March 2009

The hopeychanger approach to national security: In an interview with Der Spiegel, Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano explains that the administration is trying to move “away from the politics of fear” and head more in the direction of ~~wishful thinking, complete denial and living in a dream world~~ reaching out to Muslims:

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

SPIEGEL: This sounds quite different from what we heard from the Bush administration. How will the new anti-terror policy differ from the previous one?

Napolitano: Our policies will be guided by authoritative information. We also have assets at our disposal now that we did not have prior to 9/11. For example, we are much better able to keep track of travellers coming into the US than we were before. The third thing is to work with our international partners and allies to make sure that we are getting information and sharing information in an appropriate and real-time fashion.

SPIEGEL: This weekend you met in Berlin with six European Union interior ministers. What should Europeans expect of you and the Obama administration?

Napolitano: Well, vis-à-vis working with me, what they can look forward to is a spirit of cooperation and coordination. Our approach will be not so much focused on protocol but on what steps each of us needs to accomplish to make our countries more secure.

SPIEGEL: What would you like to hear from your German counterpart, Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble?

Napolitano: The Bundestag (eds note: German parliament) soon has before it a vote to increase information-sharing, on criminal information, with us. This exchange is vital.

SPIEGEL: You would like the German authorities to share personal data of terrorism suspects, such as fingerprinting and DNA?

Napolitano: That is exactly right. We will also want to share some experiences with counter-radicalization, how the radicalization of young Muslims in our countries can be prevented.

SPIEGEL: Europe has a problem with just such people, young Muslims who grew up in the West and are still susceptible to radical messages. The terrorists responsible for the July 2005 attacks in London are an example.

Napolitano: In some ways, the problem in Europe is greater than in the United States. But the questions are the same. How do you identify a youth who is susceptible to becoming radicalized? How do you work with that youth, his family and community to give them alternatives to radicalization?

SPIEGEL: Would you characterize such social measures as a task of your agency?

Napolitano: Yes. In fact, we have group within my agency, the civil liberties group, and they have a focus right now on that issue.

SPIEGEL: Because the US fears that homegrown European terrorists with European passports could enter the country without a visa, for some weeks all travellers have had to via the internet at least 72 hours before departure. Is that not going too far?

Napolitano: Thousands have registered with the ESTA program, and the rate of acceptance is around 98 percent. This new technology enables us to more thoroughly check who wants to visit our country.

SPIEGEL: Should European visitors be prepared to submit even more personal data in the future?

Napolitano: Right now, our focus is on ESTA, as it is.

SPIEGEL: As one of his first official acts in office, President Obama took steps toward closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay. The German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier signaled that Germany would be prepared to accept some detainees. In your view, how many should Germany take?

Napolitano: Right now, we are participating in a group that is reviewing detainees' files case by case. Once that review is completed, the experts will make recommendations to me and ultimately to the president on what should be done with the detainees. It is of course a very great help if other countries have the willingness to take some of the detainees…

“Please take our detained jihadis, EUnuchs, ‘cause Allah knows you don’t have nearly enough of your own.” I dunno. Sounds like kind of a tough sell to me.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:18 | link | comments

Obama's enemies list: Also known as the Forbes list of billionaires.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:38 | link | comments

Hope? Maybe. Change? Not so much: In a Commentary website exclusive, Peter Wehner says that Obama’s vision thing is just more of the same old lefty shtick:

In the matter of just 50 days, a fissure has widened into a split; the split has become a gap; and the gap is becoming a gulf. I have in mind the extraordinary contradiction between what President Obama says and what he does.

Consider a partial list, starting with earmarks. During the campaign, Obama said, "the truth is, our earmark system -- what's called pork-barrel spending in Washington -- is fraught with abuse. It badly needs reform -- which is why I didn't request a single earmark last year, why I've released all my previous requests for the public to see, why I've pledged to slash earmarks by more than half when I am President of the United States." And as ABC's Jake Tapper pointed out, after John McCain picked Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, Obama criticized her for having been of two minds on earmarks. "When you have been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you are the champion anti-earmark person," Obama said, "that is not change, come on. I mean, words mean something."

Yet yesterday, Obama signed rather than vetoed a massive, $410 billion omnibus spending bill -- which contained more than 8,500 earmarks. Adding chutzpah to his hypocrisy, Obama told reporters, "The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past. So let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand." This is the fiscal version of St. Augustine's prayer, "Lord, make me chaste -- but not yet."

Second, Obama made bi-partisanship a cornerstone of his campaign. It was he, we were told, who would repair the breach and "turn the page." It is he who wrote that "genuine bipartisanship assumes an honest process of give-and-take" and that the majority must be constrained "by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate" to "negotiate in good faith." Yet Republicans have been shut out from writing and offering substantive input into key legislation. Obama has so far demonstrated no interest in authentic bi-partisanship; he is allowing Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid to muscle through their agenda, even at the cost of losing almost every elected Republican in the United States Congress.

Third, Obama made ethics reform central to his candidacy. In arguably the most important speech of the campaign, the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa in 2007, Obama said, "[Lobbyists] have not funded my campaign, they will not work in my White House..." Upon taking office, Obama made quite a show of announcing new ethics rules barring lobbyists from working in the administration on issues that fell under their lobbying bailiwick. Yet Obama immediately allowed waivers for lobbyists working on issues that fell under their lobbying bailiwick.

Fourth, Obama praised his Administration for putting an end to "phony accounting." His budget, we were told, was an honest budget, without gimmicks, numbers you could trust. Except that we learned that when President Obama, in his speech to a joint session of Congress, said his Administration had identified "$2 trillion in savings," it turns out that $1.6 trillion of the "savings" Obama is claiming are based on the surge in Iraq continuing for 10 more years -- even though on February 27, in a speech at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, Obama said, "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," and the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration, which calls for all U.S. forces to be out of Iraq, is set for December 2011.

Fifth, President Obama has continually presented himself as trans-ideological, the answer to "worn-out dogmas" and "worn-out ideas" and "stale political arguments." He doesn't subscribe to an "old, discredited philosophy." It is his critics, he insists, who do. It is they who are intellectually rigid, dogmatic, captives of old ways of thinking. Obama is the one who, like Lincoln, will "think anew and act anew."

Except that it is Obama himself who displays rutted thinking. It is he who is championing worn-out dogmas. And it is he who is advancing a deeply ideological agenda. Unlike Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, who demonstrated policy creativity and attempted to advance "third way" solutions, President Obama is turning out to be utterly and conventionally liberal, embracing record-breaking spending programs and record-breaking tax increases and giving us a record-breaking deficit and record-breaking debt. Rather than par down his liberal aims in the light of the economic crisis we face, he is enlarging them…

The much-vaunted “change,” apparently, pertained exclusively to his outward hue and not to his internal convictions or his modus operendi.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:02 | link | comments

Video of "rock the mullahs" night: Er, sorry, wishful thinking on my part. Make that "mullets," not mullahs.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:36 | link | comments

The Nazi Slayer vs. the Nazi Defender: A little birdy (h/t CC) sent me this--the cover story in Canadian Lawyer that profiles the two combatants on the opposite sides of Canada's free speech battle. On one side: Douglas Christie, whose claim to fame is that he has defended practically every vile, revolting Jew-hater who has ever run afoul of Canada's thought cops and/or criminal hate speech laws. On the other side: Richard the Nazi Slayer, whose claim to fame is that for years he alone of all Canadians sought redress for subterranean Judenhass--it wasn't out there in the open so old Dickie had to go spelunkering for it--via the the feds' censorship statute, Section 13.

If, years ago, you had told me that I and Doug Christie would be on the same side of an issue, I'd have said you were stark, raving mad. Of course, that was long before I had any inkling of how our most valuable freedom--free speech--was being eroded for the sake of preserving Official Jewdom's delusion that their community's "psychological well-being" is contingent on state censorship written into "human rights" codes.

Life takes some funny turns, eh?

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:56 | link | comments (8)

Protocols of the Elders of Caffeine: Melanie Phillips writes that for Islamic Jew-haters it’s not about Israel per se. It’s that “the Jews”—as well as rational thought—just aren’t their cuppa:

From Egypt, further evidence that the Islamist hatred of the Jews is not caused by Israel’s behaviour or even its existence. It’s caused by... hatred of the Jews. Here, Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Ya’qoub raves:

If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start loving them? Of course not. We will never love them. Absolutely not. The Jews are infidels – not because I say so, and not because they are killing Muslims, but because Allah said: 'The Jews say that Uzair is the son of Allah, and the Christians say that Christ is the son of Allah. These are the words from their mouths. They imitate the sayings of the disbelievers before. May Allah fight them. How deluded they are.’ It is Allah who said that they are infidels.

Your belief regarding the Jews should be, first, that they are infidels, and second, that they are enemies. They are enemies not because they occupied Palestine. They would have been enemies even if they did not occupy a thing. Allah said: 'You shall find the strongest men in enmity to the disbelievers [sic] to be the Jews and the polytheists.' Third, you must believe that the Jews will never stop fighting and killing us. They [fight] not for the sake of land and security, as they claim, but for the sake of their religion: 'And they will not cease fighting you until they turn you back you’re your religion, if they can.'

This is it. We must believe that our fighting with the Jews is eternal, and it will not end until the final battle – and this is the fourth point. You must believe that we will fight, defeat, and annihilate them, until not a single Jew remains on the face of the Earth.

Egypt, let us not forget, is a ‘moderate’ Arab state that has a peace agreement with Israel. It is nevertheless a major source of barking-mad Jewish demonisation in the Arab world. Here is Egyptian Cleric Salama Abd Al-Qawi warning

About me

Recent comments

Links

Archives

Counter

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:43 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:27 | link | comments (1)

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:02 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:06 | link | comments (1)

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:50 | link | comments (1)

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:37 | link | comments (1)

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:46 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:14 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:37 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:13 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:01 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:17 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:39 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:21 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:46 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:06 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:50 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:44 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:28 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:34 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:25 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:19 | link | comments (1)

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:48 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:03 | link | comments (5)

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:45 | link | comments (3)

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:43 | link | comments (2)

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:23 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:44 | link | comments (2)

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:58 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:08 | link | comments (1)

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:18 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:32 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:12 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:26 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:30 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:27 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:31 | link |

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:18 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:35 | link | comments (2)

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:53 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:30 | link | comments (5)

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:18 | link | comments (2)

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:07 | link | comments (1)

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:06 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:22 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:02 | link | comments (2)

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:26 | link | comments (3)

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:59 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:34 | link | comments (1)

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:56 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:41 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:36 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:24 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:11 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:50 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:37 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:03 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:08 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:41 | link | comments (3)

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:27 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:23 | link | comments (1)

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:25 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:15 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:52 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:47 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:00 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:36 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:08 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:40 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:14 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:03 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:50 | link | comments