Category Archives: One World Government
Vladimir Putin & the Appetites of Men
“The fact of the matter is that there is a little bit of the totalitarian buried somewhere, way down deep,
in each & every one of us. It is only the cheerful light of confidence & security which keeps this evil genius down…If confidence & security were to disappear, don’t think that he would not be waiting to take their place.” – George Kennan – - A Catholic Thinker
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
GENEVA — Iran and six major powers agreed early Sunday on an historic deal that freezes key parts of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for temporary relief on some economic sanctions, diplomats confirmed.
We need not know anything about the details of this “historic deal” to know that it is absolutely worthless. The Islamic Republic of Iran has no respect for law, and cannot be expected to honor any promise it makes, except for its long-avowed purpose to annihilate Israel, to destroy “the Great Satan” and otherwise to carry out its violent worldwide revolutionary jihad against the West.
All the Iranian dictatorship seeks to accomplish by negotiation with the West is to anesthetize its enemies, to render opposition impotent by means of treaties that will postpone the inevitable confrontation until Iran has become stronger and we have become weaker.
Any “deal” with Iran is necessarily a bad deal, and the double guarantee of a bad deal is that it was approved by the Obama administration, which is “historic” only as a monument to incompetence with few parallels in human experience.
“The practical way of looking at things . . . may serve well enough in ordinary, normal times. But our times are not ‘normal’ in the good old Victorian sense, and never will be again. . . . These men, even Halifax, were essentially middle-class, not aristocrats. They did not have the hereditary sense of the security of the state, unlike Churchill, Eden, the Cecils. Nor did they have the toughness of the 18th-century aristocracy. They came at the end of the ascendancy of the Victorian middle-class, deeply affected as that was by high-mindedness and humbug. They all talked, in one form or another, the language of disingenuousness and cant: it was second nature to them — so different from Churchill. . . . It meant that they failed to see what was true, until too late, when it was simply a question of survival.”
– A.L. Rowse, Appeasement: A Study in Political Decline, 1933-39
UPDATE: All that is necessary to understand what is wrong with this agreement is to quote what Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told Iran’s government-controlled media: “All plots hatched by the Zionist regime to stop the nuclear agreement have failed.”
Ah, “the Zionist regime”!
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.
That is a dangerous argument, according to Cruz.
“The Constitution created a limited federal government with only specific enumerated powers,” Cruz told the Washington Examiner prior to giving a speech on the issue today at the Heritage Foundation.
“The Supreme Court should not interpret the treaty power in a manner that undermines this bedrock protection of individual liberty,” Cruz said.
In his speech, Cruz said the Justice Department is arguing “an absurd proposition” that “could be used as a backdoor way to undermine” Second Amendment rights, among other things.
The underlying case, Bond v. United States, involves a woman charged with violating the international ban on chemical weapons because she used toxic chemicals to harass a former friend who had an affair with her husband.
Under the Constitution, such an offense would be handled at the state level. In Bond’s case, the federal government prosecuted her under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.
That law implements the Chemical Weapons Convention, the international treaty Syrian dictator Bashar Assad is accused of violating in that country’s vicious civil war.
“The problem here is precisely that Congress, rather than implementing the treaty consistent with our constitutional system of federalism, enacted a statute that, if construed to apply to petitioner’s conduct, would violate basic structural guarantees and exceed Congress’s enumerated powers,” according to Bond’s lawyers.
The Judicial Crisis Network’s Carrie Severino said the Bond case could have ramifications for many other issues.
“If the administration is right, the treaty power could become a backdoor way for the federal government to do everything from abolishing the death penalty nationwide, to outlawing homeschooling, to dramatically curtailing the states’ rights to regulate abortion,” she told the Washington Examiner.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Supported by Barack Hussein Obama, and advanced by Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State, in its quest to criminalize speech that’s critical of all Islam-related topics, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) endorsed the formation of a new Advisory Media Committee to address ‘Islamophobia.’
Frontpage Magazine This past September, the OIC held “The First International Conference on Islamophobia: Law & Media.” The conference endorsed numerous recommendations which arose from prior workshops on Islamophobia from media, legal and political perspectives. A main conclusion was the consensus to institutionalize the conference and create an Advisory Media Committee to meet under the newly established OIC Media Forum based in Istanbul Turkey.
Supposedly, the purpose of the conference was to support an OIC campaign to “correct the image of Islam and Muslims in Europe and North America.” By this, it means to whitewash the intolerant, violent and discriminatory aspects of Islam and Islamists. The OIC has launched a campaign to provide disinformation to the public, delinking all Islam from these undesirable traits and attacks all who insist on these truths, as bigots, racists and Islamophobes.
The OIC is a 57 member organization consisting of Muslim countries whose long term goal is the worldwide implementation of Sharia law and seemingly the ultimate establishment of a Caliphate. Its members tend to vote together as a block in the UN, so it is extremely powerful, despite the fact that few people have heard of it.
Its present goal is the international criminalization of all speech that “defames” Islam, which the OIC defines as anything that sheds a negative light on Islam or Muslims, even when it’s true.
Its target is the West and one of its tactics is to accuse those who criticize Islam or its various interpretations as “Islamophobic.” It is attempting to pass the equivalent of Islamic blasphemy codes in the West, using accusations of bigotry to silence anyone who speaks the truth about Islamic terrorism or Islamic persecution of religious minorities. The OIC uses international bodies such as the UN and international “consensus building” as a platform to achieve its goals. Certainly, if the OIC straightforwardly informed America and Europe of its aspirations to silence speech, it would gain no strides.
Therefore, it uses bureaucratic, unaccountable entities such as the UN as a means to make inroads, using watered down language and words that sound palatable to the West in order to deceive the public about its underlying goals.
Unfortunately, the OIC has been fairly successful in passing UN resolutions that if implemented, would have the effect of stifling speech that “defames religions.” Of course, the OIC is only concerned with the defamation of Islam. Indeed, OIC countries all have some sort of Islamic blasphemy laws which prohibit such defamation. To be certain, these laws are regularly used to criminally punish those who speak critically of Islam. These laws are also used to justify persecution of religious minorities. For example, in many OIC countries, openly practicing a version of Islam not sanctioned by the government can land one in jail for blasphemy. The OIC has no reciprocity in refraining from “defamation” of Judaism, Christianity, or other religions.
After the US realized that the UN resolution to Combat Defamation of Religions had a potentially disastrous impact on free expression, the US State Department asked the OIC to draft an alternative resolution that would address “Islamophobia” concerns and still retain free speech. The OIC produced Resolution 16/18 to Combat Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief. Initially, the State Department interpreted this resolution to protect religious minorities of all stripes from discrimination and violence, while still retaining freedom of speech.
The OIC, however, has made it clear that it clings to its goal to protect Islam from so-called defamation. Indeed, it has manipulated the language in resolution to do just that.
Rizwan Saeed Sheikh, spokesman for the OIC Secretary General has explained that the OIC’s goal is to make “denigration of religions” a crime. Somehow, over time, the State Department appears to have adopted the OIC’s view that the West is Islamophobic and that Islam is a religion of peace which should never be associated with terrorism. Toward this end, the Obama Administration has completely purged all its counterterrorism training programs from any mention of Islamic terrorism. Only “right-wing extremists” persist in using the term, and of course are “Islamophobes” for doing so.
The OIC’s claims that it seeks to protect all religions and religious symbols from defamation are patently false and are contrary to the actions of the OIC countries which discriminate against infidels. In Saudi Arabia, Jews are denied citizenship; in Iran, Baha’is are denied equal employment opportunities; in Pakistan, Ahmadiyya Muslims are jailed for openly practicing their faith, and there’s a genocide against Coptic Christians in Egypt. Many OIC countries also prohibit the building or repair of churches and synagogues as well as public worship by minority religions.
The September meeting constituted the third Istanbul Conference: international meetings designed to implement Resolution 16/18 in support of the OIC’s agenda to combat “Islamophobia” in the West.
If the OIC really wanted to combat Islamophobia, it would persuade terrorists to refrain from violence; it would condemn the genocide of Coptic Christians in Egypt and it would spare little girls from forced marriages in OIC countries. The OIC has the power to stop the denigration of Jewish, Christian, Zorastrian and Baha’i religious symbols in the OIC countries. It can pressure IC member states to implement domestic policies that will honor and respect minority religions in the Middle East and elsewhere. Do this, and “Islamophobia” in the West will dissipate.
Instead, the OIC requests that the media censor their reports about Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam, as an interim step toward the criminalization of such speech. All of this will only serve to increase, not decrease “Islamophobia.”
The clash of civilizations widens.
From Bare Naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
DON VINCENZO writes:
I know not whether the next gaffe of Pope Francis will be liturgical or ecclesiastical, but what I do know is that the Holy Father lives, with regard to the situation in the Middle East, in a delusional world. See this recent piece by the Society of St. Pius X about the Supreme Pontiff’s remarks urging Christians to respect the teachings, symbols and values of Islam. In this delusional state, the Pope is far-too-quiet about the fate of Middle Eastern Christians, especially as our valiant Commander-in-Chief verges on sending Cruise missiles into Syria.
Perhaps instead of having the parishes hear a sermon on why amnesty for illegal aliens is virtuous, the Vatican should lay out the whys and wherefores of what is happening in Syria, including the commentary of the Mother Superior of the convent of Homs, Syria. It was she – Mother Marie de la Croix – who actually spoke at the Vatican a year or so ago, but received little attention. Why wasn’t she afforded the opportunity to tell her story worldwide?
The victory of the “Syrian Rebel Army” will be the death knell of Christians in that ancient land and the Pontiff and the Mother Superior and the Vatican bureaucrats know this; yet, this Pontiff sees fit to laud the religious belief that brings men to destroy the Church.
From The Thinking Housewife: http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/
By fundamentally transforming America, what liberals mean is that they want to eradicate America, so that it might be replaced by a different society made up of different people. If you doubt it, check out the cover of their flagship weekly, Time Magazine:
The Nazis were impatient. They wanted the groups they considered undesirable to disappear immediately. Liberals learned from the failure of their fellow progressives. They are willing to wait a few generations for Americans to fade into nonexistence.
North America will still be populated, even if the liberal ruling class has its way. That’s where the push to erase our borders completely through amnesty comes in. After America is gone, its place will be taken by a gloriously diverse Third World hellhole consisting of peasants and their oligarchical collectivist rulers. The future will look like a cross between Zimbabwe, Guatemala, and the Soviet Union. Or at least, that’s a politically correct statist’s dream.
No one who wants to disarm you means you well. The same goes for anyone who does not want you to reproduce. The liberal ruling class that excretes publications like Time is the sworn enemy of every American, including those who consider themselves part of it.
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
But we already knew that. Check out the decline (photo essay)
“Statism is turning America into Detroit – Ayn Rand’s Starnesville come to life”By Daniel Hannan, The Telegraph, July 21, 2013
You thought Atlas Shrugged was fiction?
Look at this description of Detroit from today’s Observer:
What isn’t dumped is stolen. Factories and homes have largely been stripped of anything of value, so thieves now target cars’ catalytic converters. Illiteracy runs at around 47%; half the adults in some areas are unemployed. In many neighbourhoods, the only sign of activity is a slow trudge to the liquor store.
Now have a look at the uncannily prophetic description of Starnesville, a Mid-Western town in Ayn Rand’s dystopian novel, Atlas Shrugged. Starnesville had been home to the great Twentieth Century Motor Company, but declined as a result of socialism:
A few houses still stood within the skeleton of what had once been an industrial town. Everything that could move, had moved away; but some human beings had remained. The empty structures were vertical rubble; they had been eaten, not by time, but by men: boards torn out at random, missing patches of roofs, holes left in gutted cellars. It looked as if blind hands had seized whatever fitted the need of the moment, with no concept of remaining in existence the next morning. The inhabited houses were scattered at random among the ruins; the smoke of their chimneys was the only movement visible in town. A shell of concrete, which had been a schoolhouse, stood on the outskirts; it looked like a skull, with the empty sockets of glassless windows, with a few strands of hair still clinging to it, in the shape of broken wires.
Beyond the town, on a distant hill, stood the factory of the Twentieth Century Motor Company. Its walls, roof lines and smokestacks looked trim, impregnable like a fortress. It would have seemed intact but for a silver water tank: the water tank was tipped sidewise.
They saw no trace of a road to the factory in the tangled miles of trees and hillsides. They drove to the door of the first house in sight that showed a feeble signal of rising smoke. The door was open. An old woman came shuffling out at the sound of the motor. She was bent and swollen, barefooted, dressed in a garment of flour sacking. She looked at the car without astonishment, without curiosity; it was the blank stare of a being who had lost the capacity to feel anything but exhaustion.
“Can you tell me the way to the factory?” asked Rearden.
The woman did not answer at once; she looked as if she would be unable to speak English. “What factory?” she asked.
Rearden pointed. “That one.”
Now here’s the really extraordinary thing. When Ayn Rand published those words in 1957, Detroit was, on most measures, the city with the highest per capita GDP in the United States.
From Atlas Shrugs: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
The Senate already voted to forbid U.S. involvement in the treaty … then again, we already know Obama doesn’t give two shits what Congress thinks.
Via The Hill:
The Obama administration joined 153 other nations Tuesday in approving an arms trade treaty opposed by the U.S. gun lobby.
Adoption of the treaty sets up a showdown between the White House and Congress, where a majority of senators have called on the president not to sign the treaty because it regulates small arms.
In one of the amendments to the Senate Budget last month, lawmakers voted 53 to 46 to stop the United States from joining the treaty.
The administration and treaty proponents say it would have no impact on the Second Amendment, since it applies to arms exports and not domestic arms sales.
Update: Now, will Obama sign it or not? His UN reps voted for it after he ensured its passage by dropping a consensus requirement, so I’m guessing he will.
The White House is “pleased” by the United Nations General Assembly’s Tuesday vote in favor of a treaty to regulate the global arms trade, but isn’t yet worrying about clearing it through the Senate.
“We’re certainly encouraged by and pleased by the outcome,” press secretary Jay Carney said. The administration has not yet determined whether President Obama will sign the Arms Trade Treaty. With the treaty approved by the United Nations, Carney said the administration will begin a “thorough” review process to consider whether to sign it.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Now, why would anyone have a problem with this?
St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay and Democrats held a gun control rally in downtown St. Louis Saturday afternoon.
Dr. Robert Flood , director of pediatric emergency at SLU, gave the keynote speech at the end of the rally. The good doctor urged supporters to call congress and turn your rights and sovereignty over to United Nations by supporting the Child Rights Act.
Dr. Flood said the Children’s Rights Amendment would counter balance the Second and 14th Amendments used by gun rights activists.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Via Email RHM
Something to think about..
END TIME SIGNS
1. False Bible teachers would be money hungry. They would be smooth talkers, have many followers, and slur the Christian faith (2 Peter 2:1-3) See some at: Fakemessiah.com
2. Homosexuality would be increasingly evident at the end of the age (2 Timothy 3:3)
3. Earthquakes would be in diverse places (Matthew 24:7)
4. Stress would be part of living (2 Timothy 3:1)
5. Many wars would erupt (Matthew 24:6)
6. People would forsake the Ten Commandments as a moral code, committing adultery, stealing, lying, and killing (Matthew 24:12)
7. There would be a cold religious system, in denying God’s power (2 Timothy 3:5)
8. Men would substitute fantasy in place of Christian truth (2 Timothy 4:4). This is so evident at Christmas when the birth of the Savior is lost behind the myth of Santa Claus.
9. Deadly diseases would be prevalent (Matthew 24:7). The worldwide increase in AIDS deaths is almost inestimable. Over 160,000 Americans die of cancer each year.
10. The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by the scientific world because of its uncanny implication.
11. The institution of marriage would be forsaken by many (1 Timothy 4:3)
12. There would be an increase in famines (Matthew 24:7)
13. Increase in vegetarianism would increase (1 Timothy 4:3-4)
14. There would be a cry for peace (1 Thessalonians 5:3)
15. The possession of Jerusalem would be at the center of international turmoil(Zechariah 12:3)
16. Knowledge would increase (Daniel 12:4)
17. There would be hypocrites within the Church (Matthew 13:25-30)
18. There would be an increase of religious cults/false teachers (Matthew 24:11 & 24)
19. The future would seem fearful to many (Luke 21:26)
20. Humanity would become materialistic (2 Timothy 3:4)
21. There would be many involved in travel (Daniel 12:4)
22. The Christian Gospel would be preached as a warning to all nations (Matthew 24:14)
23. Jesus said Christians would be hated ”for His name’s sake” (Matthew 24:9)
24: And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. (Luke 21:25-26).
25: Youth would become rebellious. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy (2 Timothy 3:2)
26: Men would mock the warning signs of the end of the age saying, “for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” (2 Peter 3:4). The Bible even reveals their motivation, they love lust (verse 3). They fail to understand that a day to the Lord is as a thousand years to us. God is not subject to the time that He created. He can flick through time as we flick through the pages of a history book. The reason He seems to be silent, is because He is patiently waiting, not willing that any perish, but that all come to repentance.
From Mad Medic: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
The Wise Words of Churchill – It is Being Played Out Again By Those Who Will Render The USA Defense-less
THE MUNICH AGREEMENT – 1938
Excerpt of the speech given by Churchill in response to this agreement with Germany
Barrack Hussein Obama is willfully and purposely neglecting and dismantling the defense and protection of the United States of America and retreating from our enemies that he was sworn to defend this country from – the same way that politicians did in England prior to World War II and now the United States is being reduced to such a state of weakness that we may never recover. Obama is a lying tyrant and hell bent on the destruction of the United States of America. May God have mercy on us and raise up another Churchill to wake the people of this great country out of their, as Churchill put it, “Chloroformed acquiescence” and stupor administered by a state run press that Obama and his communist cronies control. It may already be too late. ZTW
…It is the most grievous consequence of what we have done and of what we have left undone in the last five years – five years of futile good intentions, five years of eager search for the line of least resistance, five years of uninterrupted retreat of British power, five years of neglect of our air defences.
Those are the features which I stand here to expose and which marked an improvident stewardship for which Great Britain and France have dearly to pay. We have been reduced in those five years from a position of security so overwhelming and so unchallengeable that we never cared to think about it. We have been reduced from a position where the very word “war” was considered one which could be used only by persons qualifying for a lunatic asylum. We have been reduced from a position of safety and power – power to do good, power to be generous to a beaten foe, power to make terms with Germany, power to give her proper redress for her grievances, power to stop her arming if we chose, power to take any step in strength or mercy or justice which we thought right – reduced in five years from a position safe and unchallenged to where we stand now.
… They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies:
“Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting.”
And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.
We do not want to be led upon the high road to becoming a satellite of the German Nazi system of European domination. In a very few years, perhaps in a very few months, we shall be confronted with demands with which we shall no doubt be invited to comply. Those demands may affect the surrender of territory or the surrender of liberty. I foresee and foretell that the policy of submission will carry with it restrictions upon the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament, on public platforms, and discussions in the Press, for it will be said – indeed, I hear it said sometimes now – that we cannot allow the Nazi system of dictatorship to be criticised by ordinary, common English politicians. Then, with a Press under control, in part direct but more potently indirect, with every organ of public opinion doped and chloroformed into acquiescence, we shall be conducted along further stages of our journey.
From Winston Churchill.Org at: https://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/speeches-of-winston-churchill/101-the-munich-agreement
Found at American Digest:http://americandigest.org/
Jihad in America: The Grand Deception offers a little background on the Muslim Brotherhood that you won’t get from the Islamophile “mainstream” media:
People closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood have infiltrated the top levels of our government. Barack Hussein Obama has helped the Muslim Brotherhood exploit the “Arab Spring” to take control of Egypt, a former ally that continues to receive$billions stolen from US taxpayers.
On tip from IslandLifer and Bill T.
Via Fox News:
The UN agency that promotes education wants a say in how future textbooks are written, and Saudi Arabia — a nation whose own school books have been criticized for promoting hatred of Christians and Jews — is helping to bankroll the effort.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is currently working with member states to revise its strategy for the publication of textbooks and learning materials. According to UNESCO’s website, experts from 21 countries met in Paris last month at a meeting financed by a $29,000 Saudi donation and focused in part on “ways to ensure that content aimed at students systematically reflects cultural and religious diversity, and avoids gender stereotypes.”
Then, last week, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah cut a $20 million check to UNESCO’s emergency fund.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
This post from Bob Belvedere illustrates the difference between how the Left and Right view rights
…is awarded to Mark Steyn for his response to the pablum puked by a UN Official regarding Free Speech.
First: what the UN dickhead said:
Free speech is a “gift given to us by the [Universal] Declaration of Human Rights,” said Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations Jan Eliasson during a press conference on October 2nd at UN headquarters in New York. It is “a privilege,” Eliasson said, “that we have, which in my view involves also the need for respect, the need to avoid provocations.”
Free speech is a gift given to us in 1948 by U.N. officials? Who knew?
The only appropriate response of free-born peoples to such a statement is: **** off, ******. Free speech is not in the gift of minor Swedish timeserving hack bureaucrats, either to grant or withdraw.
The Left sees rights as collective, and they see them as things to be given by government, and, restricted by government as the government sees fit.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Forget the UN, the Post-American order isn’t a blue flag, it’s a black flag with Mohammed on it. There are far more people in the world who believe in a world order based on the violent ravings of a 7th Century madman than the number of people who believe in a world order based on 19th Century European wishful thinking. And it helps that the supporters of 7th Century violence over 19th Century internationalism are far more willing to use murderous violence to get their way.
The burning embassies and authorities scurrying to intimidate the Mohammed filmmaker into making some kind of apology or going to jail, as their British predecessors bullied Salman Rushdie into doing, reveal the naked order of the new world. It isn’t a place of treaties or laws, but of naked force and we will not be the ones doing the forcing.
In the new world order we will cower behind our televisions while the global mob, composed of whoever has the most surviving kids living on international handouts, will tell us what laws they want us to live under. And those will not be tolerant laws, they will not protect women or gays, let alone minority religions, they will be the laws of the violent majority, not that of the Christians or Buddhists, or the tinier numbers of Jews or Atheists, they will be the laws of Islam, because Muslims are willing to do what they aren’t, go out into the streets and kill to establish those laws.
Let us dispense with any pretense that if we do criminalize defamation of religion or prosecute Mohammed cartoons as a hate crime, that this will be because we are tolerant or respect religion. It will be because we are afraid of Muslims and we are right to be afraid of Muslims because our leaders are gutless cowards who have no idea how to deal with anyone whose greatest fear in life isn’t being called a racist on the evening news.
And let us dispense with the pretense that the growing internationalism is humane, rational or orderly. It is nothing of the sort, it is a mob of savages that kills to convey its demands to the officials who pretend to be running a humane and rational world order and uses them as its mouthpiece. When our enlightened leaders lecture us on offending Muslims, they are acting as the interpreters for bearded thugs who believe that Jinns are around every corner, that angels are afraid of cats and that women are inferior creatures because Mohammed went down to hell and found it full of women.
Any order that takes its laws from savages will be an order of savages, no matter how urbane and cultured the men and women who have chosen to act as their international representatives, while pretending to be ours, are. The world order envisioned by 19th Century Europeans is now a secret negotiation between their criminally idiotic descendants, who still go to all the right schools, and a mob of savages and their oil-rich patrons. Their global order is not taking us to the 22nd Century, but back to the 7th Century, and of all the things that they owe us, the least of them is to be honest about that.
Leftist Anti-Americanism has revealed itself to be Post-Americanism and Post-Americanism is nothing more than savages making laws by burning and killing things. And our Anti-American and Post-American elites had better start explaining to us why being governed by Salafi savages is a moral improvement over Americanism and they had better do a good job with that explanation because the American people are watching.
Laws are given by the conquerors to the conquered and the conquerors today are not the European colonialists, but a new wave of Muslim colonialists spreading across the world. The failure of the European chattering classes to deal with this simple reality, rather than celebrating the local version of that colonialism as cultural enrichment, while condemning any criticism of it as racism, is a further sign of their irrelevance and complete incapacity for dealing with any crisis more significant than a canape shortage at their latest book signing party.
Having ignored the crisis for as long as possible, they are now discussing on what terms the raiders should be able to impose their laws on us, while bellowing at us that any notion of Sharia law being imposed on us is a fantasy of racist extremists, even as they cower when the actual racist extremists tell them they want Sharia law or they will go on bombing, burning and killing. And there is still not even the faintest twinge of an honest discussion of this subject in any official forum, even as officials arrest men and women for the crime that in most Muslim countries is honestly known as blasphemy.
We can now see what kind of glorious world the abandonment of nationhood and national laws is getting us. It isn’t a John Lennon song, it’s a long screaming guitar solo, a wretched tormented yell of the savage set loose to kill in the night. It isn’t a peace flag, it’s the black flag of Islam scrawled with the supremacy of its prophet and its deity on every surface. It isn’t a system that makes life better, but one that reverts to the savage order of those with the most power making the laws for all.
And that is what this is really about. Americanism guarantees rights to all Americans. It even guarantees rights to many non-Americans, and it uses force to protect those rights. Anti-Americanism however introduces us to Post-American Internationalism, which on paper guarantees so many rights that you can never remember them all, but that really only has one right, the right of those with the largest and most violent single group to impose their will on everyone else.
That is what Muslims have been doing consistently at the United Nations ever since its membership was opened up. That is why Israel is so consistently reviled and despised at the hands of a Muslim alliance and its foreign enablers. But as the alliance has grown and gotten stronger, its appetites are no longer limited to the Jewish State. Any country that defends itself against Muslim violence, from the United States to Russia and China, from the Philippines to Burma, India and Thailand, will sooner or later be gnawed on by the hungry savages looking to put more infidels under their boot.
Now we have come to the acid test of internationalism. The great naked emperor moment that will determine whether we will go on down the ladder to the 7th Century or climb back up to the light of a better future.
The question is childishly absurdly simple. Will we allow Muslim mobs to determine the content of our Bill of Rights? Will we decide that as Americans, we have a right to freedom of speech, without considering the “global opinion” of a band of savages who want us to bow down to their stone god and its views on women, freedom and blasphemy, or will we decide that as Post-Americans we must consider the opinions of the “international community” and accept that freedom of speech is no longer feasible in a connected world?
The spokesmen for the latter obscenity have already crawled out of their holes to bray at us about giving consideration for the feelings of others. Obama, Clinton and all their diplomatic stooges have spent so much time talking about our consideration for religion that they might as well have taken off their shoes and planted their noses into the nearest smelly carpet.
But suppose for a moment that we don’t want to be considerate, support that we want to support the peculiar institution of allowing as many offensive opinions as can be found in a country of a few hundred million to proliferate. And suppose further that we believe that every person has the right to bray those opinions as he pleases, and that such a society of discordant arguments, where everyone is entitled to be right or wrong, ignorant or intelligent, bigoted or tolerant, crazy or sane, good or evil, without ever being sure which is which because it’s the process of yelling at each other that allows us to discover this, is actually the best society, then we are being jingoistic American exceptionalists.
Americanism is a nation of people arguing with each other, without killing each other, and Post-Americanism, as we have just witnessed, is the people who are willing to kill winning the argument by default. Anti-Americanism is the view that the people who kill each other should win the argument because the fact that they don’t have enough jet planes to kill us with proves they’re not part of the military-industrial complex.
That is our choice. We can choose to be ruled by savages brandishing weapons or by the Bill of Rights. But let’s not pretend that the rule of Obama or Ban Ki-moon is anything more than the rule of savages by proxy. It doesn’t much matter whether the savages are here pointing a gun at our heads or if Obama or some civil rights commission is doing their dirty work for them; our choice is clear. We can either be ruled by our laws or by the Koran.
Internationalism is the Koran wrapped in a blue flag and a billion words of empty human rights guarantees that mean nothing. Only nations ruled by free people can guarantee rights and anyone who undermines them, who promotes an Anti-American or Post-American agenda, is promoting the law of the Koran over the law of individual liberty.
The left has a choice to make. They can either choose Americanism or the Koran, and for the most part they have made their choice. And we need to make ours. This is not a debate over policies, but over basic freedoms. This is not a conflict over what percent of taxes we will be paying, but whether we will have even the most basic civil rights left by the time that the international order of savages and murderers, and their transnational representatives, are done with us.
Laws are made by force, not by international consensus. The Salafis and their internationalist appeasers have reminded us of that. That force can be the force of free people making laws for themselves or the force of violent outsiders imposing laws on people who are unable to resist them.
Americanism is not there to “communicate” or “reach out” to the savages to explain how much we respect their religion and how much we disavow anything that offends their tender sensitivities. It is there to tell them that our laws are inviolable and not open for negotiations and that if they attack us, then they will pay the price. Americanism is there to say that if we are attacked, our first priority will not be to win the hearts and minds of a global community, but to inflict ruthless devastation on our attackers without regard for the collateral damage among those nations that harbor them, and that we will do this while minimizing the risk to our own lives, because nations are obligated and mandated to place a higher value on the lives of their citizens than on those of their enemies.
A nation has only those laws and freedoms that it is willing to defend. And if we lose the nation, then we will not have sold it for a better international order, but for the violent whims of the Anti-American savages of the Post-American world.
From Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
“The saddest part about the recent decision in Brussels, Belgium, to fine “offensive language” is how utterly predictable it was. When you combine the inherently expansionist character of government with the nanny-state sensibilities of the modern technocrat, the necessary outcome is total control of the individual — his or her comprehensive subsumption into the collective will. Since there is no more potent expression of individuality than speech, and since there is no more potent concentration of government and soft-core fasco-nannyism than in the eurozone and its neighbors, we all knew it was coming.”
And the UN sinks even lower.
Via Judicial Watch:
Funded primarily with U.S. tax dollars, the famously corrupt United Nations has hit a new low, awarding a genocidal warlord indicted by an international court for crimes against humanity a seat on its laughable human rights council.
The worst part is that this madness is funded by Americans to the tune of 7-plus billion dollars a year. The American cash keeps pouring in even though the U.N. is pillar of corruption, fraud and mismanagement. Its so-called human rights council is a huge joke with members that are famous for oppressing their citizens and, in many cases, committing atrocious human rights violations. Cuba, Iran and Venezuela are among the offenders.
Now the U.N. is allowing Sudan’s Omar Al-Bashir, the last person on earth you would go to for anything related to human rights, have a seat on its human rights council. Here is a little background on the ruthless African dictator; He has been charged by the International Criminal Court of war crimes in Darfur and is responsible for killing thousands of his own citizens.
A renowned international human rights organization reminds that the Sudanese government has violently dispersed youth-led protests and that security forces have arrested and detained scores of perceived opponents. The Al-Bashir regime mistreats and tortures detainees and censors the media, the group, Human Rights Watch, writes in its assessment of the north African country. Additionally, Sudan’s indiscriminate bombing in civilian-populated areas has displaced hundreds of thousands of people.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Found at You Tube and The Mad Jewess
A major aspect of the liberal agenda is to use international treaties to undermine American sovereignty and liberty, as well as to loot Americans on behalf of global socialism. Among the most outrageous of these is the Law of the Sea Treaty, which calls for potentially $trillions of dollars of American wealth to be redistributed to other countries. Another is a small arms treaty that would infringe on the Second Amendment.
The internationalist (i.e., anti-American) Obama Regime requires help from the Senate to impose these treasonous treaties. Don’t think they won’t get it — even from Republicans. Appallingly, 18 Republican Senators are reportedly at least considering signing off on LOST: Mike Enzi (WY), Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), Mike Johanns (NE), Kelly Ayotte (NH), Lindsey Graham (SC), John McCain (AZ), Dick Lugar (IN), Mark Kirk (IL), Olympia Snowe (ME), Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Johnny Isakson (GA), Chuck Grassley (IA), Rob Portman (OH), Bob Corker (TN), Thad Cochran (MS), Scott Brown (MA), and Lamar Alexander (TN).
LOST represents not only a massive looting spree at American expense, but a severe encroachment on our national sovereignty. All Democrat Senators are expected to back it, confirming that their party is not just misguided but aggressively hostile to the USA, which it is in the process of destroying from within in the name of a oligarchical collectivist ideology absolutely opposed to our country’s founding principles.
On a tip from Bernie.
O’Sucka (Again) Subverting the Law (Second Amendment) By Entering into UN Treaty (Treason) Without Congressional Approval
Obama Administration to Subvert Second Amendment by Treaty
Dick was on Hannity last night. I admit I don’t watch much Tee Vee but I think he made two important points. One that Obama’s proposal to go back to Clinton administration taxes is false. Clinton cut capital gains taxes while Obama’s proposal raises them higher than they were under the Clinton Administration.
The other point is about the US entering a UN treaty on small arms.
On July 27th, the nations of the world are scheduled to meet in New York to sign a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Disguised as a way to prevent the proliferation of small arms throughout the world, it is, in fact, a backdoor way to legislate gun control in the United States and effectively repeal our Second Amendment.
The ATT will set up a global body which will require all nations to regulate firearms so that they can prevent their exportation to other countries. Inevitably, this will require countries to inventory the guns in private hands and to register them. A gun ban is not far away.
The ATT, under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, would have the power of a constitutional amendment and would, effectively, repeal the Second Amendment guaranteeing us the right to bear arms. We must fight to stop the US from signing the treaty and, if we fail, block Senate ratification.
Please sign the petition and include your name and address so we can send it to your Congressman and Senators.
Click Here to sign the petition to stop the US from signing the Arms Trade Treaty!
Thanks very much, Dick Morris
From The Jawa Report: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/
A Lawless Society
By: Daniel Greenfield
…A lawless society is one where those who manipulate empathy gain power. Where temporary outrage substitutes for policy. A video that stirs anger and goes viral matters more than law. Everyone is a muckraker, and everything is a muck of competing narratives because everyone is a victim and everyone is dirty at the same time.
There is no law and so every case, every incident is political, because law is made on an ad hoc basis. One side projects grief, the other side charges cynicism. The side that manipulates the emotions of the crowd most deftly, wins. Every politician is an actor, every debate is a performance and every victory is a chance to gather more spoils.
The idea that there should be one law for all, rather than one law for the sufferers and another for those who aren’t suffering, is alien to a society where empathy trumps law. Rather than making it easier for the rich and poor to compete, the rich hobble the middle-class for the benefit of the poor. Rather than outlawing racial discrimination, it’s reversed so that it favors those discriminated against. Rather than doing the right thing, the left does the Robin Hood thing, leaping from the tree, looting the society, and writing songs about its own dashing courage.
The government-media complex acts out the empathy narrative. Its reporting has nothing to do with the facts, but everything to do with emotion. A law is bad when it protects the privilege of the opposition, but good when it protects their privilege. The powers of the Senate, the Executive and the Supreme Court are good when they serve their ends, but bad when they serve the ends of their enemy. The blame always goes to one side, the side blocking their agenda.
A society that lives by law can have laws that mean something, but in a lawless society, a law only matters so long as it serves the purpose of those in power. When it doesn’t, then it’s ignored or tossed aside.
Last week we witnessed Obama playing Robin Hood by casting aside immigration law and transparency to the jubilant cheers of the media, whose fondest wish is for politicians to play Robin Hood, cut all the Gordian Knots and just carry out their agenda without regard for the law. That is what they wanted, that is what they got. But a lawless society cuts both ways and takes the system out of the protection of the law.
Law is impartial. It states absolute principles that apply regardless of faction and position. But in a lawless society, there is no law, only power. The left has ushered in a lawless society, but we will all have to live with the consequences.
Read the entire article at Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
Through the Looking Glass
Why Coaxing the Populace to Catastrophic Misjudgments is an Integral Part of Mainstream Media
by Takuan Seiyo
Mainstream media no longer form the same moving wallpaper in everyone’s parlor, as they did until merely twenty years ago. But having been the prism that refracted and colored the world view of the boomers and their children — i.e. the two generations steering the course of the West since World War II — their influence is still enormous, and pernicious.
That a pot-addled subversive slacker named Barry Soetoro became The Most Powerful Man in the World is of course a tale of a serendipitous creature embodying Western intelligentsia’s most profound wishes and therefore built up by the Mass Media of Mass Lunacy into a mighty Frankenstein, a golem. But this is a daily pattern in the Western MSM, everywhere and in everything related to culture, nationhood, race, gender, people, values, history, economics and so on. Of late, its biggest manifestation was in the media’s retelling and completely rehashing the story of the encounter between a community volunteer Hispanic immigrant named George Zimmerman, and Trayvon Martin, an Afro-American hood-in-a-hoodie, into drugs, hos and violence.
It’s fortunate therefore that sometimes, a small shard, found, may tell the story of a lost civilization, Such a shard landed on my desktop last week in the form of an article in Der Spiegel entitled “Why Islam Is an Integral Part of Germany”, by Bernhard Zand.
Let us nevertheless not fall into the trap of singularity. Here is a recent item in The Washington Post, a mirror just as tainted as Der Spiegel: “Baby boomers had better embrace change”.
The menacing tone of “had better” gives the game away. The purpose is like that in dozens of similar articles in every Western country destroyed by its guiding elite in the last fifty years: to convince its readers that the new demographics is here, the minorities will become a majority, it’s inevitable, embrace diversity, stop clinging to your obsolete white culture, “invest” in the young minorities’ tide with your [increased] tax money, so that 85-IQ semi-literates from 100 retarded cultures can become the doctors, engineers and inventors who will support your retirement.
Well, the WaPo writer does not quite put it the way the preceding sentence does, but that’s just because people who can cut through the fog of insanity have no hope, ever, to write for the WaPo.
The peoples of the West have fashioned their image of man and society, and of themselves, largely from words and images relayed by the mass media and the values embedded in that content. Not many are aware that what they are reading and apprehending is not the coherent, rational prose in English, German or French that it seems to be, but the Jabberwocky of a warped mirror reflecting defective mental chips in otherwise sleek transmitters: highly educated, with outlying IQs and notable talents.
Read the entire excellent article at Gates of Vienna: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/06/through-looking-glass.html#more
Forget concentration camps! The latest craze inVienna is for integration camps, which are designed to help prepare Austrian citizens for their future as an Islamic state by requiring them to adapt to the various cultures of their country’s mostly Muslim immigrant population.
GOV The tone of this program is playful, but the organizers’ underlying purpose is deadly serious.
A spectacular project will take place in Vienna in the next days. A group of artists will put up “integration camps” in the city as part of the Festwoche [Festival Week]. Only for Austrians, of course. According to the promoters, in these places people will be able to heal their phobia about minorities. The FPÖ is in outraged.
This satirical action goes under the name “Austrians, do integrate!”. It was created by the Viennese artists’ group “God’s Entertainment”. “We turn the debate about integration interculturally upside-down”, the creators of this initiative say. “After all the dominant culture, the courses on integration, and the language courses which our fellow immigrant citizens have to comply with, now we call on the natives to do the same thing. We invite them to at last be part of the big, complete and perfect Austria.”
To begin with, an evaluation of the need to adapt is to take place in the camps, and at the same time each participant will also be evaluated to determine which kind of integration program he needs. “Pack A” covers the “low requirement”. In this case, the course lasts just a few hours. “Pack B” lasts at least a full day and (according to description) for a complete beginner on integration there’s the “Pack C”, which lasts 2-3 days.
Foreigners of various origins are supposed to be in the camp to instruct. “We have Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, colored Africans, Turks, Kurds” the organizers say. At the beginning, one deals in a playful way with problem-solving strategies. “If required, there will be offered also headscarf, forced marriage and home slaughter training”, the operators explained with a wink.
The right wing FPO (anti-Islam) Freedom Party is rightly outraged: “A monstrosity”
The FPO is, as expected, not taking any pleasure from this satirical project: “This is a monstrosity among monstrosities,” the speaker for cultural politics Heidemarie Unterreiner claims. She does not understand the reason why such monkey business is also financed from the generous funds dedicated to the Festival Week.
“In marked contrast to this there are the festivals in Salzburg, which preserve a cultural concept to appeal to the audience, and which year after year delight guests from all over the world,” the FPÖ member says.
Here, Austrian MP tells Turkish Ambassador, “people are sick and tired of Islam.”
From Bare Naked Islam: http://barenakedislam.com/
The UN is considering a grave threat to our freedom, internet freedom. “Top-down, international regulation is antithetical to the Net, which has flourished under its current governance model.” Repressive countries, Russia and China, and repressive ideologies like Islam, need to reign in the freedoms afforded by an unregulated internet.
(WSJ) Russia, China and their allies within the 193 member states of the ITU want to renegotiate the 1988 treaty to expand its reach into previously unregulated areas. Reading even a partial list of proposals that could be codified into international law next December at a conference in Dubai is chilling:
- • Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control;
- • Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for “international” Internet traffic, perhaps even on a “per-click” basis for certain Web destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone companies and government treasuries;
- • Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for rates, terms and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping agreements known as “peering.”
- • Establish for the first time ITU dominion over important functions of multi-stakeholder Internet governance entities such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit entity that coordinates the .com and .org Web addresses of the world;
- • Subsume under intergovernmental control many functions of the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Society and other multi-stakeholder groups that establish the engineering and technical standards that allow the Internet to work;
- • Regulate international mobile roaming rates and practices.
And let’s face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity. They have formed impressive coalitions, and their efforts have progressed significantly.
The UN is driven largely by the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), the largest religious and political organization/bloc of countries at the august body (and the world). Close to the Muslim World League of the Muslim Brotherhood, it shares the Brotherhood’s strategic and cultural vision: that of a universal religious community, the Ummah, based upon the Koran, the Sunna, and the canonical orthodoxy of shari’a. The OIC represents 56 countries and the Palestinian Authority (considered a state), the whole constituting the universal Ummah with a community of more than one billion three to six hundred million Muslims. (Bat Yeor)
The OIC is nothing less than a “would-be, universal caliphate.” It might look different from the caliphates of the Ottomans, Fatimids, and Abbasids. It might resemble, instead, a thoroughly modern trans-national bureaucracy. But, already, the OIC exercises significant power through the United Nations, and through the European Union, which has been eager to accommodate the OIC while simultaneously endowing the U.N. with increasing authority for global governance.
“The caliphate is alive and growing within Europe. . . . It has advanced through the denial of dangers and the obfuscating of history. It has moved forward on gilded carpets in the corridors of dialogue, the network of the Alliances and partnerships, in the corruption of its leaders, intellectuals and NGOs, particularly at the United Nations.” Bat Ye’or
The OIC has been on a jihad to restrict free speech under the blasphemy laws of the sharia (criticizing or offending Islam is punishable by death). In Islam’s ongoing war on the truth, it’s not the hate that is reviled, it’s recognition of the hate. The UN doesn’t care when imams preach hatred and violence — only when anti-jihadists report on what they said does it become “hate speech.” Now sharia blasphemy law is being enforced at the UN under the guise of “hate speech.”
The OIC has undertaken a media blitz to silence free speech in accordance with the blasphemy laws under the sharia. These modern day barbarians will meet a fierce army of freedom lovers. The first session of the International Freedom Defense Congress, the operating body of the human rights organization Stop Islamization of Nations (SION), will be held in New York on September 11, 2012. The principal focus of the Congress will be a media offensive against Islamic supremacist attempts to restrict the freedom of speech in the free world, and the smear campaigns against freedom fighters in newspapers and media institutions in the West.
The Obama adminstration has partnered with these religious statists and has hosted Islamic leaders, religious scholars and advocacy groups that are pushing for hate-speech laws which, in their most virulent and fundamentalist form, criminalize what they perceive as blasphemy.
Itamar Gelbman, now running for Congress, is right. Defund the UN.
House to examine plan for United Nations to regulate the Internet The Hill
It’s an unpopular idea with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress, and officials with the Obama administration have also criticized it.“We’re quite concerned,” Larry Strickling, the head of the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration, said in an interview with The Hill earlier this year.
He said the measure would expose the Internet to “top-down regulation where it’s really the governments that are at the table, but the rest of the stakeholders aren’t.”
At a hearing earlier this month, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also criticized the proposal. He said China and Russia are “not exactly bastions of Internet freedom.”
“Any place that bans certain terms from search should not be a leader in international Internet regulatory frameworks,” he said, adding that he will keep a close eye on the process.
Yet the proposal could come up for a vote at a UN conference in Dubai in December.