Free Speech, UN Style

March 29, 2008

The UN, unsurprisingly, thinks free speech is bad if it offends murderers – presumably because about half of its member nations are run by murderers.

Benjamin Franklin observed that stopping inflammatory speech might sometimes be a good thing, but that unfortunately no human being could be trusted with this authority. Hence the Frirst amendment.

The publication of the Fitna movie provides a textbook example.

Here’s how Islamist censors reacted to Liveleak’s hosting the video:

Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.

This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.

Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture.

We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.

The UN head, appropriately named Mr Ban stands shoulder to shoulder with the Islamists:

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”…”Freedom must always be accompanied by social responsibility,” Ban said.

“We must also recognize that the real fault line is not between Muslim and Western societies, as some would have us believe, but between small minorities of extremists, on different sides, with a vested interest in stirring hostility and conflict,” Ban said.

Of course there’s no Western “small minority” that saws captives heads off, flies planes into buildings, executes apostates, bombs trains, threatens critics with death, and brutalizes women.

There’s just one: Islamists.

Aided and abetted in their depravity by Mr Ban and his like.


America’s Shame

February 27, 2008

Ms. Rice wants more US cultural exchanges with, and visits from, North Korea. That makes her breathtakingly naive or a cynical appeaser – either way she’s betraying the 23 million poor devils suffering under that Fear State.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States should consider future cultural exchanges with North Korea, even if last year’s deal to end the North’s nuclear programs falls through.

Speaking in Beijing minutes after the New York Philharmonic played “The Star-Spangled Banner” for the Communist Party elite in Pyongyang, North Korea, Miss Rice said cultural programs would help promote the North’s “opening to the rest of the world.”

“I’d like to see North Koreans come to the United States,” she told reporters during an East Asian tour aimed at breaking the latest nuclear impasse.

Reporters asked Miss Rice whether future cultural exchanges should be arranged even if an October agreement in six-nation talks collapses.

Miss Rice replied: “I believe that cultural exchange is something that we ought to be looking at in any case.”

Natan Sharansky’s definitive book analyzes how Fear States work, based on his life in the Soviet Union. In such states a small group of thugs use their monopoly of force exclusively to enrich themselves and their supporters.

The controlling group is small (about 200,000 in Iran) and it runs all the businesses, takes all luxury goods, uses all foreign exchange, and gets the bulk of educational and medical services (Saddam spent the UN’s oil for food money for breast implants for his supporters’ women, not antibiotics for kids).

The left believes in the benevolent dictator – for example Castro – but it’s a myth:

…a Cuban-American anti-Castro activist, claims, partially based on the testimonials of defectors who were close to Castro, that Castro and his loyalists control several billions of dollars in real estate, bank accounts, private estates, yachts and other assets — called “the Comandante’s Reserves” — in Europe, Latin America and Asia – and a luxurious lifestyle for the top Cuban leadership.

Here’s how it works in North Korea:

Multiple international human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, accuse North Korea of having one of the worst human rights records of any nation.

North Koreans have been referred to as “some of the world’s most brutalized people”, regarding their severe restrictions on political and economic freedoms.

North Korean defectors have testified to the existence of prison and detention camps with an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 inmates, and have reported torture, starvation, rape, murder, medical experimentation, forced labour, and forced abortions.

Fear State thugs use every perk available to cement the loyalty of their supporters – the audience for the New York Philharmonic’s shameful performance in Pyongyang will have been all-thug.

And the North Korean dictatorship will ensure that all of its citizens Rice allows into the US will also be thugs, bent on self enrichment, espionage, and criminality.

By providing the dictator with the means to reward his supporters, Rice perpetuates the enslavement of a suffering people.

In our lifetimes, the US has five times overthrown dictatorships by the only means that works: steadfast opposition and, where necessary, force.

Ms Rice shames her nation, and the sooner she goes, the better.


Jesus Must Weep

February 8, 2008

The leader of the Church of England is anti-Christian – he supports tyrants and scorns their victims.

He supported the right of the Soviet Fear State to enslave hundreds of millions:

In 1985, he was arrested for singing psalms as part of a protest organized by the Committee for Nuclear Disarmament at Lakenheath, an American air base in Suffolk…

He thinks the 9/11 killers were not without merit when they made their victims choose between burning and jumping.

He was in New York at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, only yards from Ground Zero delivering a lecture; he subsequently wrote a short book, ‘Writing in the Dust’, offering reflections on the event. In reference to Al Qaeda, he claimed that terrorists “… can have serious moral goals”

He thinks Saddam Hussein should have been left undisturbed to commit genocide and torture:

…on behalf of all 114 Church of England bishops, he wrote to Tony Blair expressing deep concern about UK government policy and criticising the coalition troops’ conduct in Iraq.

The letter cited the abuse of Iraqi detainees, which was described as having been “deeply damaging” – and stated that the government’s apparent double standards “diminish the credibility of western governments”.

In December 2006 he expressed doubts in an interview on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 about whether he had done enough to oppose the war.

He supports the Mullahs, who promise to kill another 6 million Jews, and stone women to death:

On the 5th October 2007 Williams visited Iraqi refugees in Syria. In a BBC interview after his trip he described advocates of a US attack on Syria or Iran as ‘criminal, ignorant and potentially murderous’.

So his appeasement of Muslim oppression of women is entirely in character (my ellipsis):

Dr Williams said it “seems inevitable” that elements of Islamic law, such as divorce proceedings, would be incorporated into British law.

…the UK had to “face up to the fact” that some citizens do not relate to the British legal system, and argued that officially sanctioning Sharia law would improve community relations.

Actually, the Brit government already allows Sharia courts, and their malign influence is exposed by the Centre for Social Cohesion in their report Honour-Based Violence In the UK. Here’s how these courts work (my ellipsis):

…‘Sharia Courts’ set up to standardise Muslim marriages in the UK, theoretically permit women to initiate divorce proceedings on the grounds of domestic violence. In practice, however, this is rarely the case.

…the Islamic Sharia Council will tend to try to balance the women’s interests against those of her husband, family and extended community. In many cases, this consultative approach can allow community leaders and family to pressure the women to withdraw plans to divorce or to return to abusive husbands. (A Women’s Aid worker) says:

“Within the Sharia Council they will approach family members to listen to the wife’s side of the story and the husband’s side and then use religious texts to approach the question of whether a divorce should be granted. In our experience this isn’t going to result in a solution which is fair for the woman.”

While forcing abused women back into the hands of their abusers, these courts let men “issue” divorces – here’s a supposedly liberal Brit Sharia court member:

“We encourage a man to wait till the woman has finished her menstrual cycle before issuing the divorce because then he would have time to think it over and not make a rash decision. The point is to keep the family together and not break it up …

Also, the man must not have relations with woman [i.e. an affair] when making the decision; it is not accepted to have relations while making the decision.

Also, it is not advised to issue a divorce and leave the women with nothing, often these decisions are made in anger and are made on the spur of the moment. The man has to also issue a clear statement of divorce before it is accepted.”

The 1980s comedy Yes Prime Minister explains how the current incumbent got to run a Christian church:

As Prime Minister, Hacker must appoint a bishop–er, “recommend the appointment to the Sovereign”–but unfortunately, the two candidates are a suspected disestablishmentarian and a left-wing troublemaker who doesn’t even believe in God (naturally, he’s the one the Church of England wants).

But the Church of England supporting the strong against the weak isn’t funny.


The President Bites

January 25, 2008

President Bush has nailed his appeasing Secretary of State and her honchos at State by dropping Paul Wolfowitz on them.

Last year, State proudly announced it had bribed the North Korean dictator to abandon his nuclear weapons programs (he has two – one using Uranium and one Plutonium).

Subsequently the Israelis whacked a nuclear weapons reactor he was building for his fellow-dictator in Syria, and he welshed on his deal with State after pocketing their bribes.

Recently a rare brave man at State denounced this charade:

…Jay Lefkowitz, special envoy for human rights in North Korea (in) a speech delivered Thursday at the American Enterprise Institute…spelled out that after four years of Six-Party talks, we’ve got pretty much nothing. Meanwhile, North Korea has conducted an intercontinental ballistic missile test, a nuclear test, and continued brutalizing its own people in ways “deeply offensive to us,” which “should also offend free people around the world.”

Staking out a position not attempted in the Condi Rice State Department since John Bolton left in 2006, Lefkowitz suggested that “Policy should rest on assumptions that correlate with recent facts and events.” He went on to spell out (without mentioning Chris Hill) the ways in which Chris-Hill diplomacy and the Six-Party talks have been a horrifying flop.

…Lefkowitz warned that “It is increasingly likely that North Korea will have the same nuclear status one year from now that it has today.”

Ms Rice rushed to defend the dictator:

…Mr. Lefkowitz, growled Condoleezza Rice at a Tuesday press conference in Europe, “doesn’t work on the six-party talks [on North Korea], he doesn’t know what’s going on in the six-party talks and he certainly has no say in what American policy will be in the six-party talks.”

To reinforce her point, State then deleted Lefkowitz’s speech from its website.

It seemed Rice and dictator had won, until today the president announced:

Paul Wolfowitz has been appointed a high-level adviser on arms control to the Bush administration, dealing with issues such as Iran and North Korea.

The appointment of the former head of the World Bank to the International Security Advisory Board will once again give one of Mr Bush’s hawkish proponents of the Iraq war an official channel to the administration.

The panel’s duty is to supply independent advice on arms control, disarmament, non-proliferation and related subjects…

For Mr Wolfowitz the appointment is a huge vindication after his protracted and controversial departure from the World Bank, where Mr Bush had sent him after he had served five years as deputy secretary of defence.

This is excellent – the president confirms he has no confidence in Ms Rice, puts her dictator in the cross-hairs, adds the Mullahs for good measure, shows he cares about the wretched North Korean people, and tells the corrupt creeps at the World Bank what he thinks of them.

As a postscript, one of said corrupt creeps is now in Brown’s (also corrupt) cabinet, so that sends a message to him too.

Nice shooting.


FO: Worse Than State

December 8, 2007

Americans depressed by the incompetence and dishonesty of their State Department can take some comfort that the Brits have an even nastier crew.

The Brit version is called the Foreign Office (FO), and here’s how it sprang into action to save the woman teacher the Sudanese wanted to lash:

The Foreign Office advised Lord Ahmed against his mercy dash to Sudan to negotiate the release of British teacher Gillian Gibbons, the Muslim peer has said.

“I got a telephone call at 9pm on Thursday night and I called the Foreign Office immediately and the response unit, actually, they advised me not to go,” Lord Ahmed told the BBC.

He was informed that the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, would not make a decision on whether or not he should go until the following day. Lord Ahmed then organised his own visa and flight to Sudan.

That’s no doubt because the FO had its hands full with this:

Four of the five British residents held at the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay are expected to be released following negotiations between the Government and Washington….

In July, Gordon Brown requested that the Americans release the men, who have all previously lived in Britain.

The Foreign Office refused last night to confirm details of the report, but confirmed that discussions had been held with American authorities over the fate of the five men…

It was reported that Jamil el-Banna, a Jordanian, Libyan-born Omar Deghayes and Abdennour Sameur, an Algerian, would be returned to Britain…

According to newspaper reports, the Pentagon has warned that some of the men had close ties to senior Al Qaeda members…

These men are not British citizens and were captured fighting our ally. When they’re back in the UK, the FO plans to subject them to “control orders” that restrict their movements, but the last bunch of terrorists they did this to promptly escaped.

So there you have it – the Brit Foreign Office devotes its energies to freeing foreign terrorists to commit more murders, while leaving Brit citizens to fester in Islamic hellholes.

Even the State Department can’t equal that.


Bush 2.0

December 1, 2007

The George Bush 1.0 of 9/11 had moral clarity, patriotism. and steadfastness. Annapolis shows him morphing into Bush 2.0, who equates killers and their victims, hands concessions to America’s enemies, and betrays its friends.

The “Palestinian Problem” is actually the determination of the nations surrounding Israel to destroy it – here’s the leading MidEast expert Bernard Lewis, via EU Referendum:

If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have a straightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to say, not easy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in the meantime.

If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist.

Lewis goes on to explain that two of the three mass population movements after WW2 (India/Pakistan and Poland/USSR) were quickly settled, and that only the Palestinian/Jew movement (in which Palestinians were displaced from Israel and a larger number of Jews were displaced from Arab countries) has continued to fester.

That’s because the Arabs want Israel destroyed, and Bush 1.0 recognized this.

But at Annapolis, Bush 2.0 rewrote the script.

Israel and Palestinians now are morally equivalent – here’s part of the joint statement the president extracted from their respective leaders and quoted approvingly:

We express our determination to bring an end to bloodshed, suffering and decades of conflict between our peoples; to usher in a new era of peace, based on freedom, security, justice, dignity, respect and mutual recognition; to propagate a culture of peace and nonviolence; to confront terrorism and incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis. In furtherance of the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security, we agree to immediately launch good-faith bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty, resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues, without exception, as specified in previous agreements.

Bush 2.0 concludes:

The Israelis must do their part. They must show the world that they are ready to begin — to bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement. This settlement will establish Palestine as a Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. Israel must demonstrate its support for the creation of a prosperous and successful Palestinian state by removing unauthorized outposts, ending settlement expansion, and finding other ways for the Palestinian Authority to exercise its responsibilities without compromising Israel’s security.

This is nuts: the Israelis have fought 5 defensive wars since the UN gave them their nation, have successively pulled out of the Lebanon and Gaza strip, and received nothing but more terror for their pains.

Every tyrant in the world will be encouraged to see the US president dump on his allies. Indeed, merely by inviting killer state Syria to Annapolis, he put a bullet through Lebanese democracy – as Lee Smith explains (hat tip Powerline):

WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, Saad al-Hariri’s Mostaqbal party agreed to a constitutional amendment that would allow Lebanese Armed Forces Commander Michel Suleiman to be elected president. Up until now, Hariri and his March 14 allies (the date of the 2005 Cedar Revolution) had resisted Suleiman’s candidacy; Lebanese democrats are generally loath to have military men serve as President of the Republic, especially after the last nine years of former commander Emile Lahoud’s presidency. But more importantly, Suleiman is Damascus’s number one choice to fill the now vacant spot.

So why have Hariri and his colleagues…made an about face? It is because of Annapolis. They feared Washington was going to cut a deal with Syria over Lebanon, so they made their own bargain to protect themselves since it is now obvious Washington will not.

So Syria gets Lebanon as a reward for sending suicide bombers to kill Iraqis, Americans, and Brits.

Israel will survive – it’s been here before with Jimmy Carter. No matter how aggressively the administration threatens and bribes the Israeli leadership (and it will), it won’t force that state to commit suicide. It will however get more Israelis killed.

Bush 2.0 will look lousy in the history books, and that’s a shame because the earlier version was almost great.

That’s sad.


Democrats For Iran

November 10, 2007

Congressional Democrats are a loyal bunch, and fight to defend their allies – the Mullahs, that is.

Senator Lieberman observed this week:

…”Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.”

…Mr. Lieberman was particularly critical of his 22 Democratic colleagues in the Senate who voted against the senator’s resolution to label Iran’s revolutionary guard corps and elite Quds Force a foreign terrorist entity.

Mr. Lieberman concluded, “There is something profoundly wrong-something that should trouble all of us — when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran’s murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.”

It’s worse than that – the Dems are undermining US defenses against Iran (my ellipsis):

Congress will not let the U.S. military begin building a missile defense site in Europe until the U.S. has ratified agreements with the host nations — and that’s not close to happening, said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif. Tauscher oversees missile defense matters as chairman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee…

In remarks to defense reporters Nov. 8, Tauscher said the U.S. Missile Defense Agency should work harder at protecting deployed U.S. troops against current missile threats with proven technology and “pull back” from “science projects” such as the European missile defense site.

(Instead) the U.S. Missile Defense Agency should focus on improving and deploying three existing systems designed to counter (short range) missiles, she said.

And the U.S. should work with its 26 NATO partners — instead of working bilaterally with just two (actually three: the UK, Czech Republic, and Poland) — to develop continent-wide defenses against short-, medium- and long-range missiles, she said.

The U.S. should also try to win cooperation from Russia.

The chairman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee knows the US is quite capable of deploying a robust defensive system against the Mullahs’ future ICBMs, but that if it waits to deploy until that threat is clear and present, and the likes of Putin and Belgium OK the US plan, the system will never happen.

There’s a silver lining – if the Dems win the presidency and keep their congressional majority, 50 kilotons on Washington would rid the US of many nasty creatures, Tauscher included.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.