An anti-Islam blog that failed to remove inflammatory comments from a few of its readers will be permanently taken down by its hosting company, WordPress, on January 6 as the result of a number of complaints filed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

The site, “Bare Naked Islam: It isn’t Islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you” (www.barenakedislam.com) will be taken down in two weeks by WordPress according to the website’s owner, Bonnie (*last name withheld).

Bonnie, in an exclusive interview, told Big Government that WordPress suddenly blocked her site “around Thanksgiving” and sent her a message to contact them because the company had some questions about comments that had been left on her site.

“There were some not so nice comments in responses to stories about Muslims killing people and raping little girls,” she said. The comments, she said, “are always a reaction to the stories,” that are posted, “although I do moderate the comments. I sometimes skim through the ones from people I know, and I mistakenly let some go through that were threatening. One was about burning a mosque, one said ‘nuke the Middle East…’.”

Bonnie says that one of the concerns WordPress had was a comment in which someone mentioned a specific mosque in Virginia and another reader responded that they walked by that mosque every day. According to WordPress, the language of the post could have been inciting violence or suggesting an attack on a particular place at a specific time.

(more…)

We were so full of “hope” for “change.” No, I am not talking about the election of Barack Obama, one of the most effective Progressive presidents in American history. I am speaking of the excitement felt within the Conservative, Libertarian and Center Right and Left political communities after the 2010 election delivered the House and a non-filibuster proof Senate to the American people. Finally, most of us thought, some balance in the federal government. Maybe, just maybe, the Progressives and Liberal Democrats in federal government would be forced to the table of true and honest compromise; compromise fitting of a truly free people. But, as we look back over the year, what did we really get for all that so-called “compromise?”

With Republicans in control of the US House of Representatives, the body where – by the mandate of the US Constitution – all legislation relating to revenue is to begin, many on the Right and in the Center believed that the reckless and spendthrift fiscal actions of the 111th Congress would be constrained if not reversed. With a sizable number of new members identifying with the oft demonized TEA Party, there was high hope for a glimmer of fiscal sanity to emerge from the halls of Congress. And while the TEA Party members of Congress are to be congratulated for doing exactly what their constituents sent them to Washington to do, in the end, they were thwarted by establishment, inside the beltway Republicans and the despotic obstructionism foisted upon them by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-NV, (to be fair, Reid was aided by a less than reform-minded Republican leadership in the senate, led by Mitch McConnell, R-KY).

The Budget
In absolute defiance of the fact that it is law that Congress must pass an annual budget for the federal government, Senate Democrats – once again, led by the indignant political disgrace that is Harry Reid – refused to abide by said law in passing, reconciling and advancing to the President an annual budget. It has been over 900 days – almost three years – since the last budget has been presented to the President for his signature or veto.

(more…)

This week, Sol Stern of Encounter Books released a broadside titled “A Century of Palestinian Rejectionism and Jew Hatred.”  In it, Sol details the history of Arab rejection of a Palestinian state.  His point is well summed up in this brilliant video narrated by Bill Whittle:

Sol is very kind when he writes that President Obama’s motives are unclear with regard to his ideological support for Mahmoud Abbas’ odd iteration of the Palestinian state-to-be.  His motives are absolutely clear.  President Obama is not who New York Magazine pretends he is – he is our first ideologically Muslim president.

(more…)

On Saturday morning, Illinois Democrat Congressman Mike Quigely made a surprise appearance at the American Islamic College Conference in Chicago. The unaccredited college is the first of its kind in the United States.

Quigley gave remarks to the primarily muslim audience. He rambled on about the typical racism and discrimination that the liberal left is so convinced America is rampantly infected with. As you can see in the video below, he proceeded in his congressional capacity to apologize on behalf of the country for discrimination against muslims’ faith.

(more…)

“…on a day when others tried to divide us, we can regain the sense of common purpose that stirred in our hearts 10 years ago. As a nation, we face difficult challenges, and as citizens in a democratic society we engage in vigorous debates about the future. But as we do, let’s never forget the lesson we learned anew 10 years ago — that our differences pale beside what unites us and that when we choose to move forward together, as one American family, the United States doesn’t just endure, we can emerge from our tests and trials stronger than before. That’s the America we were on 9/11 and in the days that followed. That’s the America we can and must always be.”
– Pres. Barack Obama, USA Today, Sept. 8, 2011

Ten year have passed since the Islamist attacks on the United States of America; attacks that killed 2,977 people in New York, Washington, DC and Shanksville, PA. Since that time we have routed the Taliban from their haven in Afghanistan, dispatched Osama bin Laden to the icy deep and lopped off many of the heads of the Islamist terror hydra. We have grown as a people to better understand the dysfunctional relationship that the Islamic theo-political dogma has with Western Culture. And we have done our best to attain closure, for ourselves, for our society and for our country.

But closure can be hard to attain when there are no bodies to bury and no pointed victory over a vanquished foe. And when closure alludes because of unresolved issues we must always re-examine the event; the moment; the realities.

At the ten year mark, an American president is foolishly stopping short of succeeding in a generational conflict with fundamentalist Islamists…or radical Islamists…or jihadists, you pick the politically correct term the Progressive-Left elitists are sanctioning as appropriate this week. To me, they are the enemy; bloodthirsty ideologues who are committed to ideological conquest by the sword in their quest to establish a global Caliphate existing under the exclusive stricture of Sharia Law. But then, that’s just me…educated on the subject and painfully realistic in my examination. You see, I dispensed with the self-imposed mental handicap of political correctness years ago…and I feel a lot better for having done so. I also see things a lot clearer without the fog of stupidity clouding every issue.

At the ten year mark, a secularist New York Mayor – along with the Progressive elites of his ilk – is advocating for the construction of a victory mosque within the footprint of the fallen World Trade Center. New York’s Mayor Bloomberg, about as self-righteous as they come, is so certain that a “kumbaya” inclusionist approach to fundamentalist Islam will heal the rift between cultures that he refuses to examine the Islamic traditions of conquest; traditions that include building great mosques over conquered lands and, in particular, conquered religious properties. One need only understand that mosques now stand over holy places meaningful to religions that existed long before Muhammad or the theo-political creed that is Islam, established in 610 A.D., to validate this reality.

(more…)

By now we’ve all heard the reprehensible remarks made by Congressional Black Caucus Whip Andre Carson (D-IN) where he told the audience at a CBC Jobs Fair Town Hall in Miami that Tea Party Congressmen would like to lynch black people.  Given the opportunity to revise or retract his remarks, Carson instead stood by “the truth” of his comments.

So now it seems pretty fair to say that Andre Carson is a race-baiting bigot who has brought shame upon the U. S. House of Representatives. But any regular reader of Big Government knows that this is not new information.  In fact, Andre Carson’s despicable, divisive slander of August 22nd is just the latest of bogus attacks made by the 2nd term congressman against the Tea Party.  Andre Carson is the man who told the mother of all race-baiting lies against the Tea Party: That racial slurs were screamed “fifteen times” at he and Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) in Washington DC on the day before the ObamaCare vote in 2010.

The headlines at the time (as well as Topic #1 on cable news and Sunday talk shows) was “Racist Tea Party Yells ‘N-Word’ at Civil Rights Icon John Lewis”.  Andre Carson’s name was hardly mentioned in any of the stories.  But a Big Government investigation revealed that it was he, in fact, who gathered Capitol Hill reporters around himself on March 20, 2010 and breathlessly told them what had happened “outside of Cannon (Congressional Office Building)” just moments before.  (audio courtesy Kerry Pickett, Washington Times)

By now you know the story become part of Democratic Party lore showing up in talking points as recently as just last week as Alan Colmes mangled the “facts” but still was able to perpetuate the lie on Fox News’ “O’Reilly Factor”. You should also know by now that Andrew Breitbart offered a $100, 000 reward for anyone who can produce video proof o the supposed racial hatred.  The only videos uncovered were found by the Big Government staff.  They show the exact moment Carson described, “down the steps of Cannon”, from four different angles.  Not only were there no slurs heard on any of the videos, but the scene is not at all how Carson described it to Capitol Hill reporters.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Pejman Yousefzadeh is joined by Mustafa Akyol to discuss the seeds of liberalism within Islam, how those freedoms were trampled in Muslim countries, and how the Arab Spring and the Green Movement in Iran might restore that personal liberty.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Islam without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty
Islam Will Find Its Own Way to Freedom
The Forgotten Liberalism Within Islam
Mustafa Akyol on the Basic Compatibility of Islam with Free Market Economy

Follow Pej on Twitter
Follow Mustafa on Twitter

By Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer

In a capitulation to Islamic supremacists and violent radical Leftists, French and European Union authorities have canceled a free speech rally that we had planned with a coalition of American and European human rights organizations in Strasbourg, the seat of the European Parliament.

Our human rights organizations Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) and its sister group, Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) were planning to hold their first-ever transatlantic summit in Strasbourg, France, on July 2.

The SIOA/SIOE summit was dedicated to the defense of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law – all principles denied by Islamic law.

But the Strasbourg police could not guarantee our safety. When the thugs of the Antifa group and Islamic supremacist organizations announced plans to hold a violent counter-demonstration and to do everything they could to disrupt our activities, the authorities canceled permission for our demonstration and conference, instead of standing up to these violent neo-fascists and their Islamic supremacist allies.

Strasbourg authorities told us that they could not guarantee our safety at the conference and demonstration location, the Place de la Republique. Efforts were made to hold the demonstration nearby, but the authorities still considered security to be too much of an issue.

(more…)

The judges in the Court of Amsterdam delivered their verdict Thursday morning in the heresy trial of Dutch Freedom Party politician Geert Wilders. Wilders has been found not guilty of all charges of inciting hatred against Muslims. The judge, Marcel van Oosten, and the other Dutch authorities ended up doing the right thing, no matter how cowardly and compromised they may have been. They must have known how history would view them if Wilders had been found guilty: as troglodytes who ushered in the return of the Dark Ages.

When do the Islamic supremacists go on trial for inciting hatred against non-Muslims?

“I am delighted with this ruling,” Wilders said. “It is a victory, not only for me but for all the Dutch people. Today is a victory for freedom of speech. The Dutch are still allowed to speak critically about islam, and resistance against islamisation is not a crime. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak.”

The charges against Geert Wilders were that he had made statements that were intentionally offensive to Muslims; incited hatred against Muslims; incited discrimination against Muslims; and incited hatred of non-Western immigrants.

The Islamic supremacists who initiated the case told the Dutch dhimmi judges that the things Wilders said had led to a rise in discrimination and violence against Muslims. They had no proof, of course, of anyone committing any act of violence against any Muslim, or discriminating against any Muslim, because of anything Geert Wilders said. They just wanted to compel the Netherlands to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws.

(more…)

The passage of SB1028/HB1353 (Material Support to Designated Entities Act of 2011) in the Tennessee Legislature on May 21, 2011 after months of controversy, and inaccurate and misleading reporting in local and national media marks a sea-change moment in America’s awareness and understanding of, and response to, the threat of Islam and its doctrine of jihad.

The bill passed the Tennessee Senate with 26 Yes, and 3 No; the vote in the House was 76 Yes, 16 No, and 1 Present/Not Voting. This bi-partisan support for a bill that does nothing if not increase the ability of the legal and law enforcement authorities of Tennessee to better protect the citizens of that state from terrorist threats (including organizations/entities that encourage/support terrorism) shows that a certain rationality has returned to public discourse, and re-focused the response of government, at least in Tennessee, from politically correct falsehoods and multicultural wishful thinking, to a more pragmatic acceptance of threats and a realistic approach to terrorism prevention.

When the bill is signed into law by Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam once an entity has been designated as a terrorist organization, it is a felony for anyone to knowingly help that entity with money, advice or any other aid.

Previous versions of the bill had included the words “jihad” and “Sharia” but the passed version of the bill does not. In fact, there is no differentiation made in the passed legislation between any specific ideology, or religious views that might encourage terrorism, or violence. All those who might support “entities” or “organizations” designated as a terrorist organization whatever their religious or ideological views might be, will fall under the purview of this new law.

The bi-partisan passage of the “Material Support to Designated Entities Act” in Tennessee is an official acknowledgment of realities and a long overdue response on the part of high level politicians in America that threats (and actions) of jihad and terrorism are the results of a specific ideology. The bill did not pass in a political vacuum.

(more…)

We are hearing a great deal about a budding “Democracy movement” spreading throughout the Middle East. Many are calling it an “Arab Spring.” The belief is that after centuries of totalitarian oppression, the Arab street is suddenly pining for more freedom; rebelling against the elitist ruling class of kings, emirs, despots and tyrants. This is most likely true for a great number of those filling the streets of Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Bahrain and myriad other Middle Eastern, predominantly Muslim nations. But there is a less than honorable component amongst the rebellion that simply waits for the “right” to a democratic vote. Contrary to how the idea of a move to Democracy presents, in the volatile Middle East there are elements in play that could make it a move in the wrong direction.

Each and every day we hear the misnomer that the United States of America is a Democracy. We hear it from the average man on the street, the mainstream media and even from those we have elected to office. But the fact of the matter is this: we are not a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. A thorough and convincing exhibit of the facts surrounding this reality is presented in Notes on Democracy: And the Republic for Which It Stands. The fact that this issue is even in need of address is a scathing commentary on the constitutional illiteracy of the American electorate and serves as a sobering reminder that, often times, what sounds good – what “feels good” – isn’t always as it presents.

The distinction – between the benefits of a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic – is incredibly important, and while some describe our nation as a Democracy in an error of ignorance, others – some with schemes of political opportunism – do so with a nefarious purpose and bad intentions.

James Madison, recognized as the Father of the US Constitution, said this about factions and Democracy in Federalist No. 10:

“Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people…From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

Why is this important in the context of what is happening in the Middle East at this very moment?

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Thomas de Waal to discuss the modern Chechnya in a post-war environment where suspicions are high and cultures crash.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Chechens I Used to Know
‘Chechnya’s bin Laden’ Killed by Russian Troops
Clashes in Russia’s Caucasus kill 10 rebels
Thomas de Waal’s The Caucasus: An Introduction
Putin’s czarist vision

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Thomas on Twitter

To listen to the debates on the deficit and the debt, one would think that wealth emanates from the government. Underlying every argument is the notion that government cuts imply pain and pose a drastic threat to our economy.

But government spending itself is pain because all money spent by the government represents the confiscation of today’s wealth or future wealth, via direct taxation, currency devaluation or debt ad infinitum. By taking current wealth out of private hands, it is allocated not according to a market economy driven by the people but by a political economy in which “investment” yields returns solely for the politicians in the form of votes and favored classes in the form of monetary or regulatory handouts; by devaluation, savers are wiped out and borrowers and spenders are rewarded, a sure-fire way to bankrupt a people, given that economies grow through savings and investment, not consumption; by piling on the debt, the government pushes up interest rates for all of us, leading investment to flow out of the US and crushing corporations and individuals alike.

All government today rests upon a premise that people should be lucky that they get to keep a percentage of the fruits of their labor, with government rightfully conferring benefits on the interests that support it. Which is why it was never intended for government to be in the business of conferring benefits in the first place – and I mean benefits to anyone, be it labor unions, corporations or particular classes of people.

The burden should have always been on the politician to prove to his elector why ANY dollar taken from the individual should be redistributed to someone else. For government’s clearly defined bounds were created to ensure that the usurpation of wealth from private citizens would be minimal, and occur only when it supported a service that all people benefitted equally from, such as our national defense.

(more…)

Most Americans are unaware (although readers of my website, AtlasShrugs.com, are well aware) of the atrocity that is taking place at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum. The New York Times reported last Sunday that “a dispute” is taking place over the remains of 9/11 victims, “between some of the victims’ families and the officials planning the National September 11 Memorial and Museum underneath where the twin towers stood.”

The dispute has arisen, says the Times, because “officials plan to take the remains seven stories below ground and place them in the new museum behind a wall with a quotation from Virgil about never forgetting, studded in letters of World Trade Center steel. But the families, appalled by the idea of remains that could belong to their loved ones being turned into a lure for tourists, want them kept in a separate above-ground memorial that would be treated like hallowed ground.”

The remains of the victims of the September 11th Islamic attack on this country do not belong to those ghouls at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum (Ground Zero mosqueteer Daisy the Khan is on their advisory board). Sally Regenhard, who lost her son Christian on 9/11, explained: “I personally feel I’ve been robbed of access to where my son’s remains are potentially being buried. My entire family, we will never go in there. This is a post-traumatic stress situation waiting to happen.” Rosemary Cain, whose son George, a firefighter, was killed on 9/11, said that putting the remains in the museum was “like a freak show.”

However, the president of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, Joe Daniels, was fine with the freak show: “What the families need most and what the public needs most is a memorial they can come to to pay their respects at.” The hubris of this creep. He is going to tell the 911 family members what they need.

(more…)

“I may not agree with what you say but I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to say it.” Voltaire

Who would have ever thought a philosopher from France (of all places) would support individual freedoms more than American political leaders? Not moi, but unfortunately we’re not making American political leaders like we used to!

Much has recently been made of Florida preacher Terry Jones’ burning of the Koran and the subsequent Afghanistan riots that resulted in the murders and beheadings of UN workers. What has been more repugnant, but not surprising, is the speed in which American political leaders have rushed in front of cameras to condemn Jones and even suggest restricting the First Amendment and freedom of speech!

South Carolina RINO Senator Lindsey Graham appeared on CBS Face The Nation yesterday. He stated:

“You know I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. During World War II you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy.”

Senate Leader Harry Reid added on the same program:

“Ten to 20 people have been killed. We’ll take a look at this of course…as to whether we need hearings or not, I don’t know.”

Shame on these lame excuses for Americans! Graham has the audacity to state “free speech is a great idea?” No, Senator Graham, free speech is one of the cornerstone liberties that separate America from the totalitarian controls in countries where citizens suffer with the oppression of communism or sharia law. It is America’s love and defense of individual freedoms and rights that serve as the backbone of our love and defense of liberty.

(more…)

When Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) announced Tuesday that he will hold a hearing next week in the Senate Judiciary Committee on the civil rights of American Muslims, everyone thought it was a joke. No other group gets the extraordinary, unconstitutional special status that Muslims enjoy. The Muslim Brotherhood, an organization whose stated goal is to destroy and eliminate America from within, has accessed and secured extraordinary power at senior levels of the Executive branch, the Department of Justice, Department of Defense, State Department, Homeland Security, etc.

One can point to Alger Hiss or Benedict Arnold for like historical antecedents. The difference between then and now is that we didn’t know that Hiss et al were seditionists whose objective was to overthrow the government. We know who and what the Brotherhood is, but the political elites, the chattering classes and the media elites have taken up their considerable weapons against those who are exposing this century’s Nazis.

Dick Durbin’s hearing – with the Orwellian title “Protecting the Civil Rights of American Muslims” – is intended to serve as a counterpunch to the much more sensible and logical (although still toothless, as I explained here and here) House Homeland Security Committee hearing led by Chairman Peter King (R-NY) two weeks ago on the radicalization of Muslims in the U.S. Senator Durbin’s press release announcing the hearing said that it was being triggered by a non-existent “spike in anti-Muslim bigotry in the last year.” Apparently, the numerous acts of terrorism committed by American Muslims, and the warnings that have even come from the Obama Administration about the homegrown radicalization of Islamic jihadists, are to be deliberately ignored in deference to Islamic demands and supremacism.

In my previous oped piece on the Durbin debacle, I thought that a hearing on “Muslim rights” would be a good idea if it addressed the increasing surrender of secular law to Islamic law, and the assertion of Islamic supremacism over the rights of all others. We need hearings on the Florida circuit court judge who just ruled that a case be decided according to Sharia law. We need hearings on the special rights being afforded Muslims at the expense of everyone else. We need hearings on the Obama Justice Department’s suing a school district for not allowing a Muslim woman to take nearly three weeks off during the school year to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca.

(more…)

Well, you have to hand it to Obama, he is consistent in his extreme anti-Americanism. America is firing missiles into Libya just as the Telegraph reported that “statements of support for Libya’s revolution by al-Qaeda and leading Islamists have led to fears that military action by the West might be playing into the hands of its ideological enemies.”

Throughout Obama’s presidency and all of the Islamic revolutions sweeping the Middle East and Africa, he has sided with the Islamic supremacists at every turn. Taking his marching orders from the vile America-hater and Jew-hater, the devout Muslim Sheik Qaradawi, Obama is now paving the way for an Islamic state in Libya. Not that Libya has been good under Gaddafi — hardly. But there are degrees of evil. The situation can always be worse, and little matches the anti-human brutality of Islamic regimes in the twenty-first century.

It’s ironic that Obama has turned against Gaddafi, since Gaddafi has regarded him warmly, saying in April 2010: “Barakeh Obama is friend…He is of Muslim descent, his policy should be supported.” As meticulously documented in my book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America, the ties between Gaddafi and Obama are close and extensive. Back in July 2008, Gaddafi endorsed Obama, going so far as to say: “All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency.”

And Obama’s spirtual svengali and former Nation of Islam adherent Jeremiah Wright went to Libya with Jew-hater Louis Farrakhan to see Gaddafi, as he recalled during the 2008 campaign: “When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit [Gaddafi] with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”

It didn’t, but it should have.

(more…)

When Americans voted in Barack Obama in 2008, they thought they were getting a “post-racial,” “post-partisan” President.  For Barack Obama himself had declared that having merely won the Democratic nomination, “the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”  What Americans didn’t realize however was that Barack Obama was only to be President for certain subsets of the population; this new era of good feeling was only to be for those of a select few classes, races and ethnicities.  This was to be a world in which all of the old injustices would be righted not by tolerance for all, but with intolerance for the presumed intolerant, with the vengeful Barack Obama correcting past wrongs with his redistributive justice.

And so in America today if you are black, a union member, Muslim, Hispanic, gay and/or profligate you can expect preferential treatment from this administration.  For most everyone else, tough luck.  I know of no other way to interpret the pattern of the words and actions of this President and his cronies.  We need not judge Obama on the Bill Ayers, Edward Said/Rashid Khalidi and Jeremiah Wright influences.  The true instincts of this administration show quite clearly in its deafening silence on so many true injustices, only to be outdone by its knee-jerk reactions to issues either not germane to it, or on which it consistently sides against the majority of Americans.

Witness the fact that the President cannot help but interject when it comes to the actions of a white cop in Cambridge, a mosque being built by Islamic supremacists near Ground Zero, a Governor trying to return his state to fiscal sanity by taking on an obfuscatory union or the evil fat cats trying to make their undeserved profits, nor can Eric Holder admit that perhaps even the word “jihad” exists, let alone that the nightstick-wielding Black Panthers in Philadelphia were anything more than “inappropriate,” though they threatened the citizenry in the very way that his “people” were threatened decades ago.  The notion of the keeper of justice defending above all his “people” poses a challenge to Justice Sotomayor’s wise Latina women quip in the volumes it speaks with regard to the “soft” bigotry of this administration.

This administration does not represent the people, but only the narrow majority which elected it, save for a handful of Independents they have thrown under the bus along the way.  But as Lenin said, “if you want to make an omelet, you have to be willing to break a few eggs.”

(more…)

Universally, democracy is being exalted.

Everywhere one turns, one hears of its virtues: how democracy ensures human rights, fosters prosperity and shepherds in modernity.

Yet democracy represents nothing more than the tyranny of the majority.  In other words, contrary to the ideals of western liberalism, democracy does not ensure that the smallest minority, the individual is protected.

In the vast majority of circumstances, people free to choose their government get the government they desire.  In Russia, the people have chosen again and again to elect KGB criminals.  In Gaza, the people have chosen to elect either Hamas or Fatah, terrorist parties in perpetual war.  Democracy does not a free society ensure.

Democracy is merely a system of election – it is not inherently good as its results are entirely predicated on the voters themselves.  Freedom-loving peoples will generally establish a political system to protect freedom.  Those who prefer strict rule will devise a political order that squelches it.

I would argue that any Islamic society will refuse to establish a system grounded in property rights, individual liberty and free market principles because it is completely anathema to Islamic culture, history and religious tenets.

(more…)