...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad

Say what? A NY Daily News article about the possibility of an “October Surprise”—and attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the U.S. or Israel or both—brought some of those serving the elimationist agenda out of the woodwork. Here are the sage words of two “Ohavei Zion”, followed by someone brave enough to take them on:

FYI Greenbeanie: the Israel Kool-Aid, unlike the sickly-sweet purple lefty libation, is made from Jaffa oranges—and it’s dee-lish.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:19 | link | comments (1)

D’Escoto’s main squeeze: Who is this Miguel D’Escoto Brockman, president of the UN General Assembly, and why is he so quick to hug a thug? A Sept. 17 VOA News article provides some perspective on this most affectionate of diplomats:

A new session of the United Nations General Assembly has opened in New York, with a sharp attack on the United States by the assembly's president, former Nicaraguan foreign minister Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann. VOA's Walter Wisniewski reports from our New York newscenter.

The past year's General Assembly of the United Nations has come to a close, and the new, 63rd session of the General Assembly is now formally open. World leaders will address the annual U.N. meeting next week, but the Assembly's incoming president caught diplomats' attention Tuesday with his opening remarks, a scathing attack on U.S. policies.

The General Assembly president, former Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, mentioned the United States by name only a few times, but made it clear who his target was.

D'Escoto says it is "undeniable" that some members of the Security Council have "an addiction to war," and he says they are threatening international peace and security. In a scarcely veiled reference to President George W. Bush's administration, d'Escoto also said no nation has the right "to decide on its own which states are sponsors of terrorism, and which are not."

"By now, over 1.2 million people have died as a direct consequence of that aggression and occupation," d'Escoto said about the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

The 75-year-old diplomat, who is a Roman Catholic priest, told reporters later he intends to try to reform the U.N. to give the 192-member General Assembly a stronger role, compared to the Security Council, whose permanent members - the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain - have veto power over U.N. decisions.  

D'Escoto says the world has changed since 1945, when the United Nations was founded, but the U.N. has not kept pace. He predicts "soul-searching" and frank debate at the General Assembly in the weeks and months to come.

"This will be an interesting year, and I will be making an appeal from the very depth of my heart and my experience," he said.

D'Escoto used spiritual terms in his opening speech, which he addressed to "my dear brothers and sisters" from all over the world. Asked about the significance of his dual role as General Assembly president and also a priest, he tried to deflect the comment with a joke.

"I'm also the oldest and the most decrepit [laughter], healthwise, and I know that. But will I, therefore, because I am a priest, pay particular attention to interfaith dialogue?" he asked. "That's already on the agenda. This is something that I have spoken about quite a bit with the secretary-general, and he is asking me to join him in this effort."

He was asked about his scheduled appearance at a forum next week together with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel's destruction several times. D'Escoto says he does not feel it is inappropriate for him to take part.

"Obviously, if I am here talking about brotherhood and sisterhood, I don't want anyone to be wiped off the map - not even any individual, much less a state," he said…

So why, a week and a half later, did he hug the thug instead of giving him the greeting he so richly deserved: a well-aimed loogie in the face? Actions speak louder, D’Emento, and yours are saying, “I hate Great Satan and the Zionists just as much as my cuddly pal Mahmoud does.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:02 | link | comments

Speaking frankly about Frankly speaking: You know, Mr. Diament, two blog posts--one in mid-August, the other at the end of the month--doth not a blogger make. Guess you're too busy hunting down the next generation of Nazi hate-speakers--sweaty, pimply nerds hiding out in the folks' basement in, say, Flin Flon, eating pizza pops, playing "Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway," and maybe occasionally talking trash about "da Jews"--to have have time to comment on pressing events. One would have expected, though, that a blogger of your calibre might have found the odd mintute to weigh in on, oh, I dunno, maybe how the BB's been slapped with another one of those HRC "nuisance" complaints?  Or perhaps offer an insight or two into the stink bomb that Ahmadinejad dropped at the UN last week, the one that made many of the assembled hold their noses--and then applaud him heartily. Yes, I know, I know, that particular "gent" is losing no sleep at all over what Laura Rosen Cohen said in the National Post the other day. On the other hand, her words sure seems to rubbed you the wrong way.  Hope that, despite the obvious agita, you're managing to catch some Z's (that's zees; not zeds). 

So, just to clarify: is it blogus interruptus? Or blogus kaput?

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:02 | link | comments

Sheepish Ceeb “apologizes” for Heather’s malice: Heh. From CP:

TORONTO — The CBC has issued an apology and retraction for posting a controversial online column by freelancer Heather Mallick about Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin earlier this month.

Following 300-plus complaints from readers, and attacks from Canadian and American media organizations, including Fox News, publisher John Cuickshank said the public broadcaster had erred in its editorial judgement and the item should never have appeared on the CBC website.

In an online statement, Cruickshank said reaction to the column has caused the CBC to install new editing procedures that will ensure inappropriate work won't appear.

"We are open to contentious reasoned argument but not to partisan attack," he said in a statement posted on the broadcaster's website.

Despite the vitriolic response to Mallick's Sept. 5 piece, "A Mighty Wind Blows Through the Republican Convention," the CBC had initially stood by the article and said it wouldn't remove it from its website.

In the article, Mallick said Palin appeals to "the white trash vote" with her "toned-down version of the porn actress look."

Vince Carlin, the broadcaster's ombudsman who was later asked to assess the offending article, determined many of Mallick's assertions lacked a basis in fact.

"Mallick's column is a classic piece of political invective," Cruickshank agreed. "It is viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan."

In the wake of her column, Mallick has said she's faced a slew of abusive comments. She was called a "pig" by a Fox News anchor and branded an insane Pakistani Muslim on Fox message boards.

She has also received threatening email, some of which include anti-Semitic slurs - despite the fact she's neither Jewish nor Muslim.

Mallick has never expressed apologies for her column, and had one week ago lauded the CBC for supporting her right to expression.

Partially in response the outcry, Cruickshank said CBCNews.ca has plans to soon expand the diversity of voices and opinions expressed online "to better reflect the depth and texture of this country."

My thoughts:

·         Since the Ceeb has apparently decided a la the Islamists that “anti-Semitism” includes both Jews and Muslims (a classic Islamist tactic; a way of ridiculing and diminishing Judenhass), I suggest that from now on we ditch the term and refer to Jew-hate as, well, Jew-hate.

 

·         I’m glad that Mallick wrote what she did. It showed Canadians the freaky mindset of Ceeb employees, and it’s encouraging that so many Canadians were so appalled by it that they felt compelled to complain. That being said, I don’t think she should have been censored. Free speech means that the Heathers and Evans and Jians get to express whatever sophistries and imbecilities they want to. That’s my assurance—and yours—that our voices get to be heard, too.

 

·         “Partially in response to the outcry” the Ceeb is planning to “expand the diversity of voices and opinions”: Cut to the chase—the Ceeb is feeling uneasy about a possible Conservative majority. Should such an eventuality come to pass, the Ceeb knows it will no longer be able to get away with presenting a single viewpoint—the lefty/Socialist/anti-American one. Not if it hopes to keep sucking from the taxpayer’s teat.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:26 | link | comments (4)

Shoeless Jews: This letter appears in the National Post:

Re: Getting To The Root Of Hate, letter to the editor, Sept. 27.

Letter writer Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada, defends the hate crime law used against the young man who painted swastika graffiti, in case he became like the "unknown high school drop out named Adolf Hitler." This shows that B'nai Brith is attempting to remove all thorns from the road instead of teaching Jews to wear strong-soled shoes

The Nazi phenomenon occurred in a unique set of political, social and economic circumstances that can never reoccur. Instead of enjoying the publicity of swatting flies, B'nai Brith and other Jewish leaders should attend to their real mortal enemies -- the ones who call them apes and pigs and desire their extermination.

Since hate is a natural human emotion, our hate speech laws are an affront to human dignity and freedom. In the interests of the larger Canadian community, Jewish leaders, who originally pressed for these repressive laws, should now work to abrogate them. Better still, work to get rid of the whole human rights political machine.

Jiti Khanna, Vancouver.

I don't know about that "can never reoccur" part: it's "reocurring" at this very moment via the eliminationist agenda. However, I do agree that it's high time Frank and the other thorn-removers drop the security blankie, eschew the thin-soled Florsheims, and invest in a sturdy pair of Doc Martens.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:23 | link | comments (4)

Shana Tova!: Wishing all my Jewish friends in the blogosphere a happy, healthy and sweet New Year--from me, mine and three sock puppets. Blogging will be necessarily light today as I get ready for the holiday (and cook up a storm), and non-existent tomorrow and Wednesday.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:16 | link | comments (1)

Kittens, a long-running UN musical: An unwelcome addition to the cast of the UN nuclear watchkittens—Growltiger Iran and Rum Tum Tugger Syria are demanding their own box of kitty litter at the IAEA. An outrageous request, I know, one that’s even more chutzpahdik that their demanding—and being allowed  to—play a central role on the UN’s farcical “human rights” body (a demand that makes more "sense" since that body exists largely to help the OIC implement its vendetta against Israel—which makes an Iranian and Syrian presence there a perfect fit). From the IHT:

VIENNA, Austria: A meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog's 145 member nations this week could turn into a showdown between the West and the developing world, as Iran and Syria bid for more influence within the agency, and Islamic nations express anger over Israel's nuclear program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency's general conference, starting Monday, has traditionally been an annual chance for member countries to plan general nuclear policies that range from strengthening nonproliferation to programs of medical and scientific benefit.

Decisions are usually made by consensus, which in the past has led all sides to bridge sometimes substantial differences to reach compromise. A votes on any topic have been rare in the meeting's 52-year history, and are considered dents in the meeting's credibility.

But Islamic nations have grown frustrated with Israel's refusal to put its nuclear program under international purview, and could force a vote for a third year running. They have lost the vote on Israel in the last two years, and now are threatening to up the ante if they don't get conference backing on the issue by calling for a vote on every item of this year's agenda, no matter how minor.

"In all my years of dealing with the general conference, I have never seen it as divided as this," one conference veteran said Sunday. The diplomat demanded anonymity because he wasn't authorized to comment to the media.

As in the past two years, Islamic IAEA members are expected to put forward a resolution urging all Middle East nations to refrain from testing or developing nuclear arms and urging nuclear weapons states "to refrain from any action" hindering a Mideast nuclear-free zone.

Israel — widely considered the only Mideast nuclear weapons state — last year called for a vote on that resolution because of the introduction of a separate Arab-backed item deeming Israel a "nuclear threat." The resolution was defeated, but the fact that it was put to a ballot weakened the consensus principle.

Arab members — backed by Iran — have again asked conference organizers to include a similar item. While it now refers to "Israeli nuclear capabilities" instead of "nuclear threat," the Jewish State still objects to being singled out — and diplomats told The Associated Press it would again force a vote on the Mideast nuclear-free zone resolution unless the second item is withdrawn.

Focusing on Israel by name "is substantially unwarranted and flawed," said a letter prepared for review by the conference from Israel Michaeli, the Jewish State's IAEA representative.

Sponsors of the item should instead "address the most pressing proliferation concerns in the Middle East," said the letter in allusion to Iran's defiance of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusal to stop uranium enrichment and world concerns about allegations that Tehran had past plans to make nuclear weapons…

Past plans? Present, ongoing, soon-to-be bombs-away plans, more like.

Update: "Grizabella" ElBaradei's big number:

Silence.

Not a sound from the Shias.

They claim they’re not enrichin’

But they won’t let me check.

In the moonlight the ayatollahs plot genocide

And the Jews moan like heck.

 

Every mullah seems to speak a fatalistic warning.

Ahmadinejad sputters and the UN flutters.

And soon those nukes are soaring.

 

Memory

Of the Final Solution

Hasn’t meant evolution;

No, not even a bit.

I remember the time I got my Nobel Peace Prize.

It’s so shiny; I’m a git.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:45 | link | comments

France tries to hold back the tide of Islamization: A losing battle, not assisted in any way by reports such as this one from the IHT.

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

Yo ho ho and 20 million dollars: Somali pirates make allowances for inflation.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:18 | link | comments (1)

“Rebranding” balkers: As expected, Israeli Consul General to Toronto Amir Gissin’s plan to “rebrand” Israel so that people with see it as being useful to the world and won’t get behind the OIC’s eliminationist agenda has met with some, er, hostility. The Canadian Arab Federation, for one (an organization that was recently given a whack of cash by the federal government to promote the creative efforts of Canadian Arabs) has some harsh, not to mention hateful and deranged, words about the plan, ones fully in keeping with the eliminationist agenda. Here’s the CAF news release, issued late last month, slamming the branding. Please take note of the usefully idiot/hard lefty organizations that have signed on to serve the Arabs’ agenda:  

COMMUNITY GROUPS DENOUNCE 'BRAND ISRAEL' INAUGURATION

 

(TORONTO, August 26, 2008) – Yesterday over a hundred Torontonians showed up at the Miles Nadal Jewish Community Center (MNJCC) to voice their opposition to the official launch of a 1-million dollar 'Brand Israel' rebranding campaign at that venue. Toronto has been selected as a 'test market' for a year-long public relations campaign launched by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to improve "Israel's image" – a state who's racism against Palestinians has come under increasing scrutiny by the growing worldwide boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

 

During the rally, organized by the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid (CAIA), speakers from No One is Illegal (NOII), the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP), The UofT Reparations Committee, the United Black Students at Ryerson (UBSR) and Women in Solidarity with Palestine (WISP, formerly the Jewish Women's Committee to end the Occupation) addressed the racist nature of the Israeli state and its rebranding campaign. CAIA spokesperson, Kole Kilibarda, noted that, "Just as Torontonians rejected attempts by the South African regime to rebrand apartheid in the 1980s, we will also refuse to 'buy into' this latest attempt to change the subject and divert attention away from Israel's state-sanctioned racism." Hussan of NOII reminded the crowd that, "The world increasingly rejects settler-colonialism, whether here on Turtle Island [North America] or in Israel. Just as apartheid fell in South Africa, it will fall in Turtle Island and Israel!"…

 

…CAIA members leafleted in the rush hour traffic informing thousands of commuters about the 'Brand Israel' campaign launch and the need to oppose its various manifestations over the next year.

 

2008 marks the 60th anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba, which laid the foundations for the current system of Israeli apartheid. To date the year has been filled with worldwide events marking the ethnic cleansing of over 750,000 Palestinians and the destruction of over 430 Palestinian villages by Israeli militias in 1948. A number of important resolutions in support of BDS have been passed by labour and student unions this year, including a number in Canada. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs' attempts to use Toronto as a 'test market' for its rebranding campaign are seen as a testament to the strength of the growing BDS movement in this city. CAIA has vowed to continue pressing forward with this important campaign until the core demands of the Palestinian-initiated BDS movement are met, including: (1) the end of Israeli military occupation over all Arab lands; (2) the right of return of refugees as stipulate by UN Resolution 194 and (3) the granting of full equality to the Palestinian citizens of Israel.

 

Sounds reasonable--if your goal is the violent demise of Jewish sovereignty in Israel, that is. I know—let’s ask Assud, Hamas TV’s giant bunny, to help articulate Palestinian hopes and dreams vis a vis “the Jews” once the “refugees” have been given leave to “return”.

Sheesh. Seems to be kind of a disconnect between the bunny's cuddly appearance and his voracious words. No matter. I see no reason why some of that Canadian Heritage coin earmarked for Arab creativity couldn’t be used to bring the fluffy emissary to Canada as a Palestinian “goodwill” ambassador: if there’s anything from which Canadians could benefit, it’s clearer insight into this particular type of “artistry”.

Update: What, you may ask, is "the U of T Reparations Committee? Apparently, it's a group that's attempting to shame the university in forking over mucho diinero to Black Students, "atonement" for university investments in apartheid-era South Africa. As well, the committe demands  "atonement" for slavery, discrimination, and colonialization--none of which, as far as I know, U of T is in any way responsible for. The Committee held a forum recently to air its grievances:  

Forum by the Reparations Committee: U of T Must Atone

September 18, 2008

 

U OF T MUST ATONE FORUM

September 18, 2008

Doors open at 9:30AM

Forum: 10AM - 1:00PM
Location: OISE of the University of Toronto, Auditorium, 252 Bloor St.

In January of 1988, the University of Toronto after intense pressure from an overwhelming amount of students, grudgingly decided to reverse their policy of continuing to invest in companies doing business in apartheid South Africa. While the University of Toronto divested itself of about $19 million worth of shares in the apartheid regime, it has still remained reticent and inactive on repairing the breach with its Black students. Come hear key witnesses in a landmark case in New York, that seeks millions of dollars in reparations from corporations that supported and profited from South African apartheid.

Make sure you attend the historic forum being hosted by The Reparations Committee at the University of Toronto, that will demand U of T and other institutions to pay reparations to Black students for their complicity in the crimes of slavery, colonization, and apartheid...

 

Doesn't anyone in the U of T administration have the cohoonies to tell these grievance junkies, these shake-down artists, to take a hike? (The Committe could also use the services of a good copy editor since, in that last sentence, it sounds like the Black students, not the institutions, are complicit. One the guilt money starts rolling in, hiring an editor should be easy-peasy.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:40 | link | comments (1)

Voting the Hitler ticket: An American Jew I know, an otherwise sane and intelligent chap, recently explained his undying devotion to the Democratic Party in this way: “I would vote for Adolf Hitler if he were the Democratic candidate for President.”

Given that, this loyal party man would no doubt vote an entire Nazi slate, were it Democratic: Joseph Goebbels for V.P., Adolf Eichmann for Secretary of State, and Albert Speer for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Heinrich Himmler at Homeland Security?

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:22 | link | comments

A case of mistaken Levantity: Something I didn’t mention in my report about the lunch featuring the troika of Human Rights speakers—the amusing slip of the tongue by B’nai Brith’s David Matas. At one point during his rambling spiel, Matas called Ezra Levant “Oscar Levant.” He corrected himself immediately, but, being a fan of old Hollywood musicals—and the acerbity of Oscar, a once famous mid-20^th Century depressive and wit—I couldn’t help but giggle at the error. And then, imagination sparked, I thought of how An American in Paris might be remade today—in a non-musical version with Ezra in the Oscar role; John Bolton assaying Gene Kelly; and, as the adorable French gamine with legs that never end, introducing the lovely and talented Mrs. Nicolas Sarkozy.

Okay, I admit it. I am a bit nuts.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:51 | link | comments

Opportunity lost: Phyllis Chessler poses an intriguing question:

I know that Ahmadinejad entered the Grand Hyatt Hotel earlier tonight. What I don’t understand is why he has also exited it. Are there no Iranian dissidents or human rights activists prepared to arrest him on the spot and transport him to stand trial in The Hague? As the Israelis did for Herr Eichmann?

Can’t help you out there, Phyllis. But even if some brave dissident or activist had tried to pull an Eichmann on the hairy little guy, how can we assume that the learned justices of The Hague would have been willing to try him?

No, I think a better question is why did no one try to put a bullet between the tyrant’s lyin’ eyes? Think of how history might have been changed had someone managed to do that to Herr Hitler before the Holocaust.

 

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:00 | link | comments

Fire and blasphemy: Thinking about writing or publishing a "controversial" book about Islam’s founder?  You might want to think again. From the Beeb: 

Three men arrested in north London on suspicion of terrorism continue to be questioned by police.

 

They are suspected of attempting to set fire to a publisher's office in Lonsdale Square, Islington.

 

The publisher, Gibson House, is due to release a controversial novel about the Prophet Muhammad and his child bride, entitled The Jewel of the Medina.

 

The three men were arrested by armed officers from the Metropolitan Police in a planned operation.

 

The men, aged 40, 22 and 30, were arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 and are being held at Paddington Green police station.

 

Two were arrested outside the property in Lonsdale Square, and the third following an armed vehicle stop near Angel Tube station on Upper Street at 0225 GMT on Saturday.

 

A small fire was put out at the property, which is used as a home and office by publisher Martin Rynja, who is due to publish the controversial book.

 

Its publication in the US was cancelled in August by publisher Random House, fearing it could offend Muslims.

 

Random House said then it had been advised the book "could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment".

 

At the time, Mr Rynja said there must be "open access to literary works, regardless of fear".

 

He added: "If a novel of quality and skill that casts light on a beautiful subject we know too little of in the West, but have a genuine interest in, cannot be published here, it would truly mean that the clock has been turned back to the dark ages."

 

Welcome to the 7^th Century, Mr. Rynja; one man’s “dark ages” is another “small, radical segment”'s glorious era of enlightenment.

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

A change is gonna come: Blogger Urban Infidel has some photos of the anti-Ahadinejad protest in New York City. I particularly liked this one:

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:19 | link | comments

"We believe ourselves to be victims, and we become victims": Here's one of my favorite Paul Newman moments--his summation to the judge in The Verdict.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:51 | link | comments

Look out below!: NDP's Jack Layton to release platform in Toronto this Sunday.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:45 | link | comments

Today's unintentionally hilarious Orwellian headline from the Tehran Times: Nasrallah pledges to maintain spirit of consensus in Lebanon.

Translation: Hellzbollocks' Nasty Nasrallah is going to firm up his (and the mullahs') stranglehold on Lebanon. In the "spirit of consensus," of course.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:38 | link | comments

The Star’s lame post mortem: After consistently downplaying the Toronto 18 terror plot, the one which led to one of the young conspirators being convicted last week (with more convictions likely to come), the Toronto Star clues in (kind of, sort of, not really) to the fact that, just because terrorist-wannabes are young and naïve and newbies in the art of jihadi havoc, that doesn’t preclude their being a genuine threat (my bolds):

Canada's first successful terror prosecution since 9/11 did not land an Osama bin Laden-size fish. Far from it. Our first homegrown terrorist turns out to be a naive 17-year-old, more to be pitied than feared.

But Justice John Sproat of Ontario Superior Court sent two stern signals Thursday to those who feel drawn to do violence against the public, as he found the youth guilty of knowingly participating in terrorist activities: Canadian law provides no free pass for bumbling terrorists, and naivete is no defence.

Sproat forcefully rejected the view that the 2006 "Toronto 18" terror plot should be laughed out of court as the fantasy of "a hapless fanatic who posed no risk." He was equally dismissive of efforts to portray the defendant as an innocent. He attended a training camp where people spoke of sharing Al Qaeda's "principles and methods," and of "striking" at North American targets, and where a gun was fired.

Critics of Canada's beefed-up anti-terror laws have long worried that innocents may be swept up in their net. Indeed the Star has criticized the laws, including their provisions for preventive arrest and self-incrimination. But in this case, the police appear to have disrupted a real conspiracy, at least as far as the judge saw it.

Given the youth's age, a lenient sentence is in order. But after the Air India bombing and 9/11, Canada's courts are not disposed to treat terror lightly. Nor should they be.

Sounds to me like the Star wants to have it both ways—commending the judge for taking the threat seriously (something the Star was disinclined to do; the judge’s withering words about those who thought the terror plot should be “laughed out of court” since these “innocents” posed “no risk” accurately describes the paper’s coverage)—and still, still, harping on the “youth’s” ineptitude, naivete, and pitifulness.

“More to be pitied than feared”? Save your pity, silly sob-sisters, for those who deserve it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:31 | link | comments (4)

Reproductions: Great news! Canadians have finally started having more babies, which means we can rest easy, at least for now, about the nation’s depopulation sitiuation. The Ceeb has more:

Canada's fertility rate reached a 10-year high in 2006, when women aged 30 to 34 had more babies than women aged 25 to 29 for the first time, Statistics Canada said Friday.

The total fertility rate — the average number of children per women — rose to 1.59 in 2006, up from 1.54 in 2005, the agency's health statistic division said in its report on births.

The replacement level fertility, or the level of fertility the population needs to replace itself from one generation to the next, is 2.1 in Canada.

"The recent increase in births could be explained partly by the fact that many women from the echo generation [those born between 1988 and 1995] had entered their childbearing years and their fertility rates edged up," the report said...

Yes, that must explain it—those “echo” chicks have decided to be fecund and multiply. Of course, there could be another reason, one that doesn’t seem to factor into the StatsCan reckonings, but one which some smarty-pants at the Ceeb seems to have considered, since this link—Immigration critical to population growth: census—appears next to the above story on the Ceeb’s website (my bolds):

Immigrants made up the vast majority of the 1.6 million new Canadians between 2001 and 2006, giving the country the highest population growth rate among G8 countries, new census data released Tuesday suggests.

Canada's population stands at 31,612,897, with a growth rate of 5.4 per cent during that five-year period.

That's up from the four per cent growth rate in the previous census period between 1996 and 2001.

Roughly 1.2 million new immigrants made up the bulk of the population growth outlined in the latest census, while the country's native-born population increased by 400,000.

"Our natural growth rate is lower [than] in the U.S. for example. Sixty per cent of their growth rate came from natural growth," said Anil Arora, the director general of Statistics Canada's census branch.

The fertility rate for Canadian women between 15 and 49 remained an average of 1.5 children, the same rate as in the previous census period. The fertility rate in the U.S. is 2.0.

An average 240,000 newcomers per year more than compensated for Canada's flat fertility rate…

And from where, pray tell, are the bulk of our newcomers arriving? This map helps provide a snapshot:

Oh.

Update: Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders describes the "baby boom" in Europe to an American audience:

...The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome’s ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.

But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see – and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule...

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:54 | link | comments (2)

Did somebody say "hidden agenda"?: What the Libs (who've long accused the Tories of hiding their true intentions) may be keeping from voters.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:39 | link | comments

The irreverent (and ever-relevant) Mr. Wolfe: What follows is an excerpt from Tom Wolfe’s (in)famous 1970 magazine article “Radical Chic”. The article was a scathing, and scathingly funny, examination of elitist poseurs—New York, mainly Jewish ones—and their then-newly fashionable fascination with the primitif:

     From the beginning it was pointless to argue about the sincerity of Radical Chic. Unquestionably the basic impulse, “red diaper” or otherwise, was sincere. But, as in most human endeavours focused upon an ideal, there seemed to be some double-track thinking going on. On the first track—well, one does have a sincere concern for the poor and the underprivileged and an honest outrage against discrimination. One’s heart does cry out—quite spontaneously!—upon hearing how the police have dealt with the Panthers, dragging an epileptic like Lee Barry out of his hospital bed and throwing him into the Tombs. When one thinks of Mitchell and Agnew and all of their Captain Beefheart Maggie & Jiggs New York Athletic Club troglodyte crypto-Horst Wessel Irish Oyster Bar Construction Worker followers, then one understands why poor blacks like the Panthers might feel driven to drastic solutions, and—well, anyway, one truly feels for them. One really does. On the other hand—on the second track in one’s mind, that is—one also has a sincere concern for maintaining a proper East Side life-style in New York Society. And this concern is just as sincere as the first, and just as deep. It really is. It really does become part of one’s psyche. For example, one must have a weekend place, in the country or by the shore, all year round preferably, but certainly from the middle of May to the middle of September. It is hard to get across to outsiders an understanding of how absolute such apparently trivial needs are. One feels them in his solar plexus. When one thinks of being trapped in New York Saturday after Saturday in July or August, doomed to be part of those fantastically dowdy herds roaming past Bonwit’s and Tiffany’s at dead noon in the sandstone sun-broil, 92 degrees, daddies from Long Island in balloon-seat Bermuda shorts bought at the Times Square Store in Oceanside and fat mommies with white belled pants stretching over their lower bellies and crinkling up in the crotch like some kind of Dacron-polyester labia—well, anyway, then one truly feels the need to obey at least the minimal rules of New York Society. One really does.

     One rule is that nostalgie de la boue—i.e., the styles of romantic, raw-vital, Low Rent primitives—are good; and middle class, whether black or white, is bad. Therefore, Radical Chic invariably favors radicals who seem primitive, exotic, and romantic, such as the grape workers, who are not merely radical and “of the soil” but also Latin; the Panthers, with their leather pieces, Afros, shades, and shoot outs; also the Red Indians, who, of course, had always seemed primitive, exotic and romantic. At the outset, at least, all three groups had something else to recommend them, as well: they were headquartered three thousand miles away from the East Side of Manhattan, in places like Delano (the grape workers), Oakland (The Panthers), and Arizona and New Mexico (the Indians). They weren’t likely to become too much…underfoot, as it were. Exotic, Romantic, Far Off…as we shall soon see, other favourite creatures of Radical Chic had the same attractive qualities; namely the ocelots, jaguars, cheetahs, and Somali leopards.

Substitute baby seals and whales for ocelots, etc. and Palestinians for Black Panthers, and  update the politically incorrect terminology (“aboriginals” for, gasp, “Red Indians”) and Wolfe’s words are as timely as ever—see the newest book by Canadian elitist poseur John Ralston Saul.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:29 | link | comments (1)

More eliminationist festivities: Fun—and Judenhass—in Nazi Iran. From Breitbart (via Drudge):

Iranians chanted "Death to Israel" on Friday as Islamist students unveiled a book mocking the Holocaust in an Al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day annual parade to show solidarity with the Palestinians.

 

And in Gaza City, the Islamist Hamas movement that has ruled the impoverished Palestinian territory since June 2007 marked the day by calling for more suicide attacks on Israel.

The book "Holocaust," published by members of Iran's Islamist Basij militia, features dozens of cartoons and sarcastic commentary.

Education Minister Alireza Ali-Ahmadi attended the official launch of the book in Tehran's Palestine Square.

The cover shows a Jew with a crooked nose and dressed in traditional garb drawing outlines of dead bodies on the ground.

Inside, bearded Jews are shown leaving and re-entering a gas chamber with a counter that reads the number 5,999,999.

Another illustration depicts Jewish prisoners entering a furnace in a Nazi extermination camp and leaving from the other side as gun-wielding "terrorists."

Yet another shows a patient draped in an Israeli flag and on life support breathing Zyklon-B, the poisonous gas used in the extermination chambers.

Iran does not recognise the Jewish state, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has attracted international condemnation by repeatedly predicting Israel is doomed to disappear and branding the Holocaust a "myth."

The commentary inside the book includes anti-Semitic stereotypes and revisionist arguments, casting doubt that the massacre of Jews took place and mocking Holocaust survivors who claimed reparations after World War II.

One comment, in a question-and-answer format, reads: "How did the Germans emit gas into chambers while there were no holes on the ceiling?" Answer: "Shut up, you criminal anti-Semite. How dare you ask this question?"

In 2006, the Islamic republic hosted a conference of Holocaust deniers and revisionists and a mass-circulation Iranian newspaper held a cartoon competition on the subject.

On Friday, tens of thousands of Iranians marched in Tehran, chanting "Death to Israel," declaring solidarity with the Palestinians and calling for Jerusalem and Israel to be handed to the Palestinians.

Demonstrators carried placards bearing slogans including "Israel will be destroyed, Palestine is Victorious" and "Holy war until victory," and they also torched American and Israeli flags.

In Gaza, a Hamas parliamentarian called for more suicide attacks against Israel as thousands of Palestinians marched to mark Al-Quds Day.

"We call on all the factions to undertake efforts to contain the enemy and halt its aggression by planning martyrdom operations," Ahmed Abu Helbiya told a crowd of more than 2,000 protesters.

Friday's Iran protest follows a fresh verbal attack on Israel by Ahmadinejad…

From somewhere down in Hades, Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler are giving the “protesters” a hearty thumbs up. Or would be, if their digits hadn’t been burnt off long ago.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:02 | link | comments

Malarkey’s ride: And speaking of those who serve the eliminationist agenda (see post below), here’s a harrowing adventure tale--call it "Palestinian Cohones and the Temple of Doom"-- by Mark “Malarkey” MacKinnon of the Globe and Mail. You’ll laugh; you’ll cry; you’ll hurl:

JERUSALEM — With his head down and his eyes firmly fixed on his feet, Nader Deek stepped tentatively through the arched stone gate, praying to the highest power that the Israeli soldiers all around wouldn't ask him for identification as he went to pray at the al-Aqsa mosque yesterday morning. “In the name of God, the most compassionate, the most merciful,” the sturdy 26-year-old muttered as he stepped between two soldiers clutching black assault rifles.

That higher power seemed to be on Mr. Deek's side yesterday. Busy checking the documents of other Palestinians wishing to pray at al-Aqsa yesterday, the last Friday in the holy month of Ramadan, neither soldier noticed as he slipped through the ancient stone portal and into the vast courtyard known to Muslims as Haram ash-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary.

Taking part in noon prayers yesterday at the al-Aqsa mosque was the end of an incredible 4 1/2-hour ordeal for Mr. Deek, during which he was accompanied by a reporter from The Globe and Mail. Along the way from his home in a village near Ramallah to the Old City of Jerusalem – a 10- to 15-minute drive in normal circumstances – he was shoved by Israeli soldiers, crawled through a drainage ditch, evaded soldiers at a checkpoint, sneaked through an olive grove and then disguised himself as a Jewish tourist for the nerve-racking final walk through the Old City to the mosque compound.

Mr. Deek wasn't the only Palestinian resident of the West Bank who made such a journey yesterday. In a testament to their resilience and religiosity, hundreds of other Palestinians could be seen along our route evading Israeli bureaucracy, and a thick network of checkpoints, to pray yesterday at the site from where the Prophet Mohammed is believed to have ascended to heaven, also on the last Friday of Ramadan. As the deeply devout Mr. Deek explained along the way, kneeling inside al-Aqsa yesterday was worth the same as “1,000 months of prayer” elsewhere.

Israeli police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld said that about 190,000 Muslims prayed at al-Aqsa yesterday “without incident.” But tens of thousands of others were turned away because they were deemed a security threat simply because of their age, driving many to take desperate measures to reach a mosque that is one of the holiest sites in Islam.

It has never been easy for West Bank Palestinians to go to the al-Aqsa mosque, but since the second intifada, or uprising, Israeli restrictions have tightened. Now, based on the idea that young people are more likely to cause trouble – riots after Friday prayers are not uncommon at al-Aqsa – Palestinian men under the age of 45 and women under 35 are barred, and other restrictions apply. The rules apply only to West Bank residents; Israeli Arabs can visit the mosque whenever they wish. Residents of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, meanwhile, are currently barred from entering Israel.

When we began our journey early yesterday morning, it was far from certain whether Mr. Deek would end up inside the mosque or an Israeli prison. As a West Bank resident under the age of 45, he was formally barred from entering Jerusalem. Nonetheless, like thousands of others, he arrived yesterday morning at the Qalandiya military checkpoint that Israel has constructed between Ramallah and Jerusalem, hoping the soldiers might let him pass anyway.

Mr. Deek arrived with two friends at 7 a.m. and the situation rapidly became extremely tense.

“Why are you waiting? You're wasting your time. You won't be allowed through,” a young Israeli soldier shouted in Arabic through a megaphone. Later in the day, the situation at Qalandiya would escalate into a small riot in which one Israeli soldier was injured by rocks thrown by the crowd of Palestinians. But some, including Mr. Deek, hadn't yet given up hope of reaching al-Aqsa.

Palestinians are traders by nature, and with Qalandiya blocked, a black market quickly developed with drivers offering “no-guarantees” drives through the surrounding hills to Jerusalem at 30 shekels ($9) per passenger. Five of us piled into a white 1979 Mercedes sedan and headed south. We had no seatbelts, just two passengers who were madly clicking prayer beads…

Traders by nature, are they?  I can think of some other things they are “by nature,” things you're unlikely to read about in an article by the empathetic, agenda-serving Malarkey.

Update: My (unpublishable) letter:

I would like to thank Middle East correspondent Mark MacKinnon for performing a valuable service for supporters of Israel. Here I was feeling all down in the dumps because of the rapturous reception accorded to Iran’s President Ahmadinejad this past week at the UN, along with news about Al Quds (Jerusalem) Day, Iran’s annual day of solidarity with the Palestinians, during which thousands of “protesters” chanted “Death to Israel,” and Iran’s leaders unveiled a new book mocking the Holocaust (which, of course, they deny ever happened). Meanwhile, over in Gaza, Hamas, Iran’s ally, promised to get back to the vital business of killing Israelis by sending booby-trapped “martyrs” into crowds of civilians. Yet, to read Mr. MacKinnon, one gets the impression that Israel is firmly in command, wilfully putting Palestinians through “hell” not because of any ongoing existential threat to the Jewish state, but out of sheer bloody-mindedness.

 

I am reminded of a joke that made the rounds in Europe during World War 2, the one about the Jew who explains that the reason he reads Nazi newspaper Der Sturmer is because he finds all the stuff about how the Jews control the world a great comfort at a time of such unpleasant reality.

 

That’s sort of how I feel, practically every time I read one of Mr. MacKinnon’s reports.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:06 | link | comments

My dinner with Paul: I am saddened to hear of the passing of Paul Newman. Although, unlike me, he was a lifelong lefty (my leftiness having ended not long after 9/11), he was a truly decent, philanthropic man—a mensch, as we of the tribe would say. For my money, he was also the sexiest blonde Hollywood male star ever, with a killer smirk and those famous, fabulous blue eyes. I had occasion to see them up close once when, some years ago (in a previous life) I was sent with a friend to New York City on business. It was the first time in NYC for both of us, and on our very first night we decided to go to an Italian restaurant that had opened not long before on the Upper East Side; I had read about it in the New York Times. Upon arriving—without a reservation, I might add—we were greeted by a gentlemen we assumed was the Maitre d’.  He smiled and ushered us inside, then, stopping suddenly, he turned to face us and said, “No, I don’t think I'll seat you here. I’m going to put you next to Paul Newman.” We looked at each other as if to say, “Yeah, right, you do that.” But sure enough, that’s exactly what he did. So there we were, our first evening in New York City, eating dinner not more that eight inches or so away from Newman, his wife Joanne Woodward, their daughter, and their daughter’s male friend. Needless to say I have no recollection of what I ate that night since I WAS SITTING BESIDE FREAKIN’ PAUL NEWMAN. I do remember, though, that at one point my friend nudged me under the table and whispered excitedly, “Look, they’re sharing dessert!” I looked, and indeed they were.

After the Newman party had left and our dinner was winding down, the Maitre d’, who turned out to be the restaurant owner, came by to chat. It believe it was the first year that the Toronto Blue Jays had made it to the playoffs, and back then I was a rabid baseball fan. Turns out so was the owner, who was originally from, of all places, Buffalo. Seems he had owned a restaurant there when Robert Redford was in town filming baseball-themed flick, The Natural. When the owner opened his place in Manhattan, “Bob” told his friend Paul about it—the reason the Newmans had dropped by for a meal. The owner then treated us both to dessert and brandy—but that’s a story for another time.

Update: Let's not forget that immortal line from Adam Sandler's "Hanukkah Song": "Paul Newman's half Jewish; Goldie Hawn's half, too/Put them together, what a fine lookin' Jew."

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:34 | link | comments (4)

Mahmoud and the Apocolyptics sing...: Another selection from Tehran Boys:

Wicked as that old devil’s spawn,

They call them Jews…

 

Jews, go away you’re no good for us.

Jews, got a nuke that’s so good for us.

Blast off,

Blast off’s loomin’.

Think of what big men we’ll be.

Think of our guy, the mahdi.

Now think what the future will be

When there aren’t any Joo-oos…

 

Jews, go away, your time’s come and gone.

Jews, they like us and what’s goin' on.
Before you say

That you’ll stay

We want you to

Think ‘bout the promises made.

Think how your fortunes’ll fade.

Now think what the future will be

When there aren’t any Joo-oos.

Joo-oos.

 

Jews, go away you’re no good for us.

Jews, go away you’re no good for us.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:45 | link | comments

Allahu Akbar Road: Posed as the Beatles on one of their most famous album covers, the denizens of a wee Prairie Town are promo'd by the Ceeb as being "the most famous Muslims in the world."

The most famous fake Musliims, maybe.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:07 | link | comments

Dimant in the rough: As an actual, palpable genocidal threat to the Jewish peope looms courtesy a hairy little Hitler-wannabe and his Apocalyptic cohorts, the head of B'nai Brith Canada frets in the National Post about the possible emergence of a genocidaire from, say, Flin Flon:

Re: Misplaced Concern, letter to the editor, Sept. 26.

B'nai Brith Canada is well aware of the difference between a bigot-in-training who defaces signs in Toronto with messages of hate, and a full-blown tyrant who is feted at the United Nations for promoting genocide. However, your letter-writer seems to miss an important point. It is when hate is at the fringes that there is still time to act. When a purveyor of hate is in a position of power, such as the head of a country with nuclear ambitions, the battle is even harder to win. Certainly, the Iranian President will not be losing any sleep over Ms. Cohen's strong denunciation of him. It is ill-advised for society to simply dismiss the actions of a "teenage wannabe neo-Nazi." A similar description could have been applied, perhaps, to another "teenage wannabe" -- an unknown high school dropout named Adolf Hitler.

Frank Dimant, executive vice-president, B'nai Brith Canada, Toronto.

Newsflash, Frank: the Judenhass you’re so freaked about has moved from the “fringes” right smack  to the centre; you can’t get any less finge-y than the floor of the UN General Assembly where a robust Hitlerian speech was delivered to a receptive world audience—the essence of Ms. Rosen Cohen’s argument, since it seems to have escaped you. The Iranian President may not be losing sleep over her strong denunciation of him, but Ms. Rosen Cohen and I and you should sure be losing sleep over this genuine neo-Nazi and his soon-to-be-executed plans.

Let’s deal with one “Hitler wannabe” at a time, ‘kay?

Update: Another reason why Dimant's frantic seach for "Nazis" (Keegstra and Zundel and Ross, oh my) is so ridiculous: these days, those serving the eliminationist agenda are far more likely to be hiding in plain view, taking up popular positions on the left. Here's the Globe and Mail's Christie Blatchford describing the short, strange trip of Ms. Lesley Hughes. Until the other day, Ms. Hughes was the Liberal candidate in a Winnipeg riding, but, upon being outed by some tencious "right-wing" bloggers for her, er, interesting views on history and current events (she's an avowed "troofer" who sees Jewish hands in the 9/11 attacks), she was quickly sent packing by her embarrassed bosses:

…Two years ago, she was a supporter of the United Nations Platform for Action Committee (Manitoba), or UNPAC for short, and did a radio interview with the “Femme Fiscale”, a superheroine created by the group, who “flew into the Manitoba Legislature to ask how Budget 2006 would make life better for the province's women.”

She also has written a one-woman play, Bloomberg's Radio, launched in 2002 at the city's famous Fringe Festival.

It was there that the first glimmer of what was to come may have showed itself, for in an interview, Ms. Hughes told the writer Morley Walker, “Both U.S. and Canada have become quasi-security states” because of laws passed since the Sept. 11 attacks.

“We just haven't found that out yet,” she said. “And the mainstream media in North America are doing little to challenge this.”

Then came the story she wrote called “Get the Truth” and which cost her the candidacy, and which read, in part, “Israeli businesses which had offices in the Towers, vacated the premises a week before the attacks, breaking their lease to do it. About 3,000 Americans working there were not so lucky.”

It was no one-hit wonder, either. According to one of the many 9/11 conspiracy websites, Stop Lying, Ms. Hughes was part of a “push for truth” about 9/11 in Winnipeg in the spring of last year.

At an evening called “Code of Silence” hosted by Barrie Zwicker, who has written a book and produced a documentary on the “media coverup” of 9/11, Ms. Hughes was part of a panel discussion on the same subject.

Funny, but eight years ago, when Stockwell Day was running for the leadership of the old Canadian Alliance, Free Press columnist Gordon Sinclair Jr. wrote about an encounter Ms. Hughes, then a freelancer, had with Mr. Day.

She approached Mr. Day to ask what she called “an awkward question.”

The question was, “Jim Keegstra [the Alberta Holocaust denier convicted of promoting hatred against Jews] claims to be a friend of yours” and “that he would vote for you.”

Mr. Day was upset, and Ms. Hughes said, and I can imagine her smarmy smugness, “The part of the country you come from has struggled with a lot of ugly movements.

“I'm thinking here about the whole neo-Nazi thing and racism of a very virulent kind.”

Well, what goes around comes around, even to a good leftie Canuck.

Oh, well. She could always be appointed to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Her credentials for the job appear to be in order.

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

Aish outed: Islam Online, in the throes of semi-hysteria, exposes a nefarious Jewish conspiracy to besmirch Islam's good name (“scarier” aspects of the story bolded by moi):

CAIRO — A Jewish charity is seen behind the funding of a controversial anti-Islam documentary being widely circulated across the United States to scare Americans from Islam and Muslims, reported the St. Petersburg Times on Friday, September 26.

"We don't have to say who its directors are or give financial information until Nov. 6, 2008," Gregory Ross, spokesman for Clarion Fund, said.

Clarion Fund, a shadowy NGO founded in 2006 by Canadian filmmaker Raphael Shore, has shipped out millions of copies of "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against The West" documentary in 14 US states by mail and as an advertising supplement of major newspapers.

The film, produced by Clarion, features interviews with commentators famed for their notorious anti-Islam views, including Martin Gilbert, Daniel Pipes and Steve Emerson.

It also shows footage of terror attacks, clips from Arab TV and historical films.

Clarion Fund has declined to unveil the source of its funding for the film.

But an investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found that the fund is connected to Aish HaTorah, a charity founded in Israel in the 1970s.

According to the daily, Ross, the Clarion spokesman, was listed as an Aish HaTorah international fundraiser on a federal election donation form in June 2007.

The name written on the mail permit for the bulk mailing of the anti-Islam film was Elke Bronstein, who worked for Aish Discovery, which produces high-tech programs and films for Aish HaTorah.

Clarion's address, according to Manhattan directory assistance, is the same address as Aish HaTorah International, a fundraising arm of Aish HaTorah.

The Clarion Fund and Aish HaTorah International are also connected to a group called HonestReporting, which produced the anti-Islam documentary….

The documentary is not “anti-Islam.” It is anti-Islamic terrorism, anti-Islamic supremacism, anti- creeping and galloping sharia.

Boo!

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:40 | link | comments

Hello Central get me rewrite: CIJA's "Ten Commandments" for communicating with Canadians about Israel and the Palestinian conflict have been rewritten with a unique "twist" that makes the entire strategy look, well, ridiculous (not that hard to do, I know).

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:29 | link | comments

Misleading header: Some nasty and decidedly unempathetic Jews are keeping a daughter and her two children from visiting their dying dad/gramps in Gaza. The headline over an Oakland Ross in the Toronto Star—“Israel bars Canadian from seeing dying father”—sez so (my bolds):

TEL AVIV–A Canadian woman and her two teenage daughters are surviving on handouts and sleeping on the floor of Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque because Israeli authorities won't let them enter Gaza to visit the woman's ailing father.

"I want them to give us mercy," Saadiya Joha, 34, told the Star last night. "My father is going to die."

Along with her two daughters – Fatima, 16, and Afaf, 13 – the Ottawa woman has spent the past 10 days hunkered down in the huge mosque in Jerusalem's Old City, waiting for permission to enter Gaza where her 79-year-old father is in failing health, unable to walk because of a serious back ailment.

She says she has no money for a hotel and little for food.

"You know how much money I spent just to come here?" she said. "It's not easy to come from Canada. It's too expensive."

Born in Syria, Joha has lived in Canada for the past 13 years.

Her husband, a carpenter, remained behind in Ottawa along with their son, 17, while the woman and two daughters travelled to the Middle East for what was supposed to be a poignant reunion but has turned out to be a torturous ordeal.

An Israeli group that promotes freedom of movement for Palestinians has taken up the Canadian woman's case.

But so far it has had no success persuading the Israeli government to allow Joha and her daughters to enter Gaza, which has been under a partial blockade by Israel for more than a year.

The organization – called Gisha, whose name means "approach" or "access" in Hebrew – has engaged a lawyer to represent the woman and has written a series of letters to Israeli authorities promoting her case but to no avail.

"It's just an ongoing problem," said Itamar Schachal, a spokesperson for Gisha. "There is no advancement. Every day, they are finding some new reason for delay."

Joha has also sought help from the Canadian embassy in Tel Aviv, but says officials declined to assist her.

"They said, `Sorry, we are not going to let you go inside Gaza,'" said Joha. "I said, `Why?'"

The simple answer is that Canada is far more worried about getting people out of Gaza than with helping people to get in. Ottawa has issued a travel advisory that strongly urges Canadians against entering the territory while calling on those currently in Gaza to leave.

During the past year or so, Canadian diplomats in Israel have carried out five operations to extricate Canadians stranded in Gaza, efforts that involved transporting them across Israeli territory and into neighbouring Jordan. Those missions were complicated by Israel's acute security concerns about the troubled coastal strip.

Nonetheless, a Canadian official said last night he would take another look at Joha's case…

Oh, wait, so you mean it’s actually Canada that's preventing the daughter and grandkids from reuiniting with their dying paterfamilias?

Never mind.

/channeling Emily Litella

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:32 | link | comments (2)

A song for the censors: This 60s oldie goes out to all those who think silencing white power creeps in Canada (because their "hate speech" will all but certainly lead to a genocide) and revoking Canadians' freedom of speech at a time when they need it most is a rational, a sane, thing to do:

Do you perceive the madness in the HRCs?

How their “cure” for what ails is worse than the “disease”.

And it’s madness how they want to stop “hatin’”

By censoring our thoughts and speech so there’s no debatin’.

I’ll tell you ‘bout the madness, boy, it makes me sick.

Who's madder--Dave or Leo? You can take your pick.

 

If you believe in madness of the kangaroos

Then a Stalinist “court” is one that you’d choose.

So be nice now, or face the consequences;

They’ll grind you down until you’re left with no defences.

And pretty soon a silence will prevail in the land

And they’ll claim that it’s in keeping with “in all thy son’s command.”

 

If you believe in madness, go along with BB.

They’re gonna fix the “problems”--just you wait and see.

And then maybe they can stifle the doubt

That silencing the Zundels ends up helpin’ us out.

I’ll tell you ‘bout the madness--it is such a joke:

While they're busy nabbing "Nazis," Jews go up in smo-oke.

 

Yeah, do you peceive the madness,

Yeah, perceive all the madness in the CJC?

Perceive all the madness in the B’nai B?

Perceive all the the madness in Wiesenthal?

Oh, talkin’ ‘bout madness…

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:49 | link | comments

Say it loud, she’s “Islamaphobic” and proud: Mouthy, free-thinking chick Brigitte Gabriel takes ownership of the intended smear and wears it with pride. From FrontPage Magazine:

For the past five years, I’ve been traveling the world in an effort to inform people about the threat of radical Islam.  I have often been accused of “hate speech” and “Islamophobia.”  The latest was in an article in the New York Times, where I was described not just as an “Islamophobe,” but a “radical Islamophobe.”  This made me question what those terms really mean.  What is the difference between “hate speech” and “free speech”?  What is “Islamophobia” and who are the true “Islamophobes?”

 

“Hate speech” verses “free speech” is easy to define.  All over the United States, so-called “progressive” individuals and groups berate the USA and Israel and in the process tell outrageous lies about both countries.  That’s called “free speech.”  When others, including me, tell the truth about the threat of radical Islam, that’s labeled “hate speech” by many of these “progressives.”

 

But what is “hate speech” and what is “Islamophobia”?  When I describe the threat presented by radical Islam, I quote chapter and verse from the Koran and authoritative classical Islamic sources.  When I describe the worldwide campaign of Islamist hate indoctrination against the West, and the mind-numbing mass violence committed and glorified by radical Islamists, I am relaying facts that have been published by print and electronic media outlets all over the world. Do some of the facts about Islamist supremism manifest “hatefulness?”  Certainly. 

However, it’s not my fault that the truth about Islamist supremacist teachings and edicts is that they promote hate.  I wish they didn’t.  But wishing doesn’t make it so (contrary to the belief of the New York Times).  The Koran explicitly tells Muslims to hate (terrorize, subdue, oppress, and slaughter) the unbeliever until Islam is supreme in the world:  "Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I am with you. Give firmness to the Believers. I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.’" (Koran 8:12)

 

The Koran explicitly preaches that Christians and Jews are descended from monkeys and apes.  In the more than 13 centuries since the emergence of Islam, this strict Islamic dogma has never been abrogated, amended or ameliorated.  It is the Koran that is guilty of “hate speech.”  I merely am the messenger exposing this hate.

 

 Which brings us to “Islamophobia” and “radical Islamophobes.”  According to the dictionary, the suffix “-phobe” comes from the Latin phobos, which means “fearing.”  Do I fear radical Islam?  You bet.  Do any of these locales ring a bell?  London subways.  Madrid train stations.  Bali night clubs.  Beslan elementary school.  They are all locations of horrendous terrorist atrocities committed by radical Islamists, with scores of civilian fatalities and hundreds maimed.  I can name hundreds of other locales, from all over the world.  If fearing radical Islamist terror makes me an “Islamophobe,” then I am an “Islamophobe” in its healthiest manifestation.  In light of recent history, I submit that it would be (at best) foolhardy to be otherwise.

 

Things get a little more complicated when we get to “Islamophobia.”  The dictionary defines a “phobia” as “an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.”  Anyone who thinks that my fear of radical Islam is “exaggerated,” “inexplicable” and/or “illogical” is invited to take the world terrorism tour referred to in the preceding paragraph, or read my two books, which I submit as evidence from a personal and factual level.  If exaggeration or illogic are required elements in the definition, then my fear of radical Islam is NOT “Islamophobia.”

 

If that was not sufficiently complicated, when used as a suffix “-phobia” can include “intolerance or aversion for” the object of the phobia. Am I intolerant of mass murder, justified and glorified in the name of Allah?  Yes, I am.  Do I have an aversion to subway and train bombings?  Yes, I do.  According to that definition, my fear of radical Islam would be “Islamophobia.”  However, if my intolerance of mass murder and my aversion to nightclub bombings makes me a “Islamophobe,” then I submit that my so-called “Islamophobia” is fully justified and logical and therefore not a phobia in the usual sense of the word…

 

Personally, I’m Islamophilic, but only of those pre-Hejira teachings—the nicey-nice ones that are always being cited—that weren’t abrograted after you-know-who hightailed it to Medina and set up the world’s first Islamic state.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:28 | link | comments (1)

Food for thought: If one has been immersed for some time in the issues pertaining to censorship and Canada’s parallel totalitarian “justice” system, listening to three gentlemen pontificate on the subject while trying to eat is perhaps not the best idea. Not if you hope to digest both the discussion and your grilled veggie wrap. Yesterday, I endeavoured to do both, as three men, attorneys, with a direct connection to the HRC system—Leo Adler, of the Canadian branch of the Wiesenthal Center; Alan Borovoy, head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association; and David Matas, counsel for B’nai Brith Canada—spoke to a group of about 75-80 in the board room (and a mighty roomy room it was) of one of the city’s pish tosh downtown law firms. The topic being tackled: How do we here in Canada “balance” free speech and “human rights”.  A weighty and often indigestible subject,  indeed, one which, on its own, has been known to induce dyspepsia.

First up—Leo Adler. Now, Leo, as we know, is a Very Important Personage and one of the city’s most in-demand attorneys. In fact, as he informed us, he was going to have to leave as soon as he finished speaking because he had been summoned to court.  By a judge. (You know, a real one, who wears robes and has a law degree; not a pretend one, who’s a lefty bureaucrat plugged into identity/victim politics, and whose understanding of “justice” is grounded more in Marxist mumbo jumbo about “hegemony” than in eight centuries of English Common Law.) When last I saw Leo, he was practically foaming at the mouth, trying—and failing miserably—to rebut the words of Ezra Levant, who was deftly making mincemeat out of him. This time an entirely different Leo was on display. Dapper Leo. Unflappable Leo. Calm, cool, not speaking off the cuff (never a good idea if, in doing so, you end up sounding hysterical and/or buffoonish) but reading from a prepared speech. I would summarize his comments as follows: Everything is copacetic, folks. Here in Canada, we have managed to strike a perfect balance between free expression and curbing hate speech (which, as we all know, has been the precursor to every single genocide in the history of mankind, including the Holocaust). And what we have here is not censorship, so put that out of your minds right now. No, what we’ve managed to do is achieve “a balance”. At least when it comes to Section 13, the anti-hate speech provision of the federal human rights code and the body, the CHRC, that investigates and adjudicates violators. (But, to reiterate, this doesn’t constitute censorship because they deal only with “extreme cases of hate”—so no worries there.) There is, however, some problem with the provincial and territorial equivalents of Section 13, which, sad to say, have not achieved the federal code’s level of wonderfulness. Of course, things are always uneasy, shifting, but, at the end of the day, they always return to equilibrium. That seems to be what Canadians want. Americans, on the other hand, have opted for something completely different. Unfettered free speech. The rough and tumble of ugly name-calling.  “Hate speech” galore. (And did I mention that “hate speech” always “incites genocide”?) So un-genteel. So un-Canadian. We must realize that, here in Canada, we mind our “ABCs”—agencies, bureaus and commissions—because that is what Canadians do. So don’t fight it; embrace it. Oh, and don’t worry about your “free speech”.  Section 13 does not allow complainants to go after the owners of media outlets or Internet servers. It only permits them to complain about the users of the those services—the little guy who expresses a “hateful” in a letter to an editor, or on a radio talk show, or on one of those scary white power websites—and by his count, that amounts to a scant 30,000 “haters”. Yup, under the splendiferous edicts of Section 13, Canada, which offers the world “a model of how to deal with hate speech,” has managed to “walk a tightrope” between allowing for free speech and limiting “hate speech” ("hate speech" being a pre-requisite for genocide—did you know, for instance, that in Rwanda the Hutus described the Tutsis as “insects” prior to slaughtering them?) As Leo sees it, Canada has found the correct balance, and there’s no need to fix something that’s working so well.

At that point there was a smattering of polite applause, and Leo, pulling his briefcase-on-wheels behind him, skeddadled out of the room.

Next up—Alan Borovoy. Borovoy, who could be considered the Dr. Frankenstein of the HRC monster, since he was instrumental in setting it up way back when (“I fought like hell” to get it going, he said), contradicted just about everything Leo had to say. It is not, said Borovoy,  that the federal provision, Section 13, is working and the problem lies with the provinces and territories.  They are all equally problematic, since they don’t just silence the whackos (okay, my word, not Alan’s), the fringe “haters”; they end up targeting a much wider swath of the population. That’s because, there is no clear definition of “hate”. Section 13 allows for the prosecution of individuals on the grounds that their expressions will “likely expose people to hatred or contempt.” Pretty fuzzy. There is no need to show that the speaker “intended” to so expose them. It doesn’t matter if the “hate speech” is factual, since “the truth is no defence.”  Under the terms of Section 13, Mark Steyn (which Borovoy mispronounced “Steen”) writing in Maclean’s magazine that some Muslims are “hot for jihad” can be considered “hate speech.” So, too, can Daniel Goldhagen’s book about the complicity of ordinary Germans under Nazi rule, Hitler’s Willing Executioners. The Canadian Jewish Congress and the Canadian Human Rights Commission have claimed that “Steen’s” statements aren’t hate speech because they are “not extreme enough.”  But who gets to decide what’s “extreme”? And do we want to live in a society in which Steyn’s words and Goldhagen’s book, are censored as “hate speech”? The CJC and other Jewish organizations act as though these laws are the only weapon we have. They aren’t. We have the weapon of our free speech—our most “valuable weapon”; the weapon these laws deprive us of. And at a time like this, we need this weapon. No two ways about it: Section 13 and its equivalents have to go.

Hearty applause for those impassioned words—ones which were all the more compelling because they were spoken extemporaneously, from the heart, and not read off a sheet of paper.

Finally, David Matas. I had heard David Matas before, so I knew what to expect—a dry, dull, pedantic review of some of the Section 13 “gotchas”—Ernst Zundel, James Keegstra, Malcolm Ross, David Ahenekew—you know the names. Pipsqueaks aggrandized to Hitlerian levels by Jews obsessed with hate speech; Jews who’ve been told, and accept as gospel, that “hate speech” inevitably ends up in genocide. The gist of the Matas’s remarks: We “accept as a given that we are going to censor hate speech.” We thus need to “reform” Section 13 such that the Jews can still censor Nazis, but those pushing the OIC agenda aren’t permitted to push it in Canada via our anti-hate speech laws (what I describe as “censorship for me, not thee”; our cases against Nazis are valid but cases against the BB are dismissed by Matas as being "frivolous").

I won’t go into the four reforms he’s suggesting, since you can read about them here if you so desire, and since I caught the drift of only three of them. (Several times during Matas’s speech, I had the sense that I was in the middle of one of those colouring book mazes my son used to like: I knew that somewhere amidst all the dead ends and meanderings there was a point, an egress, if only one could manage to locate it. With Matas, however, it seems that a point is more of a journey than an actual destination. Afterwards, several other people told me that they, too, had a tough time following him.)  My point (since I do have one): even though Matas and his organization “get” what’s going on at the international level; even though they understand the threat that the OIC agenda poses to Jews and Western civ.; even though, both nationally and internationally, “human rights” has been hijacked by the enemies of freedom and free speech (which these enemies rightly see as the most “dangerous” freedom of all); even though the B’nai Brith now finds itself on the receiving end of two HRC complaints; despite all that,  poor befuddled Matas remains doggedly, determinately, clueless.

An addendum: Borovoy hung around for a while afterwards (Matas did too, but, poor guy—I believe the word in Yiddish is "shlemiel"—he was largely ignored), and at one stage I was summoned from a conversation I was having at the other end of the room to come participate in the one Borovoy was engaged in. It appears that despite championing the abolition of censorship provisions, Borovoy is still a true believer when it comes to the rest of the cockamamie quasi-judicial system. He was complaining about Ezra Levant. Complaining about Ezra's complaining, that is. Elbowing into the discussion, I said that the reason Ezra was “complaining” was because, for someone who's the subject of a complaint, the process can drag on for years and that, in fact, the process is part of the punishment.  Borovoy  agreed. I then pointed out that the subject of a complaint is on the hook for his own legal fees, which can mount up pretty quickly, especially if, as in Ezra’s case, it takes a full 900 days to wrap up, and that the onerous fees—none of which the complainant are on the hook for, since we the taxpayers pick up his tab—are also part of the punishment. Yes, he admitted, that, too, was valid. I then pointed out that, as someone who was in on the ground floor of getting these commissions up and running, he knew that a large part of the rationale for these "courts" was that they were supposed to deal in a speedy manner with cases that would otherwise be clogging up the regular justice system, something which, obviously, the HRCs have failed (and failed miserably) at. I got a nod of the head at that one—so I was three for three defending Ezra.

I then boldly waded into more treacherous waters, asserting that it wasn’t just “hate speech” sections that were problematic: they entire system was, too. I recounted a number of our ‘roo courts’ zanier rulings but, go figure, he wasn’t familiar with a single one.

My last word on the subject: Borovoy told me and the others involved in the Levant discussion that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is going to be defending Rev. Stephen Boisson’s right to free speech. In other words, the guy who was instrumental in instituting the parallel "justice" system now finds his organization having to defend one of its principal casualties.

There’s a bitter—but rather satisfying—irony in that, don’t you think?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:46 | link | comments (4)

Creeping sharia: In New York City, no less. From the New York Sun:

City Council members are calling on the state to give New York City children the day off from school on two Muslim holidays.

On Friday, the council will debate a resolution urging the state Legislature to pass a law declaring the Muslim holidays of Eid ul-Fitr and Eid ul-Adha to be observed holidays in the city's public school system.

According to the resolution's sponsor, Council Member Robert Jackson of Manhattan, the issue is a matter of fairness, as Muslim students make up a significant percentage of the public school population.

"You have 10% of the student population out of 1.1 million children, so over 100,000 students, who are Muslim," Mr. Jackson said yesterday in an interview. "There was a situation about two or three years ago where they held a big exam on one of the highest holy days and parents had to make a choice: Do I send my kids in to take this exam or do we celebrate our religious holiday? That should not be the case. It doesn't happen on Christmas, it doesn't happen on Easter, it doesn't happen on other major religious holidays."

Bills that would give city schoolchildren the day off on the two holidays have stalled in the state Senate and Assembly, failing to get out of committee…

What next? Requiring everyone to fast for Ramadan?

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:56 | link | comments (4)

Here comes da judge: I happened to catch a glance at the NYT in its dead tree form today, and this article about the Toronto 11 (down from the original 18) caught my eye. The reason it caught my eye was because it asserted that the accused were “all talk and little action” jihadi plotters. So move along now, folks, ‘cause there’s nothing to see here.

Well, the judge in the case didn’t see it that way. On the same day that article appeared, he up and convicted one of the little “big talkers.” From the Ceeb:

An Ontario Superior Court judge has convicted a 20-year-old man of conspiring in a group plot to bomb several Canadian targets, including Parliament Hill, RCMP headquarters and nuclear power plants.

Judge John Sproat gave his ruling Thursday on the first of 11 people accused in the plot at a courthouse in Brampton, Ont., saying evidence that a terrorist conspiracy existed was "overwhelming."

"Planning and working toward ultimate goals that appear unattainable or even unrealistic does not militate against a finding that this was a terrorist group," Sproat said.

"I also reject the argument that [the alleged ringleader] was a hapless fanatic who posed no risk."

Sproat had heard arguments from the defence that the accused had no knowledge of the plot, which was a "jihadi fantasy" brewed by its leaders, while prosecutors maintained he was a willing participant.

Accused first to be convicted under anti-terror law

The accused, who was 17 when he committed his alleged offences and therefore cannot be identified under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, has become the first person in Canada to be convicted under the Anti-terrorism Act passed by the government in 2001.

The accused stood motionless as the verdict was read, even as emotions overcame the man's family members, who broke down outside the court, said CBC's Muhammad Lila from the courthouse in Brampton.

Although the accused was found guilty, the judge agreed to hold off on entering a formal conviction until a defence appeal is heard in December. The man potentially faces a 10-year sentence.

The remaining 10 suspects face charges that stem from allegations they participated in militia-style training camps north of Toronto. They are also accused of plotting to blow up hydro installations and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and CBC buildings in downtown Toronto.

"In terms of the actual terrorism offence, the judge says that the young man did not actually have to be involved in a specific plan … but that he just had to know that this was their intention generally," said the CBC's Ron Charles, who is also covering the trial…

Smart judge.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:26 | link | comments

Appease, appease me: Daniel Pipes summarizes the great appeasement efforts of the 20th Century, why they failed, and why the policy will fail once again with Iran.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:12 | link | comments

Blowing their own shofar: The two guys who head up the Canadian Jewish Congress have penned a letter to the community that appears in the Canadian Jewish News. Most of it is boiler plate about the upcoming “election.” No, not the political one; the Divine one. Turns out, though, that the greeting is actually a hearty pat on the back for the work being done by, you guessed it, the CJC (my bolds):

…It does sound somewhat odd, even problematic, to see the Days of Awe as being like an election campaign. Look at it another way. Whatever wishes we have for ourselves and our families are just that – wishes. We dare not demand, because demand suggests entitlement. And entitlement borders on arrogance.

We wish, we humbly ask, and we combine the “ask” with the awareness that simultaneous with our asking of God, we must ask of ourselves. It cannot be a one-sided relationship of all ask and no give.

After that, we leave the rest to God.

What should we be asking of ourselves? Generally, to be our best, to do our best. This means taking life seriously, living up to our sacred calling, faithfully living up to our responsibilities, and to add a bit of seasoning to all this, allocating some time to helping others.

It makes Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur all the more meaningful if we give it our best, if we make the best possible “pitch.”

In the year that we have served as co-presidents of Canadian Jewish Congress, we have met many volunteers, both inside and outside the Jewish community, who are deeply devoted to others. These are people we greatly respect and admire. And we have gained an intensified appreciation of the professionals at Canadian Jewish Congress who eat, sleep and breathe for the community.

There is much more to do, and we are looking forward to the challenges, which are made all the more achievable because of the great team of professionals and volunteers.

We all have within us the power to do significant things with our lives. That is an endearing power that along the way will gain for us God’s vote that this be a year of good signs for all: “Tehay shnat siman tov –tav shin samech tet.”

The writ has been dropped. Let the voting begin. Shanah Tovah to you and all.

And a Happy New Year to you, too. May the coming year bring you health, happiness, and—I know this one’s a long shot—a clue.

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

Another Canadian panacea: Listening to Green Party leader Lizzie May applauding the Liberal Party's Green Shift on the radio minutes ago, I was struck by a revelation: The Green Shift is the environmental equivalent of Social Credit--a complicated, crackpot, completely unworkable "cure-all" scheme of a bygone era.

Social Credit, in the form of political parties in the provinces of B.C.and Alberta, actually stuck around for quite a while. The Green Shift, I'm sure, will have a much shorter shelf life.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:21 | link | comments

Belly-aching: When they were poor, they were thin and sassy. Not that they’re awash in oil lucre—and lots of American fast food joints—their bellies are spreading faster than sharia financing in the West.  And don’t get me started on what they go through during Ramadan: it’s brutal. The Globe and Mail’s Mark “Malarkey” MacKinnon has all the gruesome details:

MANAMA — Each evening, as the invariably hot yellow sun dips into the azure waters of the Persian Gulf, a warbling call rises from hundreds of mosques across this tiny island kingdom. Come pray, the muezzins sing, and celebrate the holy month of Ramadan.

More often than not, the appeal is drowned out by a more pressing one – a plaintive “let's eat”– emitted by the stomachs, and children, of those Muslims who've spent the day fasting. Instead of the mosque, many head straight to the nearest buffet table.

The Muslim holy month of Ramadan, with its dawn-to-dusk fasting, sounds like the ultimate crash diet. But in Bahrain, and across this deeply devout region, day-long abstinence is followed each night by binge eating that contributes to one of the world's fastest-growing obesity crises.

More than 60 per cent of the just over one million people who live on this island are either overweight or obese, according to government statistics, meaning that Bahrainis – slim and fit as nation just a few scant decades ago – are now slightly more likely to be overweight than Canadians. Bahraini bellies are now nearly on par with notoriously ballooning beltlines in the United States.

Gulf Arabs from Kuwait to Dubai to Saudi Arabia, all countries that had thin and active populations 30 years ago, are now stereotyped by their neighbours as idle and overweight. Call it the curse of affluence: As their oil-based economies boomed and their societies became richer, Gulf Arabs adopted more sedentary lifestyles and fattier diets heavily laced with the Western fast food that they've come to crave.

Matters only get worse each year during Ramadan, a period during which patience and sacrifice are supposed to be paramount as Muslims mark the time when the Koran was revealed by God. Health-care professionals here say many Bahrainis routinely gain five to 10 pounds during the month, much of it due to oversized iftar (Arabic for “breaking the fast”) meals.

“It should be a good chance to lose weight, but it's the opposite. People eat like hell – they feast like animals once they're done fasting,” laughed Khalifa Bin Dayna, himself sporting a bit of a Ramadan belly two weeks into the holy month. He said that while it was traditional for Muslims to end the fast with light foods such as soup, yogurt and dates, many now chomp straight into the main courses – red meats and deep-fried foods such as falafel – as soon as the sun sets…

So much for “self-sacrifice” in the name of enlarging the spirit. Could it be that creeping Dairy Queens and the like imperil Dar al-Islam in the same way creeping sharia imperils the West?

Funny how, in the affluent West, obesity is a trait of the poor, not the rich. The rich people are either starving themselves so they can fit into size 0 (in People Magazine, Desperate Housewife Eva Longoria is chided for her weight gain; "fat" Eva has gone up to that size from a 00), or getting their meals sent in from one of those South Beach Diet-type caterers.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:12 | link | comments (3)

Better safe than ‘sploded: A strange package caused some consternation at the Phillies' ballpark, until its true contents and purpose were revealed. From AP via the NYT:

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Nobody knew just what to make of three items heavily wrapped in white packaging and duct tape outside the Philadelphia Phillies' ballpark.

So, a few hours before Wednesday night's game, someone called the police as a precaution.

The bomb squad showed up to detonate the three packages. Turns out they contained hot dogs.

The wrapping that made them so suspicious was so the team mascot, the Phillie Phanatic, could fire them from a hot-dog launcher.

The franks has been left behind inadvertently after a commercial photo shoot for the hot-dog maker.

Team vice president Michael Stiles says Phillies employees aren't bomb experts, so it made sense to call the police.

Indeed. My question: how can you advertise your product if it's wrapped in white packaging and duct tape?

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:51 | link | comments

Process servers: The Beeb reports that the Mid-East quartet has 'lost its grip' on the peace process.

What a shocker. Could that be because what they were doing was all about process (and, more specifically, the process of elimination of Jewish soverignty in Israel) and had little to do with "peace"--at least, not as the West understands it?

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:28 | link | comments (2)

Pathological horse race: It's a race to the finish to see who will get to be the first to rid the world of "the Zionists" (i.e. Israel)--the mullahs, with one of their nukes; or the "human rights" crowd, via the UN's second Wannsee Conference, Durban II.

My money's on the mullahs.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:49 | link | comments

What’s the difference between the Nazis and the mullahs?: The Nazis kept their plans to rid the world of “the Jewish menace” on the Q.T. The mullahs, through their hairy mouthpiece Mahmoud, shout it to the rafters. By Daniel Johnson in the New York Sun:

LONDON — This time he went too far. If a Western head of state had echoed Adolf Hitler, as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did this week, would Europeans have shrugged their shoulders and dragged their feet over sanctions?

Yet it seems that the Iranian president is now licensed to blame "Zionists" for everything from the economic crisis to "the whole world order," to threaten Israel's existence and to use words like "cesspool" to describe its people. There was a deafening silence in Britain. Prime Minister Brown was too preoccupied with his own survival, making yet another "life-or-death speech" at his Labor party conference. The Conservative leader, David Cameron, also ignored the scandal.

For the press, too, this was old news, and not even the intended victims raised much of a protest. The Times of London, determined to impress its readers with the gravity of the story, ran the story accompanied by a fetching photograph of Carla Bruni.

Some have compared Mr. Ahmadinejad's language to that of the Nuremberg rallies. That is not entirely accurate. It actually reminded me of Heinrich Himmler's notorious speech at Posen in October 1943, in which he explained why the Nazis wanted to exterminate even Jewish children, to "make this people disappear off the face of the Earth," so that future generations of Jews could never avenge their parents. Like Himmler, Mr. Ahmadinejad claims that his own people — and Muslims more generally — are threatened by "Zionists," exploiting the paranoia of the Islamic world to justify turning Iran into a single gigantic nuclear suicide bomb.

But if there is little difference between Mr. Ahmadinejad's murderous intentions and those of Hitler and Himmler, there is a considerable difference in the openness with which he talks about them. Himmler's speech — one of several occasions when the S.S. leader was frank about the aim of annihilating the entire Jewish people — was given to an invited audience of party bosses, including Joseph Goebbels and Albert Speer.

Years later, Speer tried to claim — falsely — that he had not been present at this occasion, in order to persuade the world that he had known nothing about the Shoah. In other words, the Nazis were secretive about showing the world the full enormity of their crime.

Not so Mr. Ahmadinejad, who speaks in the full glare of publicity at the United Nations in New York. True, he claims to be a friend of those Jews who are not "Zionists" and even praised Moses as a great prophet. But this rank hypocrisy is so transparent that nobody even pretends to take it seriously…

But neither it seems do they take seriously the devastating consequences of a nuclear Iran. Why would they, when the world, succumbing to irrational obsession, has persuaded itself that “the Zionists” are the problem? (And in order to assuage any lingering feelings of guilt about the fate of the Jews in Hitler's Europe and to justify current derangements, it compartmentalizes "the Zionists" as being distinct from "the Jews"; Ahmadinejad, of course, who denies the reality of the Holocaust, makes the distinction to justify his impending destruction of the Jewish state.)

Pull up a chair and I’ll tell you what’s really scary—a moose-hunting, church-going, abortion opponent with a naughty librarian vibe.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:25 | link | comments

Clueless, semi-senile Jew chats with would-be genocidaire: If you can stomach it, here's Larry King's lame, softball interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Hey, isn't Larry one of the "elders" he's been warning us about?

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

"The other day me and my BFF Madonna went to the park and, while Apple, Moses and Rocco were playing in the sandbox, she told me all about the Kabbalah...": Introducing Gwyneth Paltrow, blogger.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:00 | link | comments

There be witches: "Scary" religious zealot Sarah Palin once received a blessing to be free of witchcraft.

To no avail, apparently.

Posted by: scaramouche at 08:53 | link | comments

Something that definitely won't be on the agenda of the "Zionism is Racism" Durban II Conference: Palestinian crimes against Christian Arabs.

Posted by: scaramouche at 08:46 | link | comments

Member of the lucky sperm club takes his place on the political stage: Trading on his good looks, his daddy’s name and not a whole heck of a lot else, Justin “Son of Pierre” Trudeau has announced he’ll be running as the Liberal candidate in a fractious Quebec riding. From the Toronto Star:

…"I've been on the ground for 18 months, doing at least 10 events a week," Trudeau says. These days, the 36-year-old father of one – with another on the way – looks as if he's studied Details magazine, dressed in a dark-blue suit and an open collar white shirt. "Building personal connections is extremely important in this riding."

Liberals, whose political fortunes continue to fall in Quebec, see Trudeau's candidacy in Papineau as the lone bright spot.

"I think Trudeau is a good name and I think it will probably help the Liberals here," says Jean Lapierre, former Liberal cabinet minister and now a political commentator. "This is probably the only riding where I see some movement to the Liberals. Otherwise, I don't see the other ridings where the Liberals could pick up support."

Papineau is a two-party race. The Conservative candidate can barely speak French.

It's a very diverse riding and one of the poorest in Canada. It has a large number of new immigrants, many of whom live in the area of Parc Extension, part of which was included in Pierre Trudeau's old riding. So memories could count.

But francophone Quebecers are the largest voting bloc in the riding, and it is they who Trudeau will have the hardest time convincing.

As if to underscore the point, a sovereignist group called the Young Patriots of Quebec held a "No Trudeau in Papineau" demonstration in front of Trudeau's riding office yesterday evening.

They believe Trudeau is the same as his father, a federalist warrior who patriated the Constitution minus Quebec's support, and opposed any special distinction for Quebec.

"We want to underline the contempt of Justin Trudeau toward the French language and the Quebec people," says group spokesperson Marilyne Lacombe.

Justin Trudeau, like his father, has not been kind to sovereignists. He disparaged the resolution adopted by Parliament in 2006 that recognized the Québécois as a "nation." He maintains he just doesn't know which Quebecers are being recognized as such.

In an interview, Trudeau called "federalist" a "word that increasingly means less and less."

Asked to clarify, he said there's been an evolution in the way Quebecers see themselves, a move away from being simply federalists, who believe in federalism, or sovereignists, who believe in Quebec. "Between them there are so many who are proud to be both," he says.

His critics like to say he's fairly vacuous; a lesser facsimile of his father. Yet he states his convictions at every turn. Most prominently, he has taken up defending multiculturalism and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, one of his father's most enduring legacies…

Fairly vacuous? The man makes lightweight Barack Fauxbama look like a statesman of Mount Rushmore calibre.

Posted by: scaramouche at 08:40 | link | comments (3)

Role model: Saudi chicks, who are oppressed to within an inch of their lives due to the petty, misogynistic religious laws that govern them, are taking heart from the example of another woman who has faced—and managed to surmount—great obstacles. Here’s the Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby on the woman who’s wowing the Wahhabi gals:

…A recent New York Times story - "Veiled Saudi Women Are Discovering an Unlikely Role Model in Oprah Winfrey" - explored the appeal of America's iconic talk-show host for the marginalized women of the Arabian peninsula.

"In a country where the sexes are rigorously separated, where topics like sex and race are rarely discussed openly and where a strict code of public morality is enforced by religious police," the Times noted, "Ms. Winfrey provides many young Saudi women with new ways of thinking about the way local taboos affect their lives . . . Some women here say Ms. Winfrey's assurances to her viewers - that no matter how restricted or even abusive their circumstances may be, they can take control in small ways and create lives of value - help them find meaning in their cramped, veiled existence."

And so they avidly analyze Oprah's clothes and hairstyles, and circulate "dog-eared copies" of her magazine, O, and write letters telling her of their dreams and disappointments. Many undoubtedly dream of doing what she did - freeing themselves from the shackling circumstances into which they were born and rising as high as their talents can take them.

But the television star never faced the obstacles that confront her Saudi fans.

That is not to minimize the daunting odds Oprah overcame. She was born to an unwed teenage housemaid in pre-civil rights Mississippi, and spent her first years in such poverty that at times she wore dresses made from potato sacks. She was sexually molested as a child, and ran away from home as a young teen. It was a squalid beginning, one that would have defeated many people not blessed with Oprah's intelligence and drive and native gifts.

But whatever else may be said of Oprah's life, it was never crippled by Wahhabism, the fundamentalist strain of Islam that dominates Saudi Arabia and immiserates Saudi women in ruthless gender apartheid. Strict sex segregation is the law of the land. Women are forbidden to drive, to vote, to freely marry or divorce, to appear in public without a husband or other male guardian, or to attend university without their father's permission. They can be jailed - or worse - for riding in a car with a man to whom they are unrelated. Their testimony in court carries less weight than a man's. They cannot even file a criminal complaint without a male guardian's permission - not even in cases of domestic abuse, when it is their "guardian" who has attacked them.

Could Oprah herself have surmounted such pervasive repression?...

Doubtful. One thing that’s frowned upon (and dealt with harshly) in the Magic Kingdom is a mouthy, pushy female—and an unveiled one, to boot. A Wahhabi Oprah doesn't stand a chance.

Posted by: scaramouche at 08:29 | link | comments

Ahmadinejad changes everything: The Simon Wiesenthal Center has sent me an e-mail requesting that I sign a petition addressed to UN Sec’y Gen Ban Ki-Moon denouncing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s “dangerous rhetoric.” My question for Canadian Wiesenthalers: What’s the point of continuing to deprive Canadians of their right to free expression  when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets to stand up at the UN and bloviate like a latter-day Hitler—to thunderous applause, no less? It’s not like we can haul his sorry butt in front of one of our HRCs. Not that anything they could say or do to him would make an impression on the man who has made it his mission to wipe Israel off the map. At a time when, more than ever, we need our free expression so we can freely express our contempt for this hateful man and his despicable blather, isn't it time to draw down the curtain on state-santioned censorship?

Face it: the genie of Judenhass is out of the bottle, and censoring Canadians is a futile—not to mention suicidal—endeavour.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:05 | link | comments

Udderly ridiculous: PETA is urging Ben & Jerry's to substitute human milk for cow's milk in their ice cream. (link via Drudge)

Suggested new flavour: Chunky Honky.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:38 | link | comments

Not so wishful thinking: An Islam Online article written by a U.K. cleric imagines what things would be like "if Mohammed lived in Europe."

Uh, I'm pretty sure he's already there.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:37 | link | comments (1)

A clarification: An Egyptian Muslim scholar says Mickey Mouse is not, I repeat not, Satanic. From Yahoo! News:

CAIRO (AFP) - An Egyptian Muslim scholar has called for an end to risible religious edicts after a Saudi cleric said Mickey Mouse was an agent of Satan who should die, local media reported on Wednesday.

Sheikh Mohamed al-Munajid, a cleric who often appears on Saudi television and who is also a former Saudi diplomat in the United States, said last week that mice were "agents of Satan" and should be killed.

"Sharia (Islamic law) calls for the extermination of all mice. That includes the rodents as well as 'the famous cartoon mouse'," he said.

He blamed Mickey Mouse for causing people to become soft on mice.

However, Suad Saleh, a woman preacher who hosts a popular television programme on fatwas, or religious edicts, told the English-language daily Egyptian Gazette that Munajid's ruling "tarnishes Islam's image."

"An edict should be based on knowledge, logic and reason," she said. "Yes, mice should be killed when seen according to Islam's teachings. But it is illogical to deal with a cartoon character as a live mouse and kill it."…

Gee, ya think? In that case, why did some dastardly Zionist have to go and “exterminate” that nice Farfour Mouse?

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:25 | link | comments

Like Hitler, only lit’ler: Totalitarian obsessed with “the Jewish Problem” and with an agenda to “solve” it (once and for all) bloviates hatefully, forcefully at the UN. From the New York Sun:

UNITED NATIONS — President Ahmadinejad is suggesting the Jews are to blame for the financial crisis.

Delivering a speech redolent of classical European anti-Semitism, the Iranian leader accused Zionists of controlling the banks and was embraced yesterday by listeners at the General Assembly. He exchanged a long hug with the Assembly president and was feted afterward with mostly friendly questions from handpicked reporters.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech — in which he accused "Zionists" of domineering Americans and Europeans through their banking and political activities, and predicted the rise of a "righteous and perfect human being" in their place — was denounced by Israel's President Peres as a return to the language of Hitler and the fraudulent anti-Semitic tract the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Senator Obama said he was sorry that Mr. Ahmadinejad "had a platform to air his hateful and anti-Semitic views."

A spokesman for the McCain-Palin campaign, Michael Goldfarb, responded: "It is Barack Obama who would give him the greatest platform of all, an unconditional summit with the President of the United States. Barack Obama's reckless determination to meet with a man who believes our Israeli friends are 'Zionist murderers' undermines our nation's allies and demonstrates a frightening lack of judgment."

Mr. Ahmadinejad declined to answer a question by The New York Sun, yelled out at the end of a press conference, whether he would support Senator McCain or Mr. Obama in the American presidential race. But he told CNN that regardless of who wins, what matters is whether the new president would "bring about some changes in policy or continue the same old path."

The Iranian president did answer one question from the Sun, saying through an interpretation provided by the Iranian foreign minister, Manoucher Mottaki, that there is an important difference between America's Jews and what he described as "Zionists." In his speech, he noted, he had referred to Moses as one of the great prophets, which proves he was not anti-Jewish. On the other hand, "Zionists are political," he said.

According to Mr. Peres, however, the reference to Moses, included in an anti-Semitic speech, was ludicrous. Mr. Ahmadinejad "called on Jews who came to Israel to return to their countries of origin," Mr. Peres said. "Where should we begin? From Moses? He came from Egypt. And then he says he believes in Moses. I am embarrassed anyone at the U.N. even listens to this man seriously."...

Um, isn’t the entire peroration “ludicrous”? Also hateful, wicked and vile in a Third Reich kind of way? And isn’t the most ludicrous aspect of it the fact that the world has willingly granted this villain, this would be genocidare, his time in the spotlight, and has listened respectfully to his maniacal remarks?

Thus does history repeat—like a bad pastrami sandwich.

Update: Melanie weighs in on the madness:

There cannot be a more graphic demonstration of the UN’s bankruptcy and negation of its own ideals than the events of today. It gave a platform to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man who is an enemy of the civilised world, the Prime Minister of a country which has repeatedly declared its intention to wipe out one of the UN’s own member states and is building the nuclear weaponry to enable it to do so, a country which is the subject of Security Council sanctions because it pursues a nuclear weapons programme and supplies weapons to terrorist organizations.  It gave him a platform not only to accuse the Jews of playing an ‘underhanded’ role in the crisis in Georgia, and to reiterate his call for the demise of the ‘Zionist regime’ – ie, Israel -- and its replacement by a Palestinian state, but also to accuse the Jews of secretly conspiring to manipulate and dominate the international money markets, a claim which comes straight from the lexicon of Nazi demonology:

The dignity, integrity and rights of the American and European people are being played with by a small but deceitful number of people called Zionists. Although they are a miniscule minority, they have been dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers as well as the political decision-making centers of some European countries and the US in a deceitful, complex and furtive manner. It is deeply disastrous to witness that some presidential or premiere nominees in some big countries have to visit these people, take part in their gatherings, swear their allegiance and commitment to their interests in order to attain financial or media support. This means that the great people of America and various nations of Europe need to obey the demands and wishes of a small number of acquisitive and invasive people. These nations are spending their dignity and resources on the crimes and occupations and the threats of the Zionist network against their will.

Classic Jew-hatred straight out of the Nazi lexicon – delivered in the institution which supposedly embodies the protection of freedom against tyranny to which the world committed itself after the Holocaust. Yet here was that body giving a platform to a man who denies that Holocaust and intends to bring about another – and giving him also the opportunity to threaten America that unless it submits to Islam it will be destroyed. And actually applauding him for it...

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

It's the creeping sharia, stupid: Don't miss Kathy Shaidle's FrontPage piece about American efforts to prevent Islamic law from setting up shop in the U.S. (since it's too late for the U.K., which has already submitted to the inevitablity of the flawless law).

Update: Andrew Bostom comments:

...Apparently, a preponderance of Muslims, including Muslim “academics” here in the US such as Khaled Abou El Fadl, and the equally deficient Roy Mottahedeh, as well as various “mainstream” Muslim advocacy groups, want nothing less than for our liberal democracy to willfully impose upon itself the Ur-Fascistic totalitarianism of Sharia. For example,  El Fadl and Mottahedeh recently had the temerity to claim that Sharia Law’s compatibility or incompatibility with human rights was wholly “vacuous” and “irrelevant,” and further lamented the fact that Muslims have spent too much time trying to reconcile Shari’a with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—precisely because by design, the latter refuses to concede Islamic supremacy to a truly universal standard of rights based upon the US Bill of Rights. Only the most empty-headed buffoons, their minds melted away by ceaselessly and uncritically imbibing the cultural relativism that prevails in our “academy,” and “public discourse,” would even begin to entertain the premise of pseudo-academic frauds like El Fadl and Mottahedeh.

 

Thank goodness for Congressman Tancredo’s courage and clarity on this pressing matter!

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:13 | link | comments

Equine morality: One thing we’re really good at here in Canada—getting on our high horse while simultaneously draping ourselves in the cloak of morality (which makes it kind of tricky to ride the beast, believe you me). All the while we remain blind to our own internal shortcomings. Here’s an example of high horsery—a commentary in the Globe and Mail:

Ottawa -- During the Vietnam War era, Canada saw fit to grant refuge to 50,000 Americans who refused to serve in the U.S. armed forces. As one of the 50,000, I am deeply grateful for the privilege I was granted to become a Canadian and deeply saddened that the current government is unwilling to compassionately accept small numbers of Iraq-era war resisters.

The expulsion of Robin Long and the deportation proceedings against Jeremy Hinzman (U.S. Deserter Wins Stay Of Deportation - online edition, Sept. 22) have been justified because military service is no longer compulsory. This generation of war resisters, therefore, are of some lesser morality than their predecessors.

In an ideal world, young men and women would develop their senses of morality before entering military service, and government would be truthful. In this case, people unwilling or unable to give blind allegiance to their government would not be forced to choose between exile and prison. This world does not exist, so young people will continue to evolve to the point where they refuse to support immoral actions of their government. One can only hope that Canada will reconsider its refusal to offer such people refuge.

In an ideal world, Canadians wouldn’t be so consistently full of themselves—and so clueless— such that they could have been persuaded that a totalitarian “justice” system set up to harass and punish citizens who fail to toe the PC line would be of net benefit to society. That sort of unfair—dare we say “immoral”? (yes, we dare)—system would never have been tolerated by our “immoral” neighbours to the South.

So get off your high horse, dude.

Update: Canadian "compassion" in action.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:58 | link | comments

Ahmadinejad karaoke: Grab a mike, folks, and sing along with Mahmoud:

Why do you make me hate (make me hate)

Great Satan, baby?

It defies belief (‘fies belief)

And gives me such grief.

And then worst of all (worst of all)

You never believe it

That I’ll wipe the map (wipe the map)

And all of that crap.

I hate you (I hate you)

Even more than the Zi'nists.

You knew I was cracked from the first.

So make me hate, Satan,

You are the worst.

 

I’ve come over again to that awful UN

That’s gone and  sanctioned me--

Well, fie and fiddly dee.

I spoke to the floor and it gave me a roar.

Seemed to adore what I was callin’ for.

 

(Hey, hey, hey!) Satan baby I need time

(Hey, hey, hey!) Before the Jews commit a new crime.
(Hey, hey hey!) I'll be calm

Waitin’ for them to bomb
Facilities.

(Oo oo oo-hoo; oo oo oo-hoo)

Why do you me hate

Great Satan, baby?

When we could all agree--

You and the mullahs and me.

And then best of all (best of all)

The mahdi’s returnin’

Like he said he would (said he would);

It’s understood.

I hate you (I hate you)

More than anythin', darlin’.

You know you're the one I loathe most.

So make me hate (make me hate)

Satan, your “empire” is toast…

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:13 | link | comments

Oh, the shame of it all: Say you’re a nineteen year old guy, and your girlfriend (who also happens to be your cousin—but let’s leave that aside for the moment) tells you to take a hike--permanently. If you’re an Israeli and that happened, you’d likely mope around a bit, and then go out and find another girlfriend. If you’re Palestinian, however, a whole different kind of psychology apparently comes into play--one that could prove fatal for Jews. Noah Pollack of the contentions blog offers his comments:

If you want to get a sense of one of the deep pathologies that afflicts Palestinian culture, look at one detail in particular of today’s terror attack in Jerusalem, in which an Arab resident of East Jerusalem drove his car into a crowd of Israelis:

The 19-year-old had wanted to marry his cousin, and when she refused his offer, he decided to carry out a terror attack, Jerusalem police spokesman Shmuel Ben-Ruby said.

The terrorist was a rejected teenager. Well, so what? Isn’t that a universal phenomenon? In Arab culture, especially Palestinian, this kind of rejection — especially within the family, as this particular person experienced with his cousin — is a point of deep shame, and Arab culture is perhaps the greatest honor/shame culture on earth. When you are publicly shamed, you have to regain your honor. And Palestinians have been teaching their children for generations that one of the most honorable things in the world to do is murder Jews. Such killers, no matter how humiliating their existence before martyrdom, are instantly transformed into celebrities and hailed as the most honorable members of society. In a culture such as this, it should not be surprising that personal humiliation is so frequently translated into Jew-killing.

Hitler’s Nazis and their German followers felt great shame, too, because of the Versailles Treaty. Jews sure paid the price for that humiliation, didn’t they?

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:00 | link | comments (1)

Ouch!: Friends of Simon Wiesthenthal (which some baleful cynics have been heard to refer to as "the Holocaust tchotchke store") is the second censorship-championing Jewish organization--the B’nai Brith was the first--to be hoist on its own petard. The National Post’s Melissa Leong elaborates:

Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies want the city of Toronto to reconsider its decision to prohibit an "inflammatory" exhibition that compares Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler.

The Making of a War Criminal was to be one of four travelling educational exhibitions being shown in schools and on city-owned property. It features an image of Hitler saluting and a photo of Mr. Ahmadinejad with a burning devil over his shoulder.

"[Mr. Ahmadinejad's] threat to wipe Israel off the map -- if that's not a call for genocide or another Holocaust, I don't know what is," said Avi Benlolo, chief executive in the Canadian branch of the Los Angeles-based human rights organization.

"We did this exhibit to press this case. It needs to be seen in public spaces," Mr. Benlolo said.

City officials rejected the exhibit because it may "stereotype or promote views and ideas which are likely to promote discrimination, contempt or hatred for any persons," as stated in the city's display policy.

The city's art and display committee reviewed the exhibit and had a "fulsome discussion," before making its decision, city spokesman Rob Andrusevich said.

"They misunderstood this policy, and they have a little bit of fear of a backlash," Mr. Benlolo said. "But they have to ask themselves: There's a threat of genocide here, how do we bring attention to it?"

City councillor Mike Feldman (York Centre) agreed with the city's decision to edit the exhibit.

"It's the city's responsibility to try to maintain a peace within the city," he said yesterday. "The city is erring on the side of caution. If we display that, then what will prevent any display from anyone else?"

Further, he was concerned that the exhibit would provide a platform for Mr. Ahmadinejad's "very dangerous" ideas.

"I don't think anyone is applauding what this madman is saying, but ... I don't know what the [display] would accomplish."

But David Shiner, councillor for Willowdale, thinks the city should show the whole exhibit.

Mr. Shiner, who has not seen the controversial exhibit, said he understands that it includes statements Mr. Ahmadinejad made about Jewish people and a paragraph about the Holocaust denial conference he hosted in 2006.

"If [the exhibition] is based on fact, don't we believe that people should be able to see all of the facts and the city shouldn't be one controlling what goes out to the public?" Mr. Shiner said.

"We may be promoting discrimination and hatred by allowing the opinions of the few and those promoting the offence to go without challenge.

"Do we have a bylaw against controversy or a bylaw against discrimination?"

The remaining parts of the exhibition, made up of panels two metres tall, provide the history of the Holocaust, profile those who helped Jews escape the Nazis and feature prominent human rights advocates. They are on display at the Scarborough Civic Centre this week.

Next week, Milton District High School will display all four exhibits.

They were shown in July at the Ontario Police College; but The Making of a War Criminal was taken down after a few cadets complained.

Mr. Benlolo said the exhibit is not meant to be offensive.

"It's meant to be shocking," he said. "It is meant to be provocative because the situation is real and serious."

Silly Avi. Don’t you know that here in the glorious mutliculti Trudeaupia of Torontostan “diversity” has been enshrined as our most sacred common value. Diversity of provenance, that is. As for diversity of opinion--well, let’s just say that that one is complicated.

Thanks largely to the censorious efforts of you and other CIJA Jews, folks here in Hogtown (er, sorry, ix-nay on the piggy nic; don’t want to “offend” anyone) are free to express all the lies they want to about Israel--including some Big Ones, some Whoppers, like the ones told annually at U of T’s Israeli Apartheid Week—but are now being told to keep mum about some awful truths about jihad, sharia and the Islamist agenda, up to an including the truth about that hairy little Holocaust-denier in Tehran and his plans to make the Mideast Judenrein

Where do I send in the form nominating you and Leo Adler as co-recipients of the next Nobel Peace Prize?

/mega-bitter sarcasm

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:50 | link | comments (1)

First things first: I have spoken to a leftist Jew who told me that the reason she wants Obama to win is because her number one concern is—wait for it—the Supreme Court. I have heard from a colleague who told me an acquaintance of hers said she couldn’t possibly vote for Stephen Harper—the only world leader to have stood up and bravely defied the upcoming, and second, UN gang-bang of Israel, Durban II—because her number one concern is “arts funding,” which the Prime Minister has just cut. (He didn’t cut it because he’s a philistine, although that’s probably what this woman believes. He cut it because much of the funding wasn’t being used to further creative endeavours and a flowering of Canadian arts so much as it was providing lavish trips on the taxpayers’ dime to rich leftists so they could act as our “cultural ambassadors”—an egregious waste of money if there ever was one.)  And I—we—have heard from CIJA,  the umbrella for Jewish advocacy groups in Canada, which advises us that our top-of-mind concern in next month's election should be “poverty”.

That’s right, folks, “poverty”.

As a welcome respite from all these clueless Jews and their maladroit prioritizing, here’s Caroline Glick, a gal who has her priorities straight.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:42 | link | comments

PajamasTV covers Ahmadinejad: Who's not in his pajamas.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:15 | link | comments

 A word to the unwise: What’s the deal with CIJA Jews and their ongoing devotion to state censorship? Why do the likes of Tammy, Leo, Hershell and Frank (who, really, should know better) continue to hold onto their tattered security blankie, the one that has enabled them to “fight” the phantom menace of local “Nazis” via a genuine menace—our anti-Western, anti-democratic, anti-freedom totalitarian court system? Well, you could say it comes down to a matter of words—or, rather, a misunderstanding about words—and the role that words, “hate speech,” played in the genocide of Europe’s Jews. As far as these gentlemen are concerned, the “hate speech” came first and, as a direct result, the Holocaust followed hard on its heels.

Leo Adler explained how it worked to the Canadian Jewish News:

He said that every genocide, including the Holocaust, started with words. “We don’t want words that have the potential for causing these catastrophes.”

But in the same article, Ezra Levant spelled out the historically inaccuracy—and downright fallaciousness—of Adler’s assertion:

Levant, however, dismissed that line of argument. Hitler, he said, gathered strength in the Weimar Republic, which had legislation against hate speech.

“What killed Jews in the Holocaust was not hate speech.” As well, he noted, the Shoah was preceded by the Nuremberg Laws and the removal of Jewish rights to property, self defence and even life itself.

“We’re foolish if we think that controlling speech will protect us from real violence,” he said.

Why do we have censorship in Canada? In large part it’s because influential Jews like Mr. Adler have misread and misunderstood the historical record. I would direct these machers to Saul Friedlander’s masterful history of the Shoah, The Years of Extermination. It makes clear that the catastrophe didn’t “start with words.” It occurred because an ambitious, power-hungry, charismatic leader who had designs on the world and an irrational obsession with the Jews gained power over a powerful nation. This leader used hate propaganda—“words”—to help him fulfill his agenda of ridding the planet of the blight he thought threatened to destroy it, “the Jews.”

In other words, “words” didn’t cause the Holocaust. Hitler and those who got onside with his eliminationist agenda, caused it. And those good people who remained silent and impassive, thereby allowing evil to triumph, abetted it.

You can see the same sort of irrational obsession—and another eliminationist agenda; hello, Durban II—in operation today. Only now the obsession is not about the blight of the Jewish people and how it threatens to "contaminate" the world, but about the Jewish state and how its "immorality" and "racism" are "contaminating" the global scene, and why it must be extirpated before doing any more harm. And the agenda is being driven not by a totalitarian dictator with grandiose dreams, but by the international organization that arose from the ashes of  a world devastated by war in order to prevent the recurrence of another catastrophe like the Holocaust; an organization that takes its marching orders from its largest voting bloc, which denies that the Holocaust happened and is obsessed—obsessed—with Israel.

Ironic, no?

So how does curtailing free speech in Canada translate to helping Jews and others put the brakes on what now seems inevitable—the elimination/destruction of the Jewish state by the world community on “moral grounds”? It doesn’t. It can’t. It won’t. All it has done is spark a backlash against Canadian Jews, since they are rightly perceived as being responsible for subverting our most valuable freedom. It has also led to a truly perilous situation: if we dare to speak out about the irrational obsession and the looming threat of Israel’s destruction (along with the threat to Western civilization as a whole) and end up “hurting” the feelings of those pushing the eliminationist agenda, we risk being silenced and punished by a powerful nomenklatura of useful idiots. Now, when more than ever, Jews and all freedom-loving Canadians need to be able to use their words, we aren’t allowed to—in no small measure because some well-meaning but misguided Jews continue to believe that “words” are the problem and censorship is the solution.

There's only one word for such people: fools!

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:28 | link | comments (5)

Table manners: In a column in the Jerusalem Post, Issi Leibler unpacked the strategy of CIJA, the umbrella which shelters Jewish advocacy organizations in Canada. He attributed its reluctance to speak up for Israel to a “sha shtill” mentality. (“Sha shtill” is Yiddish for “stay still”—i.e. shut yo’ mouth—the approach employed by mainstream North American Jewish groups in the lead-up to what turned out to be the Holocaust.)  A letter to the Post’s editor suggests that another factor is in play (h/t BCF):

No place at the table

Sir, - Two important points need to be added to Isi Leibler's excellent "Canadian Israel advocacy in turmoil" (September 21). The takeover by a small group of fund-raisers and main donors was really a coup, without any consultation with the Canadian Jewish Congress, a body elected by all Jews across Canada, or with the Canada Israel Committee (the Canadian AIPAC), a group of volunteers comprising supporters of all Israeli political points of view.

Both organizations had highly qualified staff with excellent PR qualifications, and were very efficient. But the new group - the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA) - controls the purse-strings and the budgets; and the message to other organizations, who were doing a much better job than CIJA is now doing, was to go along, or be cut off.

Most of the "machers" are good friends of Shimon Peres and want only his agenda as the policy of the Canadian Jewish community. It is thus not so much the "sha shtil" approach, as leftist-only ideas. Political centrists, even more so those a little to the right, have not only lost their place at the decision-making table. They cannot even approach the table.

Sometimes it seems that this new entity is a branch of the Israeli Labor Party.

Happily, as Leibler points out, there are a number of smaller groups in Canada carrying the message Israel needs to be sent to the Canadian Jewish community, and to the Israel-friendly Canadian government.

DAVID ROTENBERG 
Jerusalem /Toronto

As someone who belongs to one of these smaller groups and who votes Conservative—something that sets me apart from the majority of Canadian Jews, who, like their American counterparts, continue to vote left—I can vouch for the accuracy of Rotenberg’s observation about those on the right having been banished from the table. No matter. We are currently in the process of regrouping at another table—a smaller one, to be sure—but one where the company and food for thought are far more congenial.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:53 | link | comments (2)

Dear Necrophiliac: Michael Ledeen has written a letter to death-doter and UN General Assembly keynote speaker Mahmoud A.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:29 | link | comments

Solution pollution: One would have thought that, post-Final Solution, the idea of looking at anything to do with "the Jews" as a "problem" that required "solving" would be seen for what it is--disgusting, offensive, obscene. And yet, here we are six decades after Israel's founding, and the world is frantically beavering away, trying to decide if a "one-state solution" or a "two-state solution" will do the trick. (The conundrum is the subject of a conference slated for summer '09 at Toronto's York University, a little piece of Gazastan in the city that's often called the "most multicultural" one on earth).

Let me assure all those geniuses committed to "solving" the "problem" of Israel: there is no "solution" that is going to satisfy those who demand that Israel maintain its identity as the world's only Jewish state, and those for whom a Zionist Israel is anathema. So knock it off with trying to "solve" Israel out of existence and move on to "solving" something else--like, say, problems pertaining to the "two-state solution" of India and Pakistan (which has worked out fine on the Indian end but has been a dismal failure on the Islamic side).

Oh, and one more thing. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has worked out his own "solution" to "the Jewish problem," one which he might get to put into effect before the problem-solvers convene in Toronto next summer. Call it the "no-state solution". Or, if you prefer, the final Final Solution.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:49 | link | comments

Hee hawllahu akbar: Here’s something you don’t hear every day—or ever: a Muslim “country” singer. From AKI:

Rome, 21 July (AKI) - America's first Muslim country music singer has shown that Middle-Eastern and Western music can form an exciting new hybrid that builds bridges between cultures.

Kareem Salama, born and raised in Ponca City, Oklahoma in the southern US, is the son of Egyptian immigrants. He began to get into country music while studying in graduate school.

He performed in front of a mostly Italian crowd at the Villa Celimontana Jazz Festival held in Rome on Sunday. His songs were well received by the crowed, which energetically clapped after every song.

"People in Europe have strong stereotypes about what country music is," said Salama in an interview with Adnkronos International (AKI). He speaks Arabic and English.

In his songs, he draws on elements of Rock, Pop, Country and Folk music, as well as Islamic themes, Sufism, poetry and issues ranging from chivalry and nobility to war.

Kareem Salama, whose name means 'Generous well-being', performed for 90 minutes and performed his most famous hits. The songs included 'Baby, I'm a soldier' which recounts the face-to-face encounter between an Iraqi and an American soldier who end up killing each other on the battlefield.

In 2006, he wrote a song called 'Prayers at night' in order to draw attention to the war that year between Israel and Lebanon.

Salama told AKI he would like to perform in his parents' native Egypt and is confident that his music would be well received there.

He draws a parallel between old Arabic music and country music. "Both talk about virtues. A lot of storytelling. Storytelling is a huge thing in country music. They are very similar," he said.

However, he is quick to point out that in his opinion, modern Arabic music does not have much in common with country music.

"Country music is based on Judeo-Christian principles and the idea of fatalism. You will find a lot of that in Islamic literature as well."…

You don’t say. There’s also a lot of "fatalism" in Mein Kampf and Protocols of the Elders of Zion, perennial best sellers in the Arab/Muslim world.

In honour of the Muslim Keith Urban (and the UN's upcoming Wannsee, er, Durban II conference), I've revised an old Hank Williams standard:

Goodbye Jews,

You’re gonna lose

Your own state-oh.

Can’t let it be,

"Hegemony"

It aggravates so.

Old time hate--that’s your fate; it’s not abatin’.

Sons of Mo they’re gonna go get “Great Satan.”

 

Oh, jumbled lies,

Crazy guys at the UN

Have a plan, take a stand,

Know what they’re doin’.

“Human rights” fuels the fights

‘Gainst the Jews now.

Sons of Mo they’re gonna go

Light the fuse now…

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:07 | link | comments

Repent, EU kafirs: Or else:

Algiers, 22 Sept. (AKI) - A leader of the Al-Qaeda Organisation in the Islamic Maghreb has threatened France and Spain in an audio message broadcast on jihadist Internet forums on Monday.

"To those that are involved in the war against Islam and have betrayed the Islamic nation, we say to them: Repent before God punishes you with his hands and with ours," said Abdel Malik Droukedel, who uses the name Abu Musab Abdel Wudud.

"This is because judgement day is close and punishment is imminent. And whoever among the treacherous apostates thinks that France is in a position to ensure its safety, we tell them they are wrong, because France will not be in a position to do it, and will be worried for its safety."

In the audio message, entitled "Message to our nation in the Islamic Maghreb", Droukedel reminds his listeners about Spain and Morocco's territorial dispute over the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla.

"Dear nation, it is not conceivable for any Muslim that loves Islam to speak of the Maghreb without remembering Ceuta and Melilla, occupied by Spain without remembering the injustice suffered by our nation," said Droukedel.

"The complicity between Spain and international organisations such as the Arab League, the Islamic Conference and the United Nations is clear."

Melilla and Ceuta are autonomous cities administered by Spain and considered by neighbouring Morocco to be an integral part of its territory and of immense political and economic significance.

Morocco claims both locations to be "despoiled" territories, calling them by their Arabic equivalents of Sebta and Melillia. The cities have been under Spanish control for over 400 years…

Silly Spanish. Don’t they realize that once a land has been conquered for Allah, it’s ipso facto part of Dar al-Islam no matter how long the infidels control it thereafter? The same holds true for Israel as well, which has been in Jewish hands for a scant sixty years—a blink of an eye to those who take the long view of history.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:32 | link | comments (3)

Our friends the Iraqis: So glad that surge is working and democracy is taking hold in a once tyrannical land. From Yahoo! News:

BAGHDAD - First his two sons were murdered. Now he faces prosecution. The reason for Mithal al-Alusi's troubles? Visiting Israel and advocating peace with the Jewish state — something Iraq's leaders refuse to consider.

The Iraqi is at the center of a political storm after his fellow lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to strip him of his immunity and allow his prosecution for visiting Israel — a crime punishable by death under a 1950s-era law. Such a fate is unlikely for al-Alusi, though he may lose his party's sole seat in parliament.

Because he had visited Israel, many Iraqis assume the maverick legislator was the real target of the assassins who killed his sons in 2005 while he escaped unharmed.

Now he is in trouble for again visiting Israel and attending a conference a week ago at the International Institute for Counterterrorism.

"He wasn't set to speak, but he was in the audience and conversed with a lecturer on a panel about insurgency and terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel," said conference organizer Eitan Azani. "We didn't invite him. He came on his own initiative."

Al-Alusi has a German passport, allowing him to travel without visa restrictions imposed on other Iraqis. Lawmakers accused him of humiliating the nation with a trip to the "enemy" state.

The uproar shows how far Iraq has moved from the early U.S. goal of creating a democracy that would make peace with Israel and remove a critical force from the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The U.S. Embassy declined comment. "It is an issue for the Iraqi parliament, not the U.S. Mission to Iraq," said spokesman Armand Cucciniello…

"What has happened was a catastrophe for democracy," Al-Alusi told The Associated Press in an interview in his Baghdad home. "Within an hour's time, the parliament became the policeman, the investigator, the judge, the government and the law. It was a sham trial."

Al-Alusi said he went to Israel to seek international support for Iraq as it struggles against terrorism, and insisted that the outcry reflects Iranian meddling in Iraq's internal affairs — an accusation often leveled by Sunnis like himself against Iraq's mostly Shiite neighbor.

"Iran is behind Hamas and Hezbollah and many other terrorist organizations. Israelis are suffering like me, like my people. So we need to be together," he said. "Peace will have more of a chance."

Iraq sent troops to three Arab wars against Israel, and fired Scud missiles at it in the 1991 Gulf War. It remains technically at war with the Jewish state. Iraq's once-thriving Jewish community has shriveled to just a few people, most having fled after Israel was founded in 1948.

"Al-Alusi has insulted the hundreds of Iraqi martyrs who fell while fighting the Israelis," said Osama al-Nujeifi, a Sunni lawmaker. "It was a provocative visit to a historical enemy."…

And once an enemy, always an enemy, eh, Sunni lawmaker?

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:21 | link | comments

Suicidal, short-sighted Jews: Here, courtesy the New York Sun, are the remarks Sarah Palin would have made at an anti-Ahmadinejad rally, had the Jews behind the event not been so concerned that any comments by Palin might mean a few more votes for the Republicans (h/t S.L.):

I am honored to be with you and with leaders from across this great country — leaders from different faiths and political parties united in a single voice of outrage.

Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York — to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan — and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.

Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator's intentions and to call for action to thwart him.

He must be stopped.

The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place. He dreams of being an agent in a "Final Solution" — the elimination of the Jewish people. He has called Israel a "stinking corpse" that is "on its way to annihilation." Such talk cannot be dismissed as the ravings of a madman — not when Iran just this summer tested long-range Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, not when the Iranian nuclear program is nearing completion, and not when Iran sponsors terrorists that threaten and kill innocent people around the world.

The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is running at least 3,800 centrifuges and that its uranium enrichment capacity is rapidly improving. According to news reports, U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Iranians may have enough nuclear material to produce a bomb within a year.

The world has condemned these activities. The United Nations Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its illegal nuclear enrichment activities. It has levied three rounds of sanctions. How has Ahmadinejad responded? With the declaration that the "Iranian nation would not retreat one iota" from its nuclear program.

So, what should we do about this growing threat? First, we must succeed in Iraq. If we fail there, it will jeopardize the democracy the Iraqis have worked so hard to build, and empower the extremists in neighboring Iran. Iran has armed and trained terrorists who have killed our soldiers in Iraq, and it is Iran that would benefit from an American defeat in Iraq.

If we retreat without leaving a stable Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions will be bolstered. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons — they could share them tomorrow with the terrorists they finance, arm, and train today. Iranian nuclear weapons would set off a dangerous regional nuclear arms race that would make all of us less safe.

But Iran is not only a regional threat; it threatens the entire world. It is the no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It sponsors the world's most vicious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Together, Iran and its terrorists are responsible for the deaths of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, and in Iraq today. They have murdered Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, and other Muslims who have resisted Iran's desire to dominate the region. They have persecuted countless people simply because they are Jewish.

Iran is responsible for attacks not only on Israelis, but on Jews living as far away as Argentina. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are part of Iran's official ideology and murder is part of its official policy. Not even Iranian citizens are safe from their government's threat to those who want to live, work, and worship in peace. Politically-motivated abductions, torture, death by stoning, flogging, and amputations are just some of its state-sanctioned punishments…

You can see why New York Jews would be dead-set against this “scary” woman and her “scary” agenda. After all, gun control and abortion are far more worrisome issues than the possibility that Israel will shortly be wiped off the map by religious totalitarians with an agenda for global control.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:11 | link | comments

Melanie nails it: The indefatigable Ms. Phillips speaks truth to power, gives the corrupt, morally bankrupt international body a good raking over:

It has been obvious for years that the UN is simply a club of tyranny. It ignores, condones or protects gross abuses of human rights, while attacking and undermining democracies which abide by them. The fact that it is sanctified by the west as having more legitimacy than individual nations, and for embodying the deluded progressive belief that ‘soft power’ can bring about the brotherhood of man on earth, has meant that the west has turned a blind eye to the excesses committed by member states and institutionalised the UN as a weapon against western interests.

Time to end the anachronistic worship of the UN (the UN of the era when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was ratified; the UN of our dreams) since it's blind to the reality of what the UN has become: the organization that's sealing our doom.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:58 | link | comments

 A call to “convert”: Roger L. Simon, a pariah in Tinsel Town for his unpopular non-lefty views, pens an open letter to American Jews:

From the days of FDR, the vast majority of American Jews have identified with the Democratic Party almost if it were their religion.  This included most especially secular Jews like me whose blasé attitude toward their faith and toward religious observance in general made such a replacement all the more important emotionally. This same Jewish majority also identified with the cause of social justice and, as Barack Obama among many others has noted, were some of the most active participants in the civil rights movement of the Fifties and Sixties. That was all how it should have been and was a perfectly logical and praiseworthy epoch in the development of our country.

Hello – those days are over!  The events leading up to Monday’s anti-Ahmadinejad demonstration by Jewish organizations at the UN put the final nail in an already long-moldering coffin. Jews should no longer align themselves with the Democratic Party any more than they should align with the Republicans.  They should act and think for themselves, devoid of ideological or partisan bias. They should first be Americans, not Democratic Party Americans.

The reasons for this are many, but paramount among them is that being hostage to one political party is tantamount to giving up your freedom and relinquishing your ability to confront reality and act in your own interest, not to mention the interest of others. Many Jewish Americans still do this for reasons that are at best sentimental and nostalgic, and at worst self-destructive. But a tipping point may be approaching.  The virtual night of the long knives played out between the Democratic Party and various Jewish organizations surrounding the Iran demonstration, including allegations that party operatives were threatening the loss of tax exempt status over Sarah Palin’s appearance, with more unpleasant revelations undoubtedly to come, is obviously causing people to reconsider this allegiance to the Democratic Party that approaches fealty.

I urge my fellow Jews to keep thinking about this and not to retreat into the cocoon-like safety of an outmoded tradition.  Change is difficult.  But remember that Hillary Clinton – that paragon of the Democratic Party, a woman who calls herself a “progressive” (oh, desecration of the English language!) – was willing to forego the protest of the man who is arguably the most significant enemy of the Jews since Hitler for partisan and (most likely) personal pique reasons. How morally repellent is that!

And then Joseph Biden told us he was busy–too busy to protest a nuclear-armed madman who fervently believes that his mysterious Twelfth Imam (Mahdi) is destined to unite a chaotic globe under Allah.  (And don’t tell me that evangelicals believe similar things.  If you think there is an equation between evangelicals and Khomeinist Islamists, you need a cold bath.)

No, those Democrats thought of themselves and their party first, the citizens of this country and the world later. When Republicans behave in a similar reprehensible manner, we should condemn them with all ferocity.   But fellow Jews, stop being slaves to the Democratic Party.  End this illicit love affair – not just for your own good, but for the good of humanity...

Jews give up the feel-good “tikkun olam” party? Now that would require not just a change but a seismic shift.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:00 | link | comments

Elites v. “trailer trash”: Diana West has posted a translation of a speech by Dutch “Islamophobe” Geert Wilders. The speech was so incendiary, so politically incorrect, that the “elites”---the targets of his excoriation—pulled the plug on it. Change the odd word and name here and there and he could just as easily be talking about Canada:

…This elite finds everything very well — as long as the subsidy flow continues towards the VPRO [leftist TV broadcaster], Milieudefensie [Environmentalists] and the arts chiefs. They are the followers of Geert Mak [the Dutch Michael Moore], Doekle the dhimmi [Doekle Terpstra, former Christian Democrat, now Unilever officer and a fanatic anti-Wilders opponent], Eveline Herfkens [Socialist employed by the World Bank and the UN, involved in a major fraud] and Al Gore. It is the leftist canal-zone [the expensive property at the Canals in Amsterdam where most leftist celebrities live] and their sticky friends.

But all these so-called ideals of the political elite are minority projects. There is almost no one who still believes in it, except for an ever-smaller gang of leftists hanging on the taxpayers-drip and with permanent jobs for themselves at a subsidy nipple, the government, or a lobby club. Professional Muslims, professional climate fundamentalists, professional chairmen, professional lobbyists.

One of those is Bert Bakker. We still remember him — until recent a parliamentarian for D66 [set up in 1966 to achieve more democracy, but now a leftist appeasers party]. And what tough politically-correct talk he uttered. The PVV party, he said, are all racists, all thugs. He had this written up in the newspaper. But alas — thanks to the action of the Turkish Ministry of Religious Affairs, ms. Koser Kaya took Bert Bakkers’ seat here [after the last elections].

And now Bert tries to scrape some money together as a lobbyist for an aircraft manufacturer. And thus he also visited the PVV. A little bit of licking, a little driveling. Well, we have told Bert Bakker that he can take a hike. Lobbying is ok, but not with us. And then suddenly Bert turned like a leaf on a tree and look what I now found in the post: a real apology. Geert, sorry, you are suddenly not racists anymore.

Look, that is the way of our elite. In public they express politically-correct tough talk. And as soon as they have a little job they send little apology letters. Some people have ideals and are steadfast. Others have a spine full of whipped cream. Bert Bakker is a symbol for the elite. Rather a fat bank account than principles.

But alas, Madam President, there is also another Netherlands. My Netherlands.

The other Netherlands consists of people who have to pay the bills. Literally and metaphorically. They are robbed and threatened. Who sigh under the load of the street terrorists, under high taxes and the desire for a socialist Netherlands. They are the people who do not get anything for nothing. They are the people who have built up our country. They are the people who have never believed in the leftist project of the multi-nonsense or climate rubbish or our donations to the cocktail-mafia on the Antilles.

They are the people who are rarely heard here in the Lower House in The Hague. They are dismissed as trailer park trash and xenophobes, as little provincials.

This government puts down this double Netherlands. This government chooses consistently for the Netherlands of the elite and not for the Netherlands of the ordinary people who have to pay the bill.

Who is wondering why it is that Dutch people are increasingly cynical about politics should look at these two Netherlands. They must wonder how we can achieve ONE Netherlands.

Nowhere the differences between what the Dutch find and what the elites find is sharper than in the case of mass immigration. Nearly sixty percent of the Dutch people see Islam as the biggest threat to our identity and also nearly sixty percent finds mass immigration to be the biggest mistake since the war. But here in the parliament hardly six percent believe the same thing…

Ironic, isn’t it, that it’s the “trailer trash” and “little provincials” who may yet save Western civilization?

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:20 | link | comments

Le nom juste: Sometimes an individual has an especially appropriate name. Like, say, a ritual circumciser named Dr. Foreskin. Also, like the guy named in this Ceeb report about unrest at an American meat-packers:

Hundreds of Muslim workers involved in a dispute over prayer breaks at a Nebraska meat-packing plant are set to meet Sunday to decide what to do next.

Dozens of workers were fired during a week marked by protests at the JBS Swift & Co. plant over break times to allow Muslims to pray at sunset.

The plant employs about 2,500 people, not including managers. About a fifth of them — mostly of Somali background — are Muslim.

Mohamed Rage, who leads the Omaha Somali-American Community Organization, said Saturday that workers at the plant wanted to hold another protest, but that he urged them not to.

Instead, Rage said, all the Muslim workers — including those no longer with the company because of the dispute — will meet Sunday to talk about a resolution.

On Monday, hundreds of Muslim employees walked off the job, saying they weren't being allowed to take a break to pray during Ramadan. Break times were then altered on the second shift so that Muslims could make their fourth of five daily prayers at sunset…

His name is Mohamed Rage!? I’m sorry, that’s just too…perfect.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:50 | link | comments (2)

CIJA’s agenda: All those frustrated souls trying to get a grip on the inner workings of the Jewstablishment (me included), can now relax. Isi Leibler ‘splains it all to you (Israpundit's bolds):

Canadian Jews can take pride in the remarkable infrastructure of educational, religious and cultural institutions they have created. The fact that assimilation and intermarriage in Canada are far less advanced than in the United States is largely attributable to their magnificent network of Jewish day schools. Canadian Jews also have a splendid record of support for Israel and their donors are among the most generous contributors to projects in the Jewish state.

Regrettably, in recent years the community’s public advocacy on behalf of Israel has dramatically declined. This paralleled a major upsurge in anti-Semitism and demonization of Israel as a consequence of Muslim immigration and intensified hostility from the Canadian left.

The downturn had its genesis in 2004 when the principal communal fund-raisers, concerned about increased anti-Semitism and hostility to Israel, decided to supplant the traditional communal advocacy bodies - the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Canada Israel Committee - with a “more professional” organization. The new entity, the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), was commissioned to deal exclusively with “advocacy on Canada Israel relations while the Canadian Jewish Congress would handle issues of Jewish concern.” This effectively neutralized the central role of the Canadian Jewish Congress in determining policies on Israel and antisemitism and replaced it with an undemocratic body headed by professional public relations consultants.

The federations, via the United Israel Appeal, allocate very substantial funds to the CIJA. The budget this year, including mega-salaries for the principal officers, amounts to more than $11 million.

However, from the outset, the new team of PR professionals, headed by CEO Herschel Ezrin, was soon identified as archetypical practitioners of the discredited sha shtil approach, displaying passivity and determined to maintain a low profile. Their vast financial resources concentrated on campaigns emphasizing that Israelis “are just like the rest of us Canadians”.

Their PR philosophy, depicted as a model that other communities would do well to emulate, was outlined in a surrealistic internal document circulated in 2004 titled “The 10 Commandments.” It was never formally repudiated and to this day appears to reflect CIJA policy. The document must be seen to be believed.

Commandment 5 states: “Do not directly attack or assign blame to the Palestinians or their leadership. Canadians will not tolerate - or believe - that one side is more responsible for the violence than the other.”

Commandment 6 says: “Do not ask Canadians to pick a side in the conflict or assign blame. Very few Canadians are prepared to assign blame for ongoing violence or attacks.”

Commandment 7 states explicitly: “Do not ask the government of Canada to appear - or be - more favorable to Israel… There is no support for further government support of Israel.”

Commandment 9 warns: “Do not attack the media for being biased against Israel… There is no constituency to support a public effort to attack the media.”

That such a document was not immediately condemned and withdrawn demonstrates how a group of wealthy donors, dazzled by “PR expertise,” bypassed the will of the vast majority of Canadian Jews.

The obsession to avoid “confrontation” was especially acute on the campuses where Hillel activists were explicitly directed to avoid debates, ignore Arab anti-Israeli tirades and never display examples of Islamic antisemitism to avoid offending Muslim groups.

Three years ago, the PR mavens even managed to convince the Montreal federation to cancel the annual Israel Independence Day parade out of a fear of possible anti-Israeli counter-demonstrations. Fortunately, independent communal leaders, rabbis and school principals took it upon themselves to lead a grassroots revolt to retain the dignity of the community and Independence Day parades were reinstated.

The CIJA has a virtual monopoly on Israel advocacy in Canada…

I don’t know if I agree completely with Leibler that  CIJA’s “sha shtill” approach is always in effect nation-wide. Here in Toronto, for example, there’s an annual Walk For Israel that had a record turnout this year. There have also been extremely well-attended rallies for Sderot and a celebration in honour of Israel’s 60^th birthday. Nonetheless, the “commandments” which drive CIJA’s actions are most disturbing, as is its ongoing support for state censorship. Luckily, there are many, many Jews who reject such commandments (which, being morally relativistic, make a mockery of the real ten commandents, the rules which provided the moral underpinnings of our civilization), and who continue to make waves (which, trust me, hasn’t exactly endeared us to our own mucky-mucks).

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:19 | link | comments

Be careful what you wish for: A little birdie (you know who you are) caught a play at the Buddies in Bad Times Theatre the other day and saw the following grafitti in the washroom: "Queers for a free Palestine."

Memo to "queers": A "free" Palestine means lots of dead queers.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:40 | link | comments

Nasty, brutish and short--and hairy: Don't miss the Li'l Hitler's nuclear adventures--though they're not nearly as animated as the man himself.

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

Buh bye and good riddance: Yes, that long-awaited day has finally arrived--the day when that pathetic excuse for a leader, Ehud Olmert, tells us when he'll be packing it in. Only one thing left to do--sing!

Arrivaderci, Olmert.

Goodbye, goodbye Ehud.

Leader who’s so hapless and so feckless

Leader who’s so useless and so reckless

Israel is gonna be one shmuck less

Once you’re gone…

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:42 | link | comments

Missing in action: What's the name of Bambi's running mate again? Seems I plum forgot (and I'm not the only one to have that memory lapse):

Bambi’s Veep choice, that Senator Biden

Is hardly worth even deridin’.

Despite the Dem’s plottin’

The man’s been forgotten

And won’t factor into the decidin’.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:23 | link | comments

A whole ‘nother party: On the israpundit site, Mario Goveia writes that the new Dems are nothing at all like the old Dems—a reality American Jews have yet to twig to:

As a non-Jewish American supporter of Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, it has become increasingly apparent to me that some of the most virulent Bush-haters and far-left-wing Americans supporting Barack Obama, are Jews! Good heavens! Do they have any idea what the real and psychological pressure will be like on Israel if the US administration is put in the hands of Barack Obama, who would embolden Israel’s mortal enemies by making inappropriate moral equivalencies, as he has already done, and recognizing Israel’s enemies as “legitimate” seekers of peace by meeting with them without any pre-conditions?

What compromise position do you imagine Obama is going to propose in such a meeting when Ahmadinejad, or Assad or - take your pick - re-iterate their ultimate goal regarding Israel, now further emboldened by Obama’s obsequious presence at the table??

What would make Obama’s election a Perfect Storm for Israel are far left wing Congressional Democrat leaders like Nancy “The surge is not working” Pelosi and Harry “We have lost in Iraq” Reid. Don’t kid yourselves that these sentiments are restricted to Iraq. What kind of national political leadership openly cheers for its own country to fail, and declares defeat right in the middle of a war? What kind of national political leadership continues to fail to recognize what America has achieved in Iraq - an epic and now increasingly successful attempt to plant the seeds of freedom and democracy in places where these had never been experienced before - thus providing Israel with some relief, however small at the moment, from radical dictatorships that have decided in lockstep since 1947 that Israel must be wiped from the face of the earth?

Only Israel’s survival instincts and strength and American resolve has prevented a second Holocaust from happening. Only Joe Lieberman’s lone vote has often stood between an American retreat, which is tantamount to a defeat, and the current victory that is at hand. Why Lieberman continues to caucus with the Democrats after they tried to destroy him and his political career is about as big a mystery to me as the majority of American Jews who blindly vote for Democrats at every level.

When I came to this country as an immigrant 37 years ago I learned how to deal with it from Jews whom I used as role models, and their lessons and example served us well. They stood for higher education, working harder than anyone else, strong family and community values, rugged independence and self-reliance, standing up to discrimination, helping those in need, and protecting with their lives the only sliver of freedom and democracy in the middle-east over the last four decades.

Can ANY of these traits be found in the heart and soul of the MODERN Democrat party? The Republican party’s many faults are all such that they can be changed from within because their heart and soul is still in the right place, they still support the factors that made America great. But if the far left loons who control the Democrats of today - just read their websites and blogs - could rip Hillary and Bill Clinton to shreds, classify them as right-wingers and warmongers - and less than 10% of blacks would support her after calling him the first black US President, then the writing is on the wall. Sadly, the blind cannot see.

In the meantime Osama Bin Laden is planning a radical Caliphate from which to promote Sharia law worldwide, by force if necessary, with only Israel standing in his way regionally, and the US globally - perhaps, sadly, only until this next election… 

The Caliphate? Ho hum. That’s nada compared to the prospect of another four years of scary, belligerent, non-multilateral Halibushitler hicks from the sticks. (That’s me channeling Jewish Bambi-soxers.)

Update: Bill Whittle say, "Go hicks!"

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:39 | link | comments

Rousseau’s children: One of the tried and true ways of attempting to undermine the West from within is to insist that its “values” are corrupt (since they are Western and “European,” code for imperialistic, colonialist and therefore intrusive and worthless). One of today's underminers: “big thinker” John Ralston Saul, who wants Canada to return to its “pure” aboriginal roots. That’s an idea the Toronto Star’s “big thinker” Harpoon Siddiqui can get behind, since he’s keen to return to some roots, too:

…Canada is in trouble because it has been untethered from its aboriginal moorings. It pretends to be what it is not. It is not European or American.

He writes: "In spite of the enormous role played by churches over the centuries, ours is not a civilization that emerged out of the Judeo-Christian line. Nor did we rise out of the opposite, the secular or the laic. The central inspiration of our country is aboriginal ...

"How we imagine ourselves, how we govern, how we live together, how we treat one another when we are not being stupid is deeply aboriginal ...

"We are a Métis civilization. What we are today is inspired as much by four centuries of life with the indigenous civilizations as by four centuries of immigration."

The aboriginals, with their "idea of expandable and inclusive circles of people," welcomed the French settlers. They taught the newcomers how to survive. They encouraged intermarriage, as did Champlain: "Our young men will marry your daughters, and we shall be one people."

But this mutual approach was abandoned by later settlers in favour of land grabs, broken treaty promises and an assault on the aboriginal way of life.

The Orangemen, in particular, importing their extremist Protestantism, applied their "old European prejudices in a new place," and imposed the language of a "monolithic nation-state, with its ideas of racial purity."

The First Nations were to be assimilated. "This was the underlying theory of the residential school system, with its deadly health conditions, the banning of language and culture, the sexual degradation, physical violence and the disruption of families."

All this was an "artificial Europeanization of Canada."…

Ah, yes. Let’s all get out our feathers and drums and pretend that Canada is a noble savage and not the product of an inebriated Scotsman, some cranky Englishmen, and a few stubborn Frenchmen—Europeans all—and eight centuries of Western law beginning with the Magna Carta.

If Canada is “artificial,” then so is America, and Australia, and New Zealand—all the democracies of the “new world.” For that matter, so is Israel. But that’s part and parcel of Saul’s and Harpoon’s insidious argument—the idea that only the “native,” the “aboriginal,” has legitimacy.

My letter:

Upon reading Haroon Siddiqui’s latest column in which he concurs with John Ralston Saul’s assessment that “Canada is in trouble” because it is “untethered from its aboriginal moorings,” I was tempted to get out some drums and feathers. Then I remembered that Canada is the product of an inebriated Scotsman, some cranky Englishmen, and a few stubborn Frenchmen—Europeans all—and eight centuries of Western law beginning with the Magna Carta, and the urge soon passed.

True, Canada, along with all the other countries of what used to be called “the New World,” was home to original settlers, long before any “Europeans” arrived, and the history of relations between the two groups has long been challenging, to say the least. But to argue that Canada has somehow lost its way because it has strayed from its “aboriginal” roots is, well, just plain silly. And the idea isn’t even John Ralston Saul’s. Credit must go to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a philosopher who so despised his European "moorings" that he concocted the notion of “the Noble Savage.”

Canada is what it is, a Western nation grounded in Western law that has opened its doors to people from every nation of the world. If anything is “untethered”--untethered from any sense of reality, that is--it’s the idea that “we” must return to our “pure” aboriginal origins.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:01 | link | comments (4)

Extry, extry: Despite the "best" efforts of the scourges of "hate" to make our country pure and good, research has revealed that antisemitsm and "Islamophobia" in Canada are both on the rise.

Naturally, there's no indication from the poll how much, if any, of the rise in the former can be attributed to those who are targets of the latter (and how much of it is prompted by their demented hatred for the Jewish state); in Canada (and elsewhere--it's an international poll) we don't dare ask such rude (and "Islamophobic") questions.

Update: According to another survey, the majority of Muslims in Arab countries think non-Muslims should be compelled to observe Ramadan.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:01 | link | comments

Little brutes don't cry: I saw—and loved—the musical Jersey Boys the other night. The show about Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons inspired me to revise one of their hits for an, ahem, Tehran Boy. He's a guy who speaks plenty of falsehoods, but who, alas, doesn't have Frankie's angelic falsetto:

Oh how he tries,

Cuts "Satan" down to size

By tellin’ pretty lies about a nuke.

Now he’s returnin’

And Jews’ ears’ll be burnin’.

Get ready for his words--you’ll retch and puke.

 

(UN said) talk like Ahmad’

Squawk like Ahmad’.

Balk like Ahmad’, he’s swell.

He’ll tell the world

"Great Satan" should be hurled.

And walk with Ahmad’ to hell.

 

Oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo,

(Talk, talk).

Oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo…

 

Good-bye Jewry,

Hello crazed rage and fury

At “Zionists” and all their eee-vil ways.

Final Solution

Is nearing execution

As Hitler’s planning enters its next phase.

 

(They’re gonna) walk like Ahmad’

Talk like Ahmad’

Flock to Ahmad’, by gum.

We’ve seen his sort--

Brutish, nasty and short--

They’ll walk with Ahmad’, by gum.

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

Elmo’s dynamic: The Canadian Islamic Congress’s Grand Poobah-for-life wants state censorship laws to stand—and even be expanded—in order to clamp down on all the dangerous “hate speech,” of course. By Joseph Breen in the National Post:

Hate speech creates a "silencing dynamic" that excludes disadvantaged groups from civil participation, according to Mohamed Elmasry, national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress.

In a submission to Richard Moon, a University of Windsor law professor hired by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to review its online hate speech mandate, Prof. Elmasry writes that "the state should act to empower those who are disadvantaged by hate speech, and that may mean lowering the voices of some in order that others may be heard."

He called for mandatory press councils, and an end to "media monopoly," and said the CHRC was wrong to dismiss his recent complaint of Islamophobia in Maclean's magazine, which "aired its opinions to more than two million readers, but CHRC did not hold a hearing for Canadian Muslims and experts to voice their views."

His comments are a rare departure from the public silence the controversial Muslim leader has taken on an issue in which he is deeply invested.

Since initiating hate speech complaints last year against Maclean's in Ontario, British Columbia and federally, Prof. Elmasry has delegated spokesmanship to lawyer Faisal Joseph and a group of young articling lawyers. Only British Columbia heard the case, but has yet to rule.

The lawyers also prepared a brief for Prof. Moon, in response to questions he provided: what would be lost if the hate speech provision of the Human Rights Act, Section 13, were repealed; how might it be improved; should it require an intent to spread hate; and what other complaint mechanisms for hate speech might be enhanced.

Prof. Elmasry compared hate speech laws with speed limits as examples of "worthwhile" exercises of state power.

"The old idea that the state is an enemy of freedom should not be replaced with the idea that it can be a friend of freedom by not dealing with hate speech regulation," Prof. Elmasry writes.

"The current mantra that 'the remedy for hate speech is more and better speech' is in fact both false and misleading. The reality is that those who are expected to respond with 'more and better speech' cannot do so in today's public forum. Or if they do speak out, their words are often dismissed as lacking credibility."…

What really creates a “silencing dynamic” is the dynamic exercise of censorship by a state determined to silence free speech because it could pose a challenge to the powerful and their prevailing social orthodoxy.

You know, like the “dynamic” that’s prevalent in both Saudi Arabia and Canada.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:18 | link | comments

Just asking: Why is the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services funding the Canadian Arab Federation’s “Unity” Basketball tourney? Did anyone at the Ministry—which is no doubt hoping to give the young’uns something to do after school and keep them out of trouble—bother to find out what kind of “unity” the CAF is, er, pitching (to mix a sporting metaphor)?

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:46 | link | comments

Cause and effect: Moonbat rag The San Francisco Chronicle suggests (hopes and prays?) that the “Palin Effect  is already wearing thin”; Rex Murphy suggest the same of the Obama effect (“Incredibly shrinking Obama”) and, further, compares Bambi to iconic American literary figure, the Great Gatsby:

…Mainly, his was very much a candidacy constructed by those who were drawn to him. If there was any meaning to that fortune-cookie poeticism that "we are the ones we have been waiting for," it was that his campaign was a feedback loop. People saw what they came to see. Mr. Obama was the slate; the crowds brought their own chalk.

This is the nature of Mr. Obama's particular kind of charisma. People project their best wishes on him, they fill in the blank of a very attractive and plausible outline. His is not, emphatically, a charisma of deeds. For what has he done, save run for president? He is an accommodating vessel - cool, smart, biracial and "unfinished." This is the Gatsby quality of him that others have noted. Like Gatsby, he is a receptacle of others' glamorous invention.

People see in him, or wish to see, the last great ideal of the American polity fulfilled, a final and full racial accommodation. That should he be elected president, America will have achieved, by his singular persona, the perfect emblematic demonstration of having exorcised at last the great stain of its racially riven origins.

Mr. Obama's charisma is, in this sense, external, something extended to the candidate. And it follows that that which is given may equally be taken away. The sparkle has, in fact, dimmed. He travels now in a lower orbit, closer to Earth - which is to say, he grows more mundane. The great word "hope" sounds less frequently now. He picks a running mate thick with the dust and rancour of many long years in Washington.

His acceptance speech in the Olympic-style stadium could not gather the inspirational energy of his earlier arias. Of late, the flash supernova of U.S. politics is seen "competing" with a second-on-the-ticket female governor of a remote state. There's more than a gap between the "audacity of hope" and "lipstick on a pig." The mouth that spoke the first phrase should not be capable of the second.

He has shrunk into a combative partisan. He crowds his own screen, leaves less space for projection. Others are not writing his narrative now - he's inscribing his own.

A candidacy that leached so much of its energy and drive from the imagination of others, Gatsby-like, is shedding its gift. The narrative stage is over. It's all tactics from here on in.

So we beat on, boats against the current, trying to fight the rising tide of cluelessness and the totalitarian will to power.

Or something like that.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:29 | link | comments

Fatal visit: Two young, independent-minded Algerian-born sisters moved out of the family home and into their own digs, whereupon their brother paid them a visit—and (allegedly) stabbed them both to death. From UK Press:

A man has appeared in court charged with the murders of two sisters found dead in the flat they rented.

Mohammed Ali, 28, spoke only to confirm his name and address when he appeared at Birmingham Magistrates' Court charged with murdering Yasmine and Sabrina Larbi-Cherif.

Ali, of Old Snowhill, Birmingham, was charged with two counts of murder.

The sisters were found in the flat they shared in Birmingham's Ladywood district at about 5.40pm on Monday.

Two magistrates were told on Saturday that the family of Yasmine and her 19-year-old sister Sabrina phoned police after they failed to contact the women, who usually called home every day.

When West Midlands Police visited the flat they shared in the Jupiter Apartments complex they found the sisters lying on two single beds in the bedroom, prosecuting solicitor Louisa Dolphin said.

Yasmine, 22, had been stabbed twice, once in the back, whilst Sabrina had suffered a "significant amount" of stab wounds, Ms Dolphin added.

No application for bail was made and Ali was remanded in custody to appear next at Birmingham Crown Court on Friday, September 26.

The Algerian-born sisters were British nationals and had only lived in their flat a few weeks…

I’m told it’s a “cultural” thing.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:11 | link | comments (2)

A correction: That video showing (alleged) northern jihadis frolicking in the snowy woods was not, I repeat not, introduced as Crown evidence during their trial; apparently, the Crown never had the video in its possession, and was thus forced to depend on the iffy testimony of its lavishly paid—and unbelievably addled—informant, Mubin Shaihk. No, the video in question was posted on the 'net in time for deliberations—and, boy, is the defence ever pissed.  From CP:

TORONTO — The release of an alleged terrorist training camp video that's tied to a group accused of plotting attacks on Canadian soil is "very concerning" given the timing of its appearance on the Internet, a lawyer for one of the accused said Friday.

A verdict is expected next Thursday in the case of the first person to go to trial following the arrest of the so-called "Toronto 18" two years ago, and lawyer Mitchell Chernovsky said the public is seeing "provocative" images connected to the case without the proper context.

The video shows, among other things, men in camouflage carrying out alleged terrorist training exercises in a rural area during winter, and is featured on an American website.

The Nine-Eleven Finding Answers Foundation, which posted the clip, reportedly obtained the video from a British court where it was an exhibit at the trial Aabid Khan, who was convicted last month of being a terrorist propagandist.

The BBC, in its coverage of the trial, reported that Khan was friends with the alleged ringleader of the Toronto group and that Khan's former wife was Canadian.

"Why, however, it's being released right now, just prior to the decision ... which is scheduled for next week, is very suspect," Chernovsky said. "But I have no idea why it's being released now.

"It just is very concerning that it is being released at this time and without any context."

The video wasn't submitted as evidence at the trial in Brampton, Ont., nor is there any reason to believe Canadian prosecutors had it in their possession, said Chernovsky, who added he saw the video online for the first time Thursday.

"This video was never in the hands of the Crown, as far as I know," he said.

"If they did, they would have shared it in court. It's informative. They showed other videos that were far less helpful to them."

The 2 1/2-minute video - posted at http://www.nefafoundation.org/ - jumps from daytime scenes in the woods to a nighttime campfire and a van skidding around a darkened Canadian Tire parking lot. Islamic music runs throughout.

A police informant, Mubin Shaikh, is the only person on the video whose face is recognizable. A handgun is seen being fired, and court has heard it was the only weapon, apart from paintball guns, present at the camp.

There's also footage of hiking excursions through the woods and a man waving a black flag while yelling out "Allah."

The Crown alleges the group produced videos for recruitment purposes…

No, no, they weren’t recruiting for the jihad. They wanted other young lads to come share their love of the outdoors and the winter camping experience in their beloved new land.

What are you, Islamophobic or something?

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:46 | link | comments

“Messiah” with feet of clay: The Economist, surprisingly enough, has some pretty good things to say about David Fredoso’s book The Case Against Barack Obama:

…The Obama that emerges from its pages is not, Mr Freddoso says, “a bad person. It’s just that he’s like all the rest of them. Not a reformer. Not a Messiah. Just like all the rest of them in Washington.” And the author makes a fairly compelling case that this is so. The best part of the book concentrates on Mr Obama’s record in Chicago, his home town and the place from which he was elected to the Illinois state Senate in 1996, before moving to the United States Senate in 2004. The book lays out in detail how this period began in a way that should shock some of Mr Obama’s supporters: he won the Democratic nomination for his Illinois seat by getting a team of lawyers to throw all the other candidates off the ballot on various technicalities. One of those he threw off was a veteran black politician, a woman who helped him get started in politics in the first place.

If Mr Obama really were the miracle-working, aisle-jumping, consensus-seeking new breed of politician his spin-doctors make him out to be, you would expect to see the evidence in these eight years. But there isn’t very much. Instead, as Mr Freddoso rather depressingly finds, Mr Obama spent the whole period without any visible sign of rocking the Democratic boat…

It was said of toothy, unctuous, hyper-enthusiastic Brit TV interviewer Sir David Frost that he was a man who “rose without a trace.” One might say the same about the Big O.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:41 | link | comments (1)

Evil, Jew-hating, morally bankrupt : Ahmadingbat and the whole effing UN--they certainly deserve each other.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:22 | link | comments

Facebook and freedom: A good news story from, of all places, Islam Online. It seems “secular” (i.e. non-practising) Muslims are using Facebook to stand up to their more devout brethren:

CAIRO — Devout Muslims and secularists are using the world's second largest social networking website Facebook to debate the role of Islam in their societies, reported the Los Angeles Times on Friday, September 19.

"Secularism is refused by all means," Mohamed Amer, an Egyptian, writes in a comment on a Facebook page.

Amer said most Muslims aspire to see Islam play a bigger role in their societies.

"In fact, it goes against the will of the Egyptian, the Arab and Muslim peoples who crave Islamic rule," he writes.

"National interests rest in the adherence to Islam and faith."

Amr Ali, an Egyptian dental student, has founded a Facebook group to confront efforts to promote secularism in Muslim societies.

"I'm very surprised at all the secular Facebook groups out there," he said.

"Secular and atheist groups are posting on my group, accusing Islam of promoting terrorism," said Ali, whose group "We the Muslim Youth Can Change This World" has attracted nearly 22,000 members.

"I'm concerned. They are young people and they are lost, following misleading slogans. Some of them are totally against religion and all the prophets."…

Could Facebook end up saving the civilized world from being dragged back to the 7^th Century? Could be, so long as the censors don’t find a way to silence the secular and atheist groups’ “Islamophobia”.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:00 | link | comments

Extry, extry: Prominent geologist/cleric/whackjob declares Jewish and Christian scriptures to be "forgeries".

The Koran, however, is the real deal (of course).

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:45 | link | comments

Submit, Great Satan: Iran tells the U.S. it must accept the mullahs' "nuclear realities."

Great Satan should (but probably won't) tell the mullahs, "Bite me."

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:25 | link | comments

Mommy deadliest: She was only doing what any other mom would have done in her situation, right? From the Globe and Mail:

MONTREAL — A defence lawyer is seeking a discharge for a Montreal mother who tried to help her son flee Canada in the aftermath of the firebombing of a Jewish elementary school, arguing the woman acted like many parents would under the circumstances.

Gilles Pariseau says Rouba El-Merhebi Fahd was distraught when she phoned a travel agent in 2004 to book a flight to Brazil for her son, who had just been approached by police about the firebombing of a school library that destroyed 10,000 children's books.

Sleiman El-Merhebi eventually pleaded guilty and was sentenced to jail for the firebombing, which garnered world headlines and provoked heightened security at Jewish schools across the city.

Yesterday, his mother paid the price for the crime, too. She was convicted of being an accessory after the fact, based largely on evidence provided through extensive police wiretaps.

Intercepted conversations revealed that only three hours after her son had been approached by a police detective about the fire at the United Talmud Torah school, Ms. El-Merhebi Fahd phoned a travel agent about getting her son to Brazil.

She told the agent she didn't want a United Airlines flight through the United States, preferring a more expensive Air Canada flight via Toronto. Her son might leave that week or the following week, perhaps for three months, she said.

The ticket was never purchased and her son didn't own a valid Canadian passport anyway. But Quebec Court Judge Robert Marchi said that didn't stop Ms. El-Merhebi Fahd from being an accessory to her son's crime.

"The steps undertaken by the accused to allow her son to get to Brazil are to me sufficient to make her an accessory after the fact of the arson perpetrated by her son, whether she succeeded or not to reserve the ticket," he wrote in his judgment.

But Mr. Pariseau said Ms. El-Merhebi Fahd had acted spontaneously, never bought the ticket and deserved a discharge. Not many parents would hand their kids over to police, he said. "I think her gesture is a gesture that plenty of mothers - maybe not all - would have committed under the circumstances," he told reporters outside court. "It's not abnormal for a mother to do that for her son. I'm not saying she should do it, I'm saying it's not abnormal."

But Crown prosecutor Anne Aubé argued that while Ms. El-Merhebi Fahd doesn't deserve jail time, she should be sentenced to community service. A discharge sends the wrong message about the seriousness of the firebombing, she said.

"It was an act of terrorism. It was a crime against society, not just against one person," Ms. Aubé said in an interview. "She was an accomplice in a serious crime ... all of Quebec was afraid, not just the Jewish community, all of Quebec was afraid."

She said parents have a responsibility to instill proper values in their children. "Parents have a social responsibility and I'm not sure a reasonable parent would do that," she said, referring to attempts to get the firebomber out of the country.

Sentencing is set for Nov. 25.

Key to obtaining a conviction was whether Ms. El-Merhebi Fahd knew what her son had done when she called the travel agent...

Puh-leeze. She was “distraught” but didn’t know what he had done? Next you’ll be telling me that we needn’t worry about firebombers like her son because they’re so “amateurish.”

If the jihadi Jew-haters and their abettors want to get off, their lawyers are going to have to come up with a much better defence.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:03 | link | comments

Candid cameraderie: A video of Allah’s (alleged) northern warriors training for jihad in the winter (now available online) is being used against them in court, as Colin Freeze reports in the Globe and Mail (my bolds):

TORONTO — A key piece of evidence in a Toronto terrorism trial has been posted on a U.S. website: a video that shows masked men wearing winter camouflage fatigues while firing guns and waving a black flag, or marching in a snowy woodland.

The video was played publicly inside a Brampton courthouse earlier this year, but this is the first time it has been available on the Internet. The two-and-a-half-minute video shows a group of men shouting “Allahu Akbar” – or “God is Great” – while they raise a black banner on a hilltop.

The video forms part of the case against 11 Toronto-area men who were among the 18 arrested in 2006 and are accused of taking terrorist paramilitary training. In addition, a core group of alleged ringleaders is accused of a plotting a truck-bomb attack targeting government buildings in downtown Toronto.

One of the accused, who cannot be named was under 18 at the time of his arrest, is awaiting the verdict in his trial, which concluded last month. The others, who cannot be named under the terms of a publication ban imposed on the trial of the youth, have yet to be tried.

The video, which authorities say was shot by the suspects for propaganda purposes, was acquired in the Toronto police raids two years ago. It was played in public as exhibit in a related British trial this summer. In the United Kingdom, a British extremist who had interacted with members of the alleged Toronto conspiracy was convicted last month of being a terrorist propagandist.

Evan Kohlmann, a representative of the American non-profit Nine-Eleven Finding Answers Foundation (NEFA) attended the U.K. trial and acquired a copy the video after it was shown as an exhibit. The video was posted on the NEFA website.

The video shows scenes from an alleged winter training camp that occurred nearly three years ago, or about six months prior to the June, 2006, police roundup of the suspects. At the time, nearly all the suspects were in their teens or early 20s.

Court has heard the group had access to only one gun at the camp. In the video, a man shows others how to load a 9mm handgun. At another juncture, another suspect is shown firing a scoped rifle – which is actually paintball gun.

The group also marches through a winter woods, before at one point the footage strangely switches to a van doing circles in a suburban parking lot.

The only man whose face is identifiable in the video is that of Mubin Shaikh, the police agent who has since testified about how he infiltrated the group for the RCMP.

Music is heard in the video. In June, Mr. Shaikh testified that the group overlaid music atop of the winter training camp footage, as they intended to circulate the clips as a means of raising funds and attracting recruits. The song, he testified is “basically a call to arms… The voice is beautiful, the melody sweet, but the message is poisonous.”

Defence lawyers have argued the camp was so amateurish an exercise that it never rose to the level of terrorist training, and that many of the peripheral attendees were unaware they were being groomed as terrorists by more senior suspects.

Earlier this year, prosecutors dropped charges against several men accused of taking the training, concluding that in some cases the graduates of the camp weren't dangerous enough to merit prosecution.

Yeah, because everyone knows it’s only those “professional” jihadis you have to worry about.

Update: Another sidelined "amateur".

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:51 | link | comments

Clueless Jews: What’s more important to a New York Jew: thwarting the next Holocaust, or installing their Bambino in the White House? Why, the latter, of course, since, as every Jewish Bambi Soxer knows, their Messiah is going to save the world. Also, he’s cute as the dickens and orates like an angel. Phyllis Chessler comments on the latest instance of the Jews’ suicidal cluelessness—disinviting Sarah Palin to take on Iran's Li’l Hitler lest it net the reviled Republicans some votes:

A FURTHER NEWSFLASH: The plot thickens but there is a bottom line; there always is. Obama is the one who decided not to send anyone of rank to stand with the Jews who are opposing Amadinejad’s genocidal and nuclear policies. The Jews in charge did not lean on Obama to come himself, (which would have made sense) but instead, no doubt under some unimaginably heavy pressure, dis-invited Palin. What? Allow Palin to take on the Iranian Monster on prime-time TV and win even more votes? New York Jewish votes? Women’s votes? Anything but that.

To cover themselves, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations now claim to have dis-invited all politicians; too “partisan,” too distracting from the matter at hand.

I’ll say.

But, where is it written that only one rally opposing Amadinejad’s policies can take place in this fine city of ours? Why not two rallies? There are thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of New York City Jews, women, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Vegetarians who would be thrilled to see Palin verbally take down Amadinejad live. Let her hold her own rally. If you call it people will come…

Would the Bambi Soxers come? Doubt it. Like others of their ilk, they can’t see past their swoon.

Update: Not like Canadian Jewry is any more clued-in.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:58 | link | comments

Warm ‘n’ fuzzy “security”: In the dark days of the Cold War, when it seemed the world was on the cusp on nuclear annihilation, school kids were subjected to silly drills—“duck and cover” and all that. Such measures afforded a pretence of protection that protected the moppets from nothing save the awful truth, that being that if and when the Ruskies dropped the big one in the kids’ neighbourhood, they were all going to die a horrible death.

Today, of course, we don’t subject our children to such puerile nonsense, right?

To answer that question, here’s Diana West on Homeland Security’s Mickey Mouse (so to speak) kiddie outreach efforts:

The DC Examiner reports (via The Corner) that the Department of Homeland Security has joined forces with Sesame Street. That makes the government entity the Department of Homeland Security Blanket. Yes, I know it's for kids, but remember the US Government ban on words related to Islam and jihad? Look how well the government is coping.

From a new booklet on "emergencies."

“I, your furry, blue friend Grover, have a story to share. Are you wondering what it is about? I will give you an itty-bitty hint: It is about getting ready for emergencies! Oh boy, that was a big hint. Do you want to get ready, too? You do? Oh, I am so pleased. Then read this story with me, and let us get ready together!”

Sleep tight.

We’re doomed.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:12 | link | comments

First fear: The Wall Street implosion couldn’t have come at the better time for the Bambi-boosters. It has allowed the likes of Timothy Garton Ash, for example, to refocus attention on economic matters, and even resurrect the Clintonian observation—the one he rode all the way to the White House—that “it’s the economy, stupid.” Of course, that was back in the heady days when, stupidly, we thought a faltering economy was the scariest thing in the world. We have since discovered there are things far scarier than a blip in the Dow Jones.

Not to Garton Ash, though. He’s convinced it’s “the economy, stupid” is Bambi’s ticket to victory (since, obviously, “it’s the sharia, stupid,” isn’t going to do him any good). The Utopian Tim is hoping Americans will be “smart” enough (heh) to embrace the Clintonian fear and vote Bambi. From the Guardian (the piece also appears in the Globe and Mail):

…(T)he political conclusion seems to me to be clear. If you think the economy is the most important issue in this election - which nearly two-thirds of those asked say they do, while less than a quarter name Iraq - and if you are a rational punter, then your rational choice would be to give the Democrats a chance of doing better than the Bush administration has done.

If people vote with their heads, that is. But people often vote with other parts of their anatomy (heart, gut - choose your organ). And there's a deeper politics of fear that runs against Obama. This is not about facts and policies, but about perceptions, characters, stories, dreams - about feelings that men and women only half-recognise and rarely confess. Yes, that includes race. In a CBS-New York Times poll in July, only 5% of white voters acknowledged that they would not vote for a black candidate, but 24% said America wasn't ready to elect a black president. But it also involves the whole otherness, newness, complexity of him.

Obama, a child of the world as it is, offers a dream of the world as it might be. (That's why so much of the world thrills to him, and will be devastated if he loses.) McCain, Vietnam hero, and Palin, hockey mom, offer a dream of the US as it once was. Rational this may not be, but voters who are fearful, defensive, and unhappy with the way the world is going, may just prefer to hunker down with the reassuring familiarity of that vision of America. "Got hope?" challenges the Obama bumper sticker. At the moment, America has got fear. And the temerity of fear may yet defeat the audacity of hope.

Similarly, the audacity of fear may yet defeat the temerity of hope, or something like that, as Americans go with their “gut” and decide that, in today’s fraught, fractious, fear-replete world, it makes no sense to hand “a child”—a Utopian dreamer—the reigns of power.

Update: A lim for Tim:

A pundit named T. Garton Ash

Has garnered his fair share of cash

Pushing Bambi’s agenda

Which he will defend

With Utopian zeal and panache.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:33 | link | comments

Peace Corps Khadrs: Just took a gander at the Khadr family website for the first time and read this, a bio outlining the misunderstood mishpachah’s raison d’etre:

Greeting to all viewing this page, I hope you find it informative, interesting and enlightening as we tell our story, without media or political bias. We will try our best to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help us OÁllah (God).

 

    In 1985, after spending two summers volunteering in refugee camps, my father resolved to move his family to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and try to help the country rebuild after its devastating invasion by the Soviet Union. This decision changed our lives forever, and made us who we are today.

    And so our life of giving, sharing and helping began, and what a great life it turned out to be. Overseas, people were suspicious of us and we were sometimes labelled as Western spies, and at home we find people are still suspicious of us and we are sometimes labelled as terrorists. But for all the fear and hatred, for all the rumors and lies spread about us, we remain what we have always been; a Canadian family proud to have used our contacts and resources to build a series of orphanages, schools and hospitals across war-torn Afghanistan.

    While living in Pakistan, we earned a few enemies after my father successfully took Arab leaders to court over Canadian donations that they tried to use for their own purposes.  When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, we earned a few enemies by continuing to build schools for girls and insisting they had a right to be educated. When the Americans invaded Afghanistan, we earned a few enemies by helping resolve disputes between warlords and militants peacefully instead of letting them kill each other. It takes courage to do the right thing, even when it is unpopular. Our father was killed, two of us have been shot in the back, four of us have been captured, two have been tortured. But still we stand.

    Our family has committed our lives to building a better Canada, a better Afghanistan, and a better world. And no amount of lies, threats or persecution will ever convince us to do otherwise.

Boy, don’t I feel the fool? Here I had them pegged as jihadists working to spread sharia and undermine the West, when all the while what they really want to do is build “a better Canada…and a better world.”

Kind of like John Lennon, without the tunes, or Jack Layton, without the ‘tache.  (Then again, you never know what Mama and Sissy may be hiding under those burqas.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:57 | link | comments

Sister act: If you thought Cherie Booth Blair, formerly of 10 Downing Street, was kind of kooky, she's a paragon of rationality compared to her sis, the most clueless of anti-Zionist useful idiots. Here's Pajama Media's Lisa Goldman on the Unity Mitford of our time:

It makes for a great headline, and has been splashed across the British and much of the European press.  The full story, as always, is considerably more complicated.

Yes, Lauren Booth, the 41-year-old journalist /activist arrived three weeks ago by boat, as part of the Free Gaza expedition that sailed from Cyprus (click here for PJM’s coverage). Most of the 44-member group elected to leave the same way they arrived. Ms. Booth decided, along with 10 others, to stay behind.

So far, neither Israel nor Egypt has allowed any of the 10 activists who remained in Gaza to leave. Ms. Booth, however, is the only one of the group whose predicament has been widely covered by the foreign media. She is also the only one whose half-sister Cherie is married to a former prime minister of Great Britain.

Nearly every article about Ms. Booth’s predicament leads with the fact that she is Blair’s sister-in-law. Most mention that the former prime minister is now a Middle East envoy. Almost none mentions that the two are not on speaking terms.

As Ms. Booth put it in a 2006 speech at a rally to protest the Iraq war: “By chance of marriage, I am related to Tony Blair — a fact that makes neither of us happy today, I can tell you that.” Ms. Booth does not seem at all unhappy, though, with the generous publicity she has won for her Gaza adventure, by virtue of her family connections. Mr. Blair’s staff said he would not involve himself in the matter, which is being dealt with by the British consulate in East Jerusalem.

Interviewed last week for Ynet by Noa Raz, Ms. Booth insisted that the conditions in Gaza were worse than those in Darfur, where an estimated 400,000 have been killed since 2003. She also compared Gaza to a concentration camp. “You were in the concentration camps,” she told the 20-something reporter, who was born in Israel two generations after the Nazi Holocaust. “And I can’t believe that you are allowing the creation of such a camp yourselves.”

A few days before the Ynet interview was published, Ms. Booth was photographed by an AFP photographer while purchasing Snickers bars and bottled soft drinks at an apparently well-stocked Gaza supermarket...

Here's the photo of Lauren (a Rachel Corrie wannabe?) in  the "concentration camp's" well-stocked supermarket.

Arbeit Macht Canned Goods and Junk Food, perhaps?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:48 | link | comments

The Young and the Restless: The title of a popular American soap opera, yes, but it could also describe the large pool of potential recruits for the global jihad. And speaking of soaps and extremists, the Ceeb’s Nalah Ayed discusses the controversy surrounding Noor, the wildly popular The Young and the Restless of the Arab world:

The heroine, Noor, is a voluptuous, independent and vivacious brunette who marries into a wealthy family. Opposite her plays her handsome, blond and blue-eyed dream of a man, Mohannad, who's chicly dressed, supportive and, most importantly, impossibly romantic.

The heroes of Noor, a Turkish created soap opera, are Muslims — but not strictly observant ones. They fast during the holy month of Ramadan, but also casually enjoy wine. They party, kiss onscreen and, most titillating of all, have sex outside marriage.

Pretty mundane, you say. But after its Arab-world debut in the spring, Noor and its broadcasters have been condemned as soldiers of Satan, blamed for everything from peddling depravity to breaking up marriages.

Little wonder, given its relatively racy content, that early on, Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti, the country's top cleric, said that any network that broadcasts Noor and shows like it is "an enemy of God and his Prophet."

The networks paid no attention to the criticism. And as the show climaxed to its finale on Aug. 30, Noor proved to be the Arab world's most popular — and controversial — drama ever. Two weeks later, as the region contemplates a supposed death sentence against the owners of the networks that broadcast it, Noor is still the talk of the town.

Some 85 million people watched the final episode. By some estimates, that means more than half of adult women in the region sat down to see what becomes of the dramatic life of Noor and Mohannad.

What's strange and most fascinating is that these shows are broadcast at all in places like Saudi Arabia, where women cannot drive or even go out uncovered, on networks owned by Saudis. Yet, each day, an average of three million to four million Saudis — out of a population of 28 million — watched Noor…

I say, go Noor—and let’s hope there will be lots more like it. They could end up being to the Arab world what shows like Dallas were like to the Communist one, i.e. a demonstration of all the decadent, Capitalistic fun they’d been missing, and thus a spur to push for change.

Did the Berlin Wall fall because of Dallas? Well, no, not exactly. But beaming it into Communist countries thirsting for a sight of freedom certainly didn’t hurt.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:21 | link | comments

Monster on the loose: For those of a certain bent, the inroads being made by sharia both here and abroad occasion not the least bit of worry. Further, to express any concern is seen as a function of bigotry and discrimination, since everyone knows that all religions/cultures/ethnicities/nationalities/belief systems are “equal” to one another—and thus, are equally benign—with the notable exception of “Zionism” (bad) and the U.S. (even worse). For such happy, yet angry, souls (happy because they’re clueless, and ignorance is bliss; angry at Zionist/Imperialist/American infamy and those who continue to condone it) there is an identifiable “bad guy,” a creature so awful, so terrifying, that it bestrides the earth like a colossus and Must. Be. Stopped.

The creature I’m referring to is a devout Christian, comes from Alaska, and looks like that mousy chick in old movies who, once she removes her glasses and shakes out her hair, turns out to be a real babe.

Behold the scariest monster of all—more frightening by far than a triumphalist, irrepressible totalitarian doctrine that’s a nod to the worst regimes of the 20^th Century as well as a throw-back to the 7^th. Scarier than holy warriors itching to board large airliners with liquid explosives in their dandruff shampoo. More alarming than Shariah Compliant Financing and UN keynote speaker “Nuke” Ahmadinejad. Run for your lives, people: It’s the Sarahsquatch!

The Sarahsquatch has sent the chattering classes into an absolute tizzy. Hollywood, too. Here, for instance, is Andrew Breitbart of the Washington Times describing some of the recent panic (and post-9/11 cluelessness) in Tinsel Town:

Matt Damon is scared. Last week his e-mail runneth over with nasty Sarah Palin rumors. And before he could get his facts straight, the "Bourne" film series star and Barack Obama supporter spread false fears in a hysterical video that immediately went viral on the Internet.

"I want to know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago or if she banned books or tried to ban books," Mr. Damon raged to the Associated Press. "I mean - you know, we can't - we can't have that."

Mrs. Palin has neither pushed for creationism in Alaska schools nor moved to ban a single book in Wasilla. Yet the "Ocean's 14" ensemble is currently unable to get through another smarmy scene for fear that a John McCain presidency will lead to an evangelical Christian theocracy and catastrophic artistic oppression.

The sad fact is that actual artistic oppression - book banning in its many modern forms - is a matter of course in the entertainment industry, especially when the underlying product is declared politically incorrect or runs contrary to the interests of Hollywood's political altar, the Democratic Party.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations runs rings around Hollywood's pious First Amendment absolutists.

"I hope you will be reassured that I have no intention of promoting negative images of Muslims or Arabs," director Phil Alden Robinson wrote after changing the script from Muslim terrorists to Austrian neo-Nazis in the Tom Clancy thriller, "The Sum of all Fears." "And I wish you the best in your continuing efforts to combat discrimination."

While Mr. Clancy put up an admirable fight, actor Ben Affleck acquiesced, cashed his multimillion-dollar check and fought the dreaded Austrians, whose flagging Teutonic self-confidence again took a hit. Thanks to Hollywood artistic appeasement, Arab youth in totalitarian Muslim countries indoctrinated in anti-Western thought dodged another esteem bullet.

Perhaps Mr. Affleck would still have a career as a leading man if the highly anticipated "The Sum of All Fears" added up to the realistic "war on terror" headlines that dominated news cycles as it came out in 2002 - or, God forbid, matched up to its authors' chosen words, characters and ideas. Now Mr. Affleck sits near the craft service table watching his wife, Jennifer Garner, fight the bad guys...

Ben Affleck’s acting career a casualty of the War on Terror? I’d say we owe Mo Atta and the boys a debt of gratitude, if only for that.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:54 | link | comments (1)

Whither (wither?) Wall Street?: As the dust of Wall Street’s mortgage bust continues to settle, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. explores the financial sector’s next big thing. From JWR:

…Tragically, in the process of leaping out of the scalding subprime frying pan, Wall Street is heading directly into a fire that promises, if anything, to be more devastating than the present disaster. Incredibly, it bears all the hallmarks of subprime with respect to a lack of transparency, a systematic failure to disclose and an utter absence of due diligence, good governance and accountability. The next "what" is called Shariah-Compliant Finance (SCF).

Shariah, of course, is the term the Islamists use to describe the ruthlessly repressive, totalitarian program they believe should govern every aspect of the lives of faithful Muslims. It is also the instrument they intend to use to rule the world. The first clue that something is wrong with Wall Street's next big thing is that it is Shariah-compliant.

The next clue is how Shariah-Compliant Finance works. Like subprime, it is a black-box, in which management and investors alike are told to trust in the experts. In this case, the experts are Shariah authorities who are accorded exclusive responsibility for determining whether investments are "pure" (halal) and therefore acceptable, or "impure" (haram) and not…

Sigh. Kind of makes one feel nostalgic for the good old days when Jewish bankers “controlled” investments.

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

Use it or lose it: Pat Condell has some trenchent comments about free speech, and how some folks--like those who have convened the Durban II conference--are trying to shut it down so that the civilized world can revisit those colourful days of the 7th Century.

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

Honest Reporting Canada on the Ceeb's "flying pig" moment: The Ceeb's Terry Milewski scrutinizes Israel's enemies; finds them to be less than reasonable (and rather zany).

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:36 | link | comments (1)

Acceptable aspersions: An imam associated with the government of Kuwait says Europeans are “immoral, unclean and cowardly.”

In our wacky, morally relativistic world that mustn't be considered “hate speech,” of course, since he said it in the context of his belief system, which is sacrosanct and unassailable.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:40 | link | comments (1)

The “right” to peace and quiet: The BCHT (the ‘roos who are still considering the complexities of testimony given at the Steyn show trial last June) has decided to move ahead with the case of a woman who’s unusually sensitive to loud noises—and “insensitive” neighbours. From the Province:

An Abbotsford woman who suffers from a rare hearing disability has filed a discrimination suit against her property manager before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.

Anne Faulkner, 56, alleges Leona Watts, property manager for Lynn Haven Society which runs the 40-unit complex she lives in, treats her in a "degrading" manner that "engenders a feeling of hopelessness."

Faulkner was diagnosed with hyperacusis, a severe intolerance to sound, in 2003.

She is unable to work, take public transit, be in waiting rooms, and has to wear earplugs when talking to people.

"I just want to be treated like a human being," she said. "I'm tired of people just saying I must have mental problems because they do not... know about [hyperacusis.]"

Faulkner has been living at Lynn Manor, a low-income facility for people 55 years and older, since August last year, with Watts having full knowledge of her condition.

The complaint stems from an incident in the spring when kids in the house next door to Faulkner but not owned by Lynn Haven Society, were playing outside and blowing a whistle.

Whistle-blowing is especially painful for Faulkner and can induce a seizure.

The family also has a barking dog which aggravates her condition.

Faulkner complained to the family, who then contacted Watts.

On April 3, Watts wrote a letter to Faulkner saying while she is "compassionate" with regards to her disability, her behaviour - which was "angry and unpleasant and came off intimidating to the point of frightening" - was "unacceptable."

Further, it said: "It is possible that this style of residence will lead to more discomfort for you as it is not possible to expect all to keep silent in order for you to be comfortable."

The letter ended: "If you have any questions please contact the office (in a calm manner)."

Faulkner claims the bracketed phrase was pejorative…

What’s the going rate for a “perjorative” in B.C. these days? I’d peg it at a good 10 Gs, give or take.

Four words for the hyper-sensitive Ms. F.: Tranquilizers. And ear plugs.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:06 | link | comments

Opportunism knocks: According to Amir Tahiri, candidate Bambi, who keeps crowing about how much he yearns to get American troops out of Iraq a.s.a.p., encouraged Iraqi leaders to put the brakes on any American withdrawal. The reason: he wanted to score points with his key constituency—and take credit for the withdrawal when he gets to be prez. From FrontPage Magazine:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base…

Not that the revelation will make a whit of difference to the Bambi-soxers. Sop, pap, mush, squish—his base is so besotted it’ll continue to lap it all up.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:35 | link | comments

Death Wish, Part II: If you thought Ehud Olmert was feckless, useless and all in all an unmitigated disaster...Here comes dippy Tzipi--like Olmert in heels.

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

More “human rights” madness: The OHRC rides to the rescue, redressing “gender bias” in, er, the maintenance of casino loos. From the Globe and Mail (my bolds):

For years, the Great Blue Heron Charity Casino in Port Perry, Ont., had a simple policy when it came to cleaning the casino's bathrooms – male employees cleaned the men's rooms and female staff the women's.

That might have remained the case were it not for Joanne Seguin, a part-time washroom attendant who complained that the policy was discriminatory. Her complaint has turned into a five-year battle and so far she's winning.

Last year, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ordered the casino to give her back pay plus $10,000 for “loss of dignity.” The company appealed, but an Ontario court has now upheld the tribunal's decision, although it ordered a review of the monetary award. The company is considering one more appeal.

“They are deliberating,” said Richard Charney, a Toronto lawyer who represented the casino…

Save yourself the time and angst, Great Blue Heroners. Your money and your freedom—along with your sensitivity to female employees manifested by a desire to spare them the indignity and inherent yuckiness of having to clean up a male bog—have already been flushed down the drain. ("Loss of dignity" because she didn't have to do the dirty deed? In a sane world, the chick should be thanking—and compensating—her employer.)

Update: Alfred P. Doolittle was looking for just such an opportunity to sing the last verse of his song (see first post of the day):

The “gentle sex” was made to be protected

From caked-on waste and other sordid sights.

The “gentle sex” was made to be protected, but

With a little bit of chill, with a little bit of chill

Getting grossed out is a “human right”.

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

Libs in disarray: The "shift" hits the fan. Heh. From the Globe and Mail:

OTTAWA — Stéphane Dion's Liberals are becoming frustrated over their lacklustre start in the election campaign, a lack of coherent message and theme and confusion as to who is in charge.

As the Liberal Leader begins his second full week of campaigning, one veteran MP said there is "a lot of soul-searching right now about what the Liberal Party did" in choosing Mr. Dion as leader.

"Everybody looks in the mirror all of a sudden at a potential disaster and then they start saying, 'could they have made a better choice to make it easier for themselves,' " the MP said. "But I am sure there are some members who are actually pinching themselves ..."

However, there is no sense yet of "any kind of mutiny," said the MP, adding that Mr. Dion "needs to refocus or recalibrate."

Last week, when the Tories were making gaffes - communications director Ryan Sparrow was fired over an inappropriate statement - life on the campaign trail wasn't going well for the Grits either. Mr. Dion has yet to "get some traction with the public," a source said.

Significant, however, is the fact that senior campaign strategists, including campaign director Gordon Ashworth and party pollster Michael Marzolini, are being marginalized, according to an inside source.

Their advice is not being heeded. "Nothing [Mr. Marzolini] has done has had any affect," the source said.

It seems, too, that Mr. Dion and his chief of staff, Johanne Senecal, are calling the shots on the campaign, said the source: "She's sending the directives on the campaign because everything is being determined by him as far as we can tell."

As well, the Liberals were slow in getting out television ads, ceding that ground to the Tories and allowing them to define Mr. Dion's leadership, because the leader vetoed ads that were to be broadcast last week. An English-language ad came out yesterday that looks at the Green Shift plan and tries to contrast Mr. Dion's leadership with that of Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.

"The ads were rejigged to suit the leader's preferences," according to a well-placed source. "No leader has ever vetted his own ads." Element Agency, a firm in Vancouver, is the Liberal ad company.

Meanwhile, the main complaint from senior Liberals is that the campaign has no coherent theme: "They don't seem to see one there. They are seeing very random and non-planned [events] ...," the well-placed source said.

Some eyebrows were raised among senior Liberals, including some MPs, over the way the tour and events were conducted last week.

Why, they wondered, did Mr. Dion go to a high school in Walkerton, Ont., to talk to about 600 students - only a handful of whom could vote - about meat inspection? There was also some confusion about the point of a roundtable discussion of female candidates in Streetsville, Ont. The candidates, some of whom were incumbents, listened to Mr. Dion extol the virtues of female MPs and then spoke around the table to each other, not taking questions.

"It was kind of bizarre," said a Liberal who attended the event. "I never understood who dreamed that concept up. He [Mr. Dion] didn't really have an announcement. I didn't understand what our messaging was."

The other issue revolves around the communication of the main Dion platform piece - his Green Shift plan to put a tax on carbon fuels and shift the revenue to tax cuts for Canadians.

Some candidates and their volunteers are having trouble explaining the program at the door. One campaign worker said that the national campaign has not supplied any materials to help, such as brochures, buttons and talking points...

Wouldn’t help. Not when your loudest “talking point” is “We’re gonna tax the bejeesus out of you so you can feel virtuous about doing something useless to ‘save’ the planet.” Talk about yer tough sells.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:57 | link | comments (5)

Crazy like a fox: What’s the point of even having a UN nuclear watchdog if it keeps getting outwitted by the guys it’s supposed to be keeping tabs on? From Reuters via the Boston Globe:

VIENNA - Iran has stymied a UN inquiry into whether it researched ways to make a nuclear bomb, the International Atomic Energy Agency said yesterday, and Britain said it would push hard for tougher sanctions on Iran.

A confidential IAEA report said Iran had raised the number of centrifuges enriching uranium by 500 to 3,820 since May and was testing an advanced model able to refine nuclear fuel two to three times faster, in continuing defiance of UN resolutions.

But a senior UN official familiar with IAEA findings said Iran seemed at least two years away from enriching enough uranium for an atomic weapon, if it eventually chose to do so.

"On the issue of possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program, we have arrived at a gridlock. Without Iran's assistance and cooperation, we cannot move forward," said a second senior UN official.

Iran blamed the IAEA for the impasse. A senior Iranian official, who declined to be named, called on the IAEA to change its approach and work in a "legal and logical" manner.

The United States called on Iran to shelve enrichment or face the possibility of more UN sanctions, adding to relatively modest punitive measures Tehran has shrugged off.

Britain went further, accusing Iran of showing "contempt for the IAEA by continuing to refuse to respond" to IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei's serious concerns about research with possible military nuclear dimensions.

"We will therefore push hard for further UN sanctions in the coming weeks," a British Foreign Office statement said…

Yeah, that'll work a charm.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:38 | link | comments

Crunching the numbers: Moths flying out of your pockets? That’s because they’re being picked by the authorities to the tune of:

·        $33 million annually for the CBC;

·        $68 million annually for the thought cops/courts;

·         $160 squandered (so far) on a pointy shrine to “human rights”.

You see, constructing a Republic of Virtue doesn’t come cheaply, and powerful forces have been let loose to build one even if it kills us (and, ultimately, it will, it will).

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:29 | link | comments

Alaska dirt rush: The Sarah Palin nomination—and the sense that the Left may have been out-manoeuvred by those wily, eee-vil Republicans—seems to have sent the mainstreamers into collective freak-out mode. The New York Times, for example, has assigned all its heaviest guns to dig up something, anything, to tarnish her candidacy so that its beamish boy Bambi (Saviour, Messiah, metrosexual, and a "sophisticate" who’s very easy on the eyes and ears) can clinch the White House. Roger Kimball weighs in on the Times’ digging frenzy:

What sort of game is the Times playing at here? I mean, what makes a first term Senator with no executive experience better prepared for the office of the Presidency than a first term Governor with substantial executive experience for the Vice-Presidency? (Free advice to Team Obama: retire the response “Oh, but he’s running a presidential campaign: That’s executive exeprience!”) That Palin is a woman? That the state of which she is governor has only as many electoral votes as Deleware (represented in the Senate by another Vice-Presidental candidate)? That she didn’t go to Harvard? That she likes to shoot moose? That she is a Christian and proud of it? That she chose not to end the life of her last child when she discovered it had Down Syndrome? What is it? And why for heaven’s sake does McCain’s choice raise “profound questions about his judgment”? Presumably, McCain picked Palin for the same reason that Obama picked Joe Biden: because he thought she would help him win the election. And McCain seems to have been right about that. Sure, that is a “tactical” (or shall we say, “canny”?) move: so what? Isn’t that what getting elected is all about? McCain has plenty of ideas about  how to help the country: none of them will matter unless he gets elected. Would the Times have preferred it if McCain had picked some who wouldn’t help the ticket (as, I suspect, Obama has done)? (OK, they probably would have preferred  it, at least probably, but they wouldn’t say that.)

Would the Times have been happier had McCain’s pick been, say, Joe Lieberman or Mitt Romney? You bet your sweet badonkadonk it would have.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:05 | link | comments (1)

Playing the victim card: When all else fails, claim that you’re the “victim” and the unveiled, drunken little harlot who “lured” you into raping her is the victimizer. From the Daily Telegraph (Australia):

A TAXI driver accused of raping a teenage passenger in the back seat of his cab was "victimised", the District Court heard today.

Md Kowsar Ali has pleaded not guilty to having sexual intercourse without the 18-year-old's consent after he picked her up in Darlinghurst last November.

In notes found by police during a search warrant in January, Ali wrote that the girl held his hand and when he squeezed it, she squeezed back.

"I could tell she felt good about it," he wrote.

"I felt between her legs. She liked this even more."

Three of Ali's friends today appeared as character witnesses at his trial.

One said Ali was respectful of women while another, Ibrahim Ibrahim, described Ali as "trustworthy" and "victimised".

Cross-examined by Crown Prosecutor Sarah Huggett, Mr Ibrahim said Ali had spoken to him about what happened in the taxi that night.

"He told you it was the girl who caused this to happen?" Ms Huggett asked.

"That's true," Mr Ibrahim replied.

"He was, in a way, the victim?" Ms Huggett asked.

"That's true," Mr Ibrahim said.

Summing up the crown case to the jury, Ms Huggett disputed the defence claim that the sex was consensual.

The jurors might think the teen was "in absolute terror" when she called triple-0 call as soon as she left the cab, she said.

Ms Huggett also questioned why the cab's security camera stopped recording three minutes into the journey. The court heard it started recording again an hour later, nine minutes before Ali was stopped by police.

Ali "knew he had in his car a young woman that he intended to take advantage of - she was falling asleep, she was intoxicated," Ms Huggett said.

"He took advantage of (her) in that taxi."

The trial continues.

A cautionary tale for inebriated infidelles—try not to get into a cab when you’re drunk and alone.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:26 | link | comments (1)

The deep freeze:  Free speechers should offer a nod of recognition to Simon Fothergill. Mr. Fothergill, a lawyer who toils for Canada’s Attorney-General, has compressed the philosophy of the anti-hate Utopians into a single brief sentence. In an article by the National Post’s Joseph Bream, he is quoted as saying

that if Section 13 puts a chill on public discourse, it is only to be around the fringes of hate speech, and that this is not "a terribly bad outcome."

"A little bit of chilling ... is tolerable," he said.

“A little bit of chilling,” huh? Isn’t that kind of like being “a little bit pregnant”? I know, let’s ask that peerless moral authority Alfred P. Doolittle. Surely he’ll have the answer:

The Lord above gave man a voice to speak with

So he could say whatever’s on ‘is mind.

The Lord above gave man a voice to speak with, but

With a little bit of chill, with a little bit of chill,

He’ll say only what is “nice” and “kind”.

 

The Lord above gave man a mind to think with

So he could figure out what’s right and sage.

The Lord above gave mind a mind to think with, but

With a little bit of chill, with a little bit of chill,

We’ll all end up on the same lame page.

 

With a little bit, with a little bit,

With a little bit of chill we’ll read that page.

With a little bit, with a little bit

With a little bit of censorship.

 

The Lord above made man to help ‘is neighbour,

By bein’ polite, and never mean or squalid.

The Lord above made man to help ‘is neighbour, but

With a little bit of chill, with a little bit of chill,

Fings’ll end up gettin’ frozen solid.

 

With a little bit, with a little bit,

With a little bit of chill it’s frozen solid.

 

They’re always throwin’ “goodness” at you;

But with a little bit of chill you’ll get your fill.

 

Oh, it’s a “crime” to criticize sharia,

Also jihad, and Blacks and gays and Jews.

Oh, it’s a “crime” to criticize sharia, but,

With a little bit of chill,

With a little bit of chill,

There’s no way sharia’s gonna lose.

 

With a little bit, with a little bit,

With a little bit of chill we’ll never win.

With a little bit, with a little bit

With a little bit of censorship...

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:32 | link | comments (2)

Joooos on top: If you google "Jews," this is the number three link--one of those demento "the Jews control the world's media and therefore the entire world" sites.

My question for these lunatics: If, as you claim, the Jews control the media, why does the state of Israel get such consistently bad press?

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:30 | link | comments (1)

Sounds familiar: Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: a passionate cleric stirs up a bunch of young’uns, inspiring them to take on the ambitious task of blowing up famous landmarks and assassinating the Prime Minister.

A recap of the alleged jihadi antics of the Mississauga Seventeen? Nope. A recap of the confirmed jihadi antics of the just-convicted Aussie Six.

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

Who was that masked man?: He’s an English Bobby dressed up as Osama bin Laden, that’s who. From Islam Online:

LONDON — A senior British police officer who dressed up as Osama bin Laden, complete with turban, Arab robes and a face mask, for a local charity fete was dismissed on Sunday, September 14, from his job helping build Afghanistan's security forces.

"Chief Superintendent Colin Terry will not be returning to the EU policing mission in Afghanistan," said a spokesman for the Foreign Office, which oversaw his policing contract in Afghanistan.

Terry donned a costume of Al-Qaeda leader for the Grampound Carnival in Cornwall five days before the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

He was spotted by a photographer and reported to the Independent Police Complaints Commission by his own force.

Witnesses at the family fete and colleagues on the Devon and Cornwall police force said they were shocked when Terry was revealed to be the man behind the bin Laden costume.

The police said his actions were "misguided" and the costume was "clearly inappropriate."

Terry was serving with the EUPOL, a three-year assignment to Afghanistan by the EU to increase security in the country.

Sorry

Terry, a 48-year-old father of two, will now return to his job with Devon and Cornwall Police where he could face an internal inquiry.

"Chief Superintendent Colin Terry will be returning to the force," a spokesman for the force said.

"No decision on any disciplinary action has been taken at this time."

The force has already referred the issue to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

Terry, who has been a policeman for 24 years, has apologized and said his decision was "an error of judgment."

"I am extremely disappointed because of anything that I have done," he told the BBC.

Terry, who visited the annual 9/11 memorial service in New York two years ago, had initially questioned the outrage cause by his action.

"I am quite horrified that someone would see this negatively," he said at the time.

"This is a local event that has been running for many, many years, raising money for charity."

I don’t know what all the fuss is about. Prince Harry once dressed up as a Nazi, and no one tried to drum him out of the Royal Family.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:00 | link | comments

It’s b-a-a-ack: Like a recurring nightmare; like a bad bout of indigestion; like a stubborn case of lice—the one, the only, “one-state solution”. Toronto Star scribe Oakland Ross has more:

JERUSALEM–A Palestinian businessman was crossing the border from Jordan into an Israeli-controlled section of the West Bank not long ago, and he got to talking to a Canadian who was making the same trek.

After a while, the Palestinian began to muse about what he sees as the solution to the conflict between his people and Israel.

According to this man's blueprint for the future, the Palestinian Authority that now holds a tenuous grip on power in the West Bank should unilaterally dissolve itself, obliging Israel to take over civil administration in the territory, as used to be the case – an arrangement that would blur the borders between Israelis and Palestinians.

Result?

In a matter of decades, the man said, the total Arab population of Israel and the West Bank would outnumber the Jewish population, and the state of Israel would collapse beneath the combined weight of demographics and international censure.

In other words, the one-state solution.

For most Israelis, the merest mention of this term is like a dose of ethnic poison, a premonition of their demise as a nation.

Among Palestinians, the idea has long been out of fashion. But in recent weeks, the notion of a single bi-national state for Arabs and Jews has experienced something of a revival among Palestinians, most notably when Sari Nusseibeh, a respected intellectual and president of Al Quds University in East Jerusalem, spoke favourably about the concept in a lengthy interview with an Israeli newspaper.

"I think one should maybe begin, on the Palestinian side, to begin a debate, to re-engage in the idea of one state," Nusseibeh said, in remarks published last month by Haaretz.

The main point of Nusseibeh, 59, was that the search for a two-state solution – an independent Palestine dwelling alongside Israel – is now floundering so badly it may never recover.

After many years of failed negotiations, the two-state vision is still far from reality, and few expect current peace talks between Israel and Fatah – the more moderate Palestinian political faction – to change matters by much, if at all.

"We have failed in the last 15 years to create the world we wanted to create," Nusseibeh said. "So it is time, maybe, to rethink."

Like the businessman at the border crossing with Jordan, he suggested the Palestinian Authority should simply pull the plug on its own existence.

"The PA has no use," he said. "The whole thing is a mess."

For most Israeli Jews, the prospect of dwelling among millions of Palestinians in a single bi-national state would be far worse than a mess. It would be the fulfillment of their darkest nightmares.

Either they would be obliged to hold sway in an ethnic dictatorship, where only Jews would be entitled to vote and exercise full civil rights – like whites in South Africa under apartheid – or the Jewish character of their country would eventually be overwhelmed by a faster growing Arab population.

Either way, Israel as a Jewish state would be unlikely to survive…

Well, duh. So why even bother to report on this non-starter? (Ross seems keen to air all the Palestinian talking points—Jews as Afrikaaners in today’s article; Jews meting out “collective punishment” in his piece the other day.) My letter:

I can understand why the Palestinians would want to “revive” the “one-state solution.” Left to their own devices, and despite the billions of dollars they’ve been given, they have been unable to get their act together. Indeed, they have turned on each other, descending into a bitter civil dispute that has divided them into two solitudes--Gaza, a lawless territory governed by Hamas, which wants to build an Islamic state ruled by sharia law; and the West Bank, under the rule, for the moment, of the weaker Fatah.

Contrast that with Israel, which has made the most of what it has, transforming a tiny state, consisting mostly of desert, into a flourishing, vibrant, successful democracy. This despite decades of having to fend off attacks from armies, terrorists, and statesmen who have sought its destruction.

Thus, it is easy to see that a one state solution would be a “solution” for the Palestinians, since it would allow them to hitch a ride with a success story. However, it is no solution at all for Israel, since it would saddle it with two fractious Arab territories, which can’t get along with each other, much less with the Israelis. It would also effectively put an end to the Jewish state--the real reason, I suggest, why the idea is suddenly so popular again.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:29 | link | comments

Pest control: A prominent Saudi religious figure, who obviously has far too much spare time to ponder deep, existential questions, believes Dar al Islam would be far better off if could rid itself of the terrible peril of, um, animated mice. From FrontPage Magazine:

…According to a translation of the broadcast prepared by the Middle East Media Research Institute, al-Munajid was asked to state the Islamic legal teaching on mice. He responded that mice were called “little corrupters” in Sharia and it was permissible to kill them at all times.

“The mouse is one of Satan's soldiers and is steered by him,” he explained, adding that should a mouse come in contact with food, the food must be disposed of as the mouse is an impure creature.

“According to Islamic law, the mouse is a repulsive, corrupting creature,” al-Munajid said, adding that he was concerned that popular culture had given mice an undeserved positive image.

“How do you think children view mice today – after Tom and Jerry?” he asked.

“Even creatures that are repulsive by nature, by logic, and according to Islamic law have become wonderful and are loved by children. Even mice. Mickey Mouse has become an awesome character, even though according to Islamic law, Mickey Mouse should be killed in all cases.”

B-b-but what about Farfur, Hamas TV’s shaheed mouse (and a rip-off of Disney’s little minion of Satan)? Surely he was a role model for “Tomorrow’s Pioneers” and has gone to his just reward—romping for all eternity with 72 virginal mousettes.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:54 | link | comments (1)

Steering us wrong: From the Jewstablishment’s Federal Election 2008 Guide to the Issues for the Community: 

HATE SPEECH AND THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: Recently, significant attention has been paid in the media to the issue of complaints filed using S.13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which prohibits use of the Internet for purposes of spreading content likely to expose identifiable groups to hatred or contempt. Contrary to the view that this law enforces political correctness at the expense of free speech, CJC believes that it is an important legal tool to protect Canada’s vulnerable minorities from hatred, racism and intolerance. Rather than abolish this section of the Act, it should be amended to require the Commission to handle cases using a “case management” approach to ensure close supervision of the complaints process and timely review and adjudication, where warranted, on S.13(1) complaints, along with other appropriate oversight mechanisms.

 

My election advice to Jews and all Canadians: fuggedabout the security blankie (which, ironically, turns out to be making us far less secure since it precludes our raising any objections to issues relating to Islam). If you want to halt the march of sharia and dhimmitude, get rid of Section 13 and its provincial and territorial equivalents for starters, and, as a follow up, tear down the rest of the cockamamie “quasi-judicial” apparatus. It shouldn’t be too hard to do. The entire Rube Goldberg-like construct is rotten to the core, and should therefore go down with one good heave. 

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:56 | link | comments (2)

Dhimmis, raus: Make no mistake—the usual suspects want to make the Middle East Christianrein, too.  There is, however, one bright spot in the region where dhimmis—both Christians and Jewish—can still live as free kaffirs. From JWR:

…The only place in the Mideast where Christian communities continue to grow is in the Jewish State of Israel. Israel's tolerance is logical. What people of faith know the dangers of religious persecution better than the people of Israel — especially those whose families originated in the Islamic world? Between 1948 and 1956 more than 850,000 Jews were forced to flee the Arab lands where their families had lived for centuries.

When, in 2001, Afghan fanatics destroyed two ancient statues of Buddha, the world was shocked. But between 1948 and 1967, when Islamic forces controlled the Holy City of Jerusalem, there was a systematic campaign to erase the historic Jewish presence. Synagogues were destroyed and ancient Jewish gravestones carted away. Even today, the Palestinian Authority denies Israel's right to consider itself a Jewish state and denies the historic Jewish connection to Jerusalem.

If there is hope for true peace in the Middle East, it won't simply come from Israeli and Palestinian leaders shaking hands at a formal ceremony. It hinges on extremist Islam reforming its view of others. People of commitment and tolerance all around the world — Christians, Jews, Muslims and others — must speak out loudly and forcefully to prevent the Islamic world's Christians from suffering the same fate as its now all-but-nonexistent Jewish communities.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:22 | link | comments

Brush with greatness: Kathy meets Iggy.

I trust the Liberal leader-in-waiting (waiting for Dion to crash and burn, that is) was suitably impressed.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:03 | link | comments

Cry babies: The mainstreamers are crying foul because their beamish boy Obama is having a spot of bother, media-wise. As Peter Wehner writes on the Commentary site, there was no problemo all those years when Bushitler and his gang were in the crosshairs. Now that Bambi’s getting the treatment, the MSMers are wailing like tiny little babies

Everywhere you turn these days, you find the press in an agitated-to-furious state about the McCain-Palin campaign. Many reporters are downright angry, according to the Washington Post's media critic Howard Kurtz, in part because of the "lipstick on a pig" controversy. That's obvious to anyone who has watched the news this last week. Many in the press are lacerating themselves for covering this story, and they blame the McCain campaign for having done it to them.   

A broader anti-McCain critique is embodied by one of the Washington Post's resident Obamaphiles, E.J. Dionne, Jr., "The campaign is a blur of flying pieces of junk, lipstick and gutter-style attacks . . . McCain has shown he wants the presidency so badly that he's willing to say anything, true or false, to win power." 

It's touching that the MSM has recently developed such delicate sensibilities. It's also a shame that their fury at false attacks was missing during the last eight years, when Democrats hurled one false, hateful, and misleading charge after another against President Bush. But perhaps because Bush was the object of the attacks, the press didn't feel the urgent need to police them. It's also worth noting, I suppose, that having become enraptured by a man whose candidacy was based almost entirely on his persona, the mood and feelings he created, and his ethereal promise of change, many in the press now pretend they want the election to focus on a substantive debate about, oh, say, Medicare Part B…

Poor Bambi. That’s what happens when all you have going for you is a smile and a shoeshine.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:14 | link | comments

"Israel's bitch": What one rabid anti-Zionist is calling Sarah Palin.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:47 | link | comments

Deconstruction zone: James Lileks does a stellar job of taking apart the Palin-aimed sneers of snobby Northern scribes, John Doyle (TV critic for the Glib and Mewl) and Heather Mallick (previously with the G&M; now online scribe for the Ceeb).

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:28 | link | comments (2)

Fey-ning Palin: Tiny Fey, who knows a thing or two about being the resident smart chick with “a naughty librarian vibe,” does a pretty good imitation of Sarah Palin. The best line in the SNL skit, which features Amy Poehler doing her usual Hillary Clinton shtick:

“Hillary”: “I believe diplomacy is the cornerstone of foreign policy.”

“Sarah”:  “And I can see Russia from my house.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:08 | link | comments

Drive, they said: Canada’s party of smug hard-lefties, the socialist NDP, is fed up with being what the Toronto Star calls “just a parking space for the conscience of the nation.” It wants to be in the driver’s seat—now!

Personally, I’ve never parked my conscience in that spot—nor anywhere else, for that matter. I like to keep my “conscience” gassed up, well-lubricated, and out on the open road. That said, I’m happy for Canadians to keep NDP ideas—and NDP leader Jack Layton (a pit bull compared to wimpish Liberal leader Stephane Dione and his eco-doggie, Kyoto)—confined to the parking lot, where they can’t do as much harm.

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

The “new” globalization: Don’t expect this phenomenon to be the subject of Naomi Klein’s next anti-globalization eye-glazer, though. From Der Spiegel:

Walter Leisi is holding two rolled cylinders of dough in his hands, each wrapped in glossy foil, one labeled in French and the other in Arabic. Each package contains the same puff pastry, a concoction of 196 layers of flour, margarine, butter, water and salt -- the same, but for one difference, a tiny but decisive difference: one is preserved with alcohol and the other with potassium sorbate.

They taste the same, but they smell somewhat different. The dough preserved with potassium sorbate smells "slightly more cheesy," says Walter Leisi, 63, a jolly Swiss man wearing a purple short-sleeved shirt and a gold watch. Leisi is the director of a Nestlé plant in the Swiss town of Wangen bei Olten. He is also the inventor of Leisi-Quick, the world's first ready-made puff pastry, which is packaged on baking paper and sold in refrigerated, but not frozen, form and is thus ready for baking. The factory produces more than 41,000 tons of freshly made dough a year, an enormous quantity.

But in the case of Leisi-Quick, the real issue is not taste or smell, but God's will.

More and more Muslims are choosing a devout lifestyle, and this includes strict observance of the dietary restrictions in the Koran, which classify food as being either "halal" or "haram," allowed or forbidden. Pork, blood and alcohol are haram. This sounds straightforward enough, but in an era of modern food production, observing these restrictions is anything but easy. Forbidden foods are hidden in products like bouillon, gelatin and spice mixtures. Many preservatives are made with alcohol, the glue used in packaging can contain animal fats and pig bristles can turn up in production equipment. The alcohol used in puff pastry is haram, and although it evaporates during baking, a small residue is left behind.

Many Islamic countries have strict rules requiring the use of halal food products, and they have even become a global trend in recent years. The current market is valued at an estimated €350 billion ($508 billion). Muslims make up one-fifth of the earth's population, and as their purchasing power grows, so does their religious self-confidence.

Islamic countries, especially Malaysia, are fueling the demand. It's now even possible to get mineral water and rice that is halal. Entire research institutes are dealing with the question of whether the additives E100, E407 and E418 are permitted for devout Muslims. Lipstick, medications and skin creams can also be haram. This is about religion, undoubtedly, but even more about business.

As a result, anything that is not halal could soon no longer be global. This explains why Nestlé, the world's largest food corporation, with €64.9 billion ($94 billion) in sales last year, now adheres to rules that date back to the 7th century in 75 of its 480 factories worldwide. The Swiss are the biggest producers of processed halal food, mainly for Southeast Asia and the Middle East, earning €2.4 billion ($3.5 billion) from sales of such products last year -- more than with organic food, the other, Western trend. To keep it that way, products are tested, certified and regularly inspected by "Islamologists" working with high-tech analysis equipment…

“Islamologist”—newfangled way of saying an oldfangled word: “dhimmi”.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:00 | link | comments

All the rage: Forget B.D.S.--that's sooo 2003. The derangement syndrome du jour is P.D.S.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:49 | link | comments

Saudis cracking down on old pervs wedding little girls: The commonplace practice is becoming a bit too embarrassing, even for the Saudis. From Arab News:

RIYADH: Saudi society has been recently exposed to a number of marriages that involve elderly men as old as 60 marrying young girls as young as eight. The marriages shocked many people who objected to such marriages, saying that there is no equality in this type of marriage and that there should be a strong law against such marriages. The question that was raised was how have marriage officials approved such marriages in the first place.

Sheikh Abdul Mohsen Al-Belaihi, a member of the faculty at Imam Saud University, has described the practice of marrying young girls to elderly men "a crime against young girls."

A Saudi girl, 16, was admitted to the hospital after trying to end her life when she was forced by her father to marry a 75-year-old man. The girl was a part of an exchange deal between two fathers involving their two daughters. The girl had appealed to officials to block the marriage and bring to an end her father's attempts to marry her off without her consent.

Al-Belaihi agrees totally with the Ministry of Justice's new regulations, which include imposing disciplinary punishment against marriage officials who marry girls without their consent. Al-Belaihi believes that there should a legal liability on the wali - the legal guardian.

"The definition of wali is misinterpreted," said Al-Belaihi. "It does not mean the 'controller' or 'dictator', on the contrary, it means 'the responsible person for the welfare and wellbeing of the woman.'" He explained that in the Saudi society many women and girls are not exposed to men, and due to their limited experience the wali is supposed to examine the most suitable spouse for them to ensure their rights are maintained.

In this regard, consultant to the Ministry of Justice and member of the Shoura Council, Sheikh Abdul Mohsen Al-Obaikan, stressed the fact that should the wali be conspiring to marry his daughter without her consent or approval he should be deprived of the guardianship over his daughter.

Al-Belaihi says that he finds it irresponsible for marriage officials to overlook the consent requirement.

"Traditions can hold back some marriage officials from seeking the girl's consent, as it might be uncomfortable for the family to bring the girl in front of the official and the male relatives and expect her to approve or disapprove of her father's decision ... I personally have turned away cases where I found violations and misleading information."

Although Al-Belaihi acknowledges that, in some cases, the official can be tricked when another woman family member poses as the bride. And since women don't generally have photo IDs, it can be hard to confirm that the woman giving consent is indeed the bride-to-be.

"The signature is also not sufficient enough in many cases, as it is not a norm for young girls to have an official signature," he said. Al-Belaihi called on the ministry to find an efficient mechanism to ensure that the bride's identity is not faked.

Al-Belaihi also said that using the example of Prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him) wife Aisha is not acceptable, as it was a different era when it was the norm for girls to marry at such a young age then.

Does that mean we can nix the jihad stuff, too (since it was a different era with different norms when it got going back in the 7^th C)? I thought, being perfect, such ideas couldn’t be altered to suit the times.

Update: Re the idea of "updating" the immutable, here are some of Raymond Ibrahim's thoughts on Islamic warfare:

...(W)hile classical military theories (Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, et. al.) continue to be included on war-college syllabi, the argument can be made that they have little practical value for today’s far different landscape of warfare and diplomacy. Contrast this with Islam’s doctrines of war: their “theological” quality — grounded as they are in a religion whose “divine” precepts transcend time and space, and are believed to be immutable — make Islam’s war doctrines unlikely ever to go out of style. While one can argue that learning how Alexander maneuvered his cavalry at the Battle of Guagamela in 331 BC is both academic and anachronistic, the exploits and stratagems of the prophet Muhammad — his “war sunna” — still serve as an example to modern-day jihadists.

For instance, based on the words and deeds of Muhammad, most schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that the following are all legitimate during war against the infidel: the indiscriminate use of missile weaponry, even if women and children are present (catapults in Muhammad’s seventh century context; hijacked planes or WMD today); the need to always deceive the enemy and even break formal treaties whenever possible (see Sahih Muslim 15: 4057); and that the only function of the peace treaty, or “hudna,” is to give the Islamic armies time to regroup for a renewed offensive, and should, in theory, last no more than ten years.

Quranic verses 3:28 and 16:106, as well as Muhammad’s famous assertion, “War is deceit,” have all led to the formulation of a number of doctrines of dissimulation — the most notorious among them being the doctrine of “Taqiyya,” which permits Muslims to lie and dissemble whenever they are under the authority of the infidel. Deception has such a prominent role that renowned Muslim scholar Ibn al-Arabi declares: “[I]n the Hadith, practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated. Indeed, its need is more stressed than [the need for] courage.”

In addition to ignoring these well documented Islamist strategies, more troubling still is the Defense Department’s continuing failure to appreciate the pertinent “eternal” doctrines of Islam — such as the Abode of War versus the Abode of Islam dichotomy, which maintains that Islam must always be in a state of animosity vis-à-vis the infidel world and, whenever possible, must wage wars until all infidel territory has been brought under Islamic rule. In fact, this dichotomy of hostility is unambiguously codified under Islam’s worldview and is deemed a fard kifaya — that is, an obligation on the entire Muslim body that can only be fulfilled as long as some Muslims, say, “jihadists,” actively uphold it…

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:16 | link | comments

Clueless capo: Hershell Ezrin, the Canadian Jewstablishment’s capo di tutti capos has some thoughts on, er, “diversity” (my bolds):

AP today reported about the firing of 150 Somali factory workers at a meat-packing plant in Colorado over the timing of their prayer breaks for Ramadan.

The Swift Company had reportedly changed hours on the production line to try to accommodate the prayer needs dictated by the lunar calendar, but these changes were deemed insufficient by the workers. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is currently trying to bring the differing sides together, with the prospect of legal action in the background if they cannot resolve the matter.

This is of course not the first such issue in either Canada or the United States. Recently, some Somali cabdrivers in the US Midwest, who were licensed to service airports, refused to carry passengers carrying alcohol; and some Muslim cashiers have refused to handle pork products at supermarket sales counters. AP reported other such incidents:

At a Swift plant in Grand Island, Neb., dozens of workers from Somalia quit their jobs last year because they said they weren’t allowed to pray at sunset. They eventually returned to work. This month, officials at the Tyson Foods Plant in Shelbyville, Tenn., reached a compromise with union workers to observe Eid al-Fitr as a paid holiday. The day, which falls on Oct. 1 this year, marks the end of Ramadan. The firings in Colorado came on the same day as St. Cloud, Minn.-based Gold’n Plump Poultry Inc. agreed to let Muslim workers take short prayer breaks under a settlement mediated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Some will argue that Muslim and other religions’ laws state that the law of the land does take precedence. In these instances, the reasonable accommodation debate seems centred on a much broader interpretation of that which might offend or contravene one’s religious beliefs.

But the clear tension – between respecting diversity while at the same time asking newcomers to play by established rules – looms larger. If the latest AOL poll on the matter says anything, the vast majority of individuals in the ‘melting pot USA’ do not take the side of diversity. CAIR hopes that "with any new ethnic or religious groups, there is an adjustment period as the group becomes part of the American social fabric."

No, Hershell. Some will argue that this has very little to do with “diversity” and much more to do with the steady creep, creep, creep of sharia. Oh, and CAIR—it’s part of the problem, since it’s labouring to cut down on adjustment period and speed up the assimilation of sharia into America’s social fabric.

If you had even half a clue, you’d know that.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:30 | link | comments

“Art” that’s da bomb—literally: A silly “artist” who sculpted a bomb that unleashed havoc has had the last laugh. From the Globe and Mail:

When Thorarinn Ingi Jonsson planted his fake-bomb "sculpture" outside the Royal Ontario Museum last year, he wanted people to "recontextualize" it; to ruminate on how the meaning of an artwork can change based on where it is shown.

Instead, people took Mr. Jonsson's work for exactly what it appeared to be - a bomb left outside a busy, landmark building, in the heart of a major Western city, in the midst of a security conscious era - and did what anyone might do.

They called the police.

And thus began the recontextualizing of Mr. Jonsson, from aspiring artist to accused criminal. In his artsy clothes and narrow black tie, the former visa student from Iceland was an improbable sight in a grotty downtown Toronto courtroom yesterday, where Judge William Bassel spared him a career-limiting criminal record, but not before letting him know what he thought of his project.

"I'd call it stupid," the judge said, "really a stupid act, even for a young person."

Assistant Crown attorney John Flaherty argued that Mr. Jonsson - who withdrew from the Ontario College of Art and Design and moved back to Iceland after the incident - deserved a criminal conviction for mischief interfering with property, due to the colossally disruptive consequences of his actions on the evening of Nov. 28, 2007.

The museum had to be evacuated, Bloor Street was closed while a police bomb squad neutralized the package, and a $600-a-plate gala fundraiser for the Canadian Foundation for AIDS Research, scheduled for the ROM later that evening, had to be cancelled.

But Clayton Ruby, Mr. Jonsson's defence lawyer, persuaded the judge that the young artist has paid a substantial toll for his behaviour - losing his year at OCAD, is remorseful and has already made substantial amends. He volunteered 320 hours over the summer for an AIDS organization in Iceland - far more community service than any judge would typically order of an offender.

Mr. Jonsson, whose mother is an internationally renowned sculptor and whose father is an on-air host on Icelandic public television, also came to court yesterday with a pair of cheques for $2,500 each, made out to the ROM and to CANFAR.

Mr. Ruby also had his young client stand up and read out a written apology.

"I did not realize my sculpture would cause such problems," the tall, thin and lightly bearded Mr. Jonsson said. "I am sincerely sorry."

Judge Bassel accepted the apology, saying "it's obviously pretty sincere, in my books." While noting that "the extent of the harm done here was huge," and that "it was done by a young man, stupidly," the judge felt a criminal conviction - which could seriously hinder Mr. Jonsson from travelling away from Iceland, a tiny country of 320,000 - was not necessary.

And so the judge issued a conditional discharge and nine months probation. And with that, the young man, who has since resumed his studies in Iceland, stepped out of the Old City Hall courthouse, where he raised his arms in victory, lit a cigarette and declined comment…

Pretentious idiot. The judge should have recontextualized his sorry butt into jail.

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

And speaking of lipstick on a pig...: A scan of Google images turned up this charmer. Sooo clever, with a Der Sturmer sort of vibe.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:47 | link | comments

Quipster: Behold the effervescent “wit” of manly man, Stephane Dione, as quoted in the Toronto Star:

"We cannot win against the Americans. We cannot win against the Russians. And we are too civilized to shoot the Danes."

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, jokingly musing about what to do about challenges to Canada's Arctic sovereignty.

Tee hee. Stop it, M. Dion. You’re killin’ me.

Have you heard the one about putting lipstick on a pig?

In other lefty high-larity, the Ceeb tried--and failed--to punk Stephen Harper:

Stephen Harper, known to hordes of fawning female admirers as "Studly Steve," is a devoted family man. But his eyes, as one "Harper's Hotties" member said recently, are "so ice-blue," his opposition to carbon taxes "so uncompromising," that legions of Canadian women cannot help but fantasize about him.

Right. That is not true. This is: a well-dressed "single female voter" interrupted Harper's morning news conference in Halifax yesterday, telling the Conservative Casanova she and he were "gonna have some fun."

"I love you," she shouted as guards handcuffed her and whisked her out of the room. "I want to love you."

Harper's admirer, predictably, was a This Hour Has 22 Minutes performer, comedian Geri Hall. After his security detail questioned her, she was freed – and, soon, escorted to the sweater-vested stud's hotel suite for a brief one-on-one interview.

"That was a bumpy start to the second part of our relationship," Hall said, according to the CBC's website, "but it was kind of sexy, too. Girl doesn't get arrested by a blue-eyed man very often."

Responded Harper, deadpan: "You like handcuffs?" He always said he was a law-and-order conservative...

Now that was funny.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:19 | link | comments

Hair today, sharia tomorrow: Come one, come all to the Toronto Star’s pity party. The theme of today’s soiree: hijab-clad chics who’ve been the victims of bad hair cuts and been deprived of that posh salon experience, all because of insensitive infidels:

In a fit of desperation last summer, Rownak Chowdhury washed her hair, stood in the middle of her kitchen floor and handed her mother a pair of scissors.

"Just chop it," she told her.

It was hardly the ideal salon experience but, for Chowdhury, it was the quickest and easiest way to deal with hair that had grown long, heavy and scraggly under her head scarf.

"This is what I do when it gets really bad," says Chowdhury, recalling the incident. "It was just the chop across but it did the job – kind of."

Like many who wear the hijab, Chowdhury couldn't find a high-end salon that could give her the privacy she requires as a conservative Muslim and the stylish haircut she wants as a young, modern woman.

"It shouldn't be this hard for a Muslim woman in Toronto to get a good hair cut," says Chowdhury of her years of searching for a salon, from Yorkville to Markham. "We just want a place where we feel normal, and can get our money's worth."

Instead, she and many others across the city have accumulated a war chest of hijabi horror stories – tales of having men walk in on them, of being shunted into basements and backrooms, of mediocre haircuts or worse, and of being forced to pay a premium for even this accommodation.

Many yearn for what a high-end salon can offer. They want to feel good during the process, and come out looking even better.

Sisters Zenab and Syma Khan had that experience when they lived in Winnipeg, so they were eager to find a salon when they moved to Toronto six years ago. The result was frustration.

Syma called all the salons in Yorkville and a few on Yonge St., most of which had been rated the best in the city.

"They were really nice when we asked them but, since many of them have an open-concept layout, they couldn't really accommodate us," she says. "But they said they would if they could."

Zenab found that not everybody was as understanding. One salon in the Manulife Centre rebuffed her, saying, "Why do you even need to cut your hair?'"

"I was very surprised," Zenab says. "I thought that in Toronto, because it's so multicultural, such a request would be normal. And it's a silly question. Of course, we cut our hair. Just because they can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

"We're just like other women. We want to look good for ourselves."

Four years ago, through word-of-mouth, the Khan sisters decided to call Civello and were told they could be accommodated at the chain's Rosedale location.

When they arrived, they were ushered into the upstairs attic and had the entire room to themselves. Stylist Samina Khalid assured them that all the men in the salon were told not to come upstairs. Then they were pampered.

"I could tell that this was a big deal for them," Khalid says. "We're lucky that our building is large enough that we can provide this service."

For the sisters, it was a relief. As Zenab puts it, "It was so good to finally feel normal."…

Um, I know this a completely outré suggestion, but why doesn’t one of the sisters quit kvetching and open a salon catering to this distinct clientele? From the sounds of it, she’d have plenty of customers. Of course, a “no men allowed” hiring policy might result in a human rights complaint or two, so I suppose it’s best that we adapt to their needs, rather than vice versa, right?

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:12 | link | comments (1)

Combating phantom hatred: The Canadian Arab Federation has just posted this August 16^th article from the Mississauga Times:

A large crowd of people learned more about hate crime, stereotypes and 'Islamaphobia' at University of Toronto Mississauga Thursday night.

The Canadian Arab Federation hosted the forum with several guest speakers, including Mohammed Ashour, president of the Muslim Students Association at UTM.

An initiative of the federation, with funding from the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Hate Crime Victims Provincial Support Network the forum was held to build awareness of the challenges facing Canadian Arabs in Ontario, stemming from negative stereotypes, racism and hate crimes.
Commissioner with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Raja Khouri discussed the Ontario Hate Crimes Community Working Group of which he is also a member.

The director of the Anti-racism and Cultural Diversity office at UTM, Nouman Ashraf, also spoke. He was appointed by the Attorney General to serve on a Community Hate Crimes committee in 2007.

I read the newspapers. I keep tabs on the blogs. So you would think if all these “hate crimes” against Muslims were occurring, I would have heard about them by now. The only “hate crimes” I’m aware of concern an uppity teenager who was offed by her close male relatives for her “crime” against sharia; or the pro-Israel author who was called “an effing Jew” at a public book signing; or the gnomish TV imam who, after describing “the Jews” as “evil,” called for a jihad against the non-believer.

In other words, there seems to be a whole lot of “kaffirophobia” going on. As for “Islamophobia”—not so much.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:13 | link | comments (4)

Cry me a River Nile: The Toronto Star’s Oakland Ross has an article about those mean old Israelis, and how they have “trapped” “innocent” young Gazans who merely want the chance to go and study abroad:

JERUSALEM–More than 400 would-be university students remain trapped in the Gaza Strip, unable to leave for studies abroad – including one accepted at Ryerson University – and now the Israel Broadcasting Authority is refusing to accept paid advertisements calling attention to their plight.

"There's a clause in the broadcasting authority's rules that allows them to refuse a paid ad if the issue is `politically or ideologically controversial,'" said Sari Bashi, executive director of Gisha, an Israeli organization advocating freedom of movement for Palestinians.

"But it's not a controversial statement to say that everybody, including Gazans, deserves an education."

Gisha (which means "access" or "approach" in Hebrew) has appealed the IBA's decision, and yesterday a committee listened to the group's complaints but did not make a ruling either to uphold or reverse its refusal to accept the ads.

Bashi said a ruling might be announced as early as Sunday. She did not seem optimistic it would go in favour of the Gazan students.

Several of the stranded students intend to enrol in Canadian universities, Bashi said, including at least one who is hoping to study at Ryerson.

Bashi believes Israel's refusal to allow the students to leave is part of a strategy aimed at punishing all Gazans for the acts of a few.

Since the radical Islamist group Hamas took power in Gaza more than a year ago, Israel has sought to isolate the territory and its 1.5 million people, limiting fuel, food, and other supplies while sharply restricting the movement of people in or out of the narrow coastal strip.

Israel's critics decry the policy as a form of "collective punishment" that fails to distinguish armed Palestinian militants from the vast majority of Gaza's residents who are innocent of any wrongdoing…

Nasty Jews and their “collective punishment.” My letter:

Ever since Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to getting rid of Israel, became the overwhelming choice of the Palestinian people in a fair and free election and established its base of power in Gaza, there has been a concerted effort to distinguish “bad” Hamas from “the vast majority of Gaza’s residents who are innocent of any wrongdoing.” Sorry, it won’t fly. The people of Gaza knew full well who Hamas was when they elected it. Two years later, they continue to support its eliminiationist agenda. To try to put a halo around Gazans and isolate them from their chosen political leaders is not only futile, it is absurd.

If some young Gazans now find themselves “trapped” in the territory and unable to travel, it is not because Israel, in the words of its critics, is meting out “a form of ‘collective punishment’”. Rather, it is because Gazans--and indeed, Palestinians in general--refuse to take collective responsibility for having put Hamas in the driver’s seat.

Interesting how, in all these discussions of "collective punishment," it's always Israel, but never Egypt, that's guilty of the charge.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:07 | link | comments (2)

Jumbo shrimp: By the same token, Islamic democracy.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:03 | link | comments

It's a miracle!: Terrorists 'cured' with cash, cars and counselling.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:32 | link | comments

Khadr nutters: This brief item from lefty rag Now Magazine offers a window into the useful idiots’ twisted mindset:

They stood up to al Qaeda and to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Now they’re standing up to the Canadian government – or so the story goes. The Khadrs, Canada’s “first family of terrorism” for its alleged ties to Osama bin Laden – the family admits to the occasional game of volleyball with the 9/11 mastermind back in Afghanistan – have launched their own website (thekhadrlegacy.com). It’s all “to fight back at the rumours and tell politicians that we are not going to be their bogeyman any longer.”

 

The Khadrs tackle a number of questions, including: Doesn’t your family hate Canada? The answer offered by the Khadrs is one that may resonate with other Canadians – that we have simply lost our way.

 

We have lost our way? Speak for yourself, oh loony lefty.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:11 | link | comments (3)

Name games: In an interview with FrontPage Magazine, security expert Alex Alexiev gets to the heart of the matter:

FP: As we mark the 7^th anniversary of 9/11 and the last few months of the Bush Administration, where do we stand in the war on terror?

Alexiev: Well, you can say that we are in fairly good shape in the war on terror, but doing very poorly in the war of radical Islam against America and the West.

FP: This sounds like a contradiction in terms. Can you elaborate?

Alexiev: It does sound paradoxical, but it is the reality of the situation and an unfortunate one at that. We have done well in the war on terror because we have not had a serious terrorist incident on American territory since 9/11. So in the war on terror, strictu sensu one might argue that we have been victorious so far. But this is highly misleading, because the war we’re in is not a war against terrorism but against a radical totalitarian ideology in Islamic garb that is committed to the destruction of our civilization. And terrorism is just one of the instruments in the arsenal of this murderous ideology. To call what is essentially a war between civilization and barbarism a war on terror is not only highly misleading but also self-defeating since, as Sun Tzu teaches us, you can’t win a war if you don’t know who the enemy is. The failure to understand what this war is all about and explain it to the American people is the single greatest failure of the Bush Administration and the reason it will leave a pretty dismal record behind.

FP: Expand please on how we have mislabeled this war.

Alexiev: If you declare terror to be your main enemy in this struggle, you’re elevating a symptom of the underlying malignancy rather than the malignancy itself to be your main adversary. This is like focusing on treating the symptoms of cancer like pain and such, rather than the cancer itself. It may make you feel better for a while, but sooner or later the cancer will kill you. The real enemy, on the other hand, whether you call it radical Islam, Islamofascism, Islamism or whatever is a militant millenarian doctrine seeking to impose Islamic rule and barbaric shariah doctrine worldwide. It aims to achieve that by various means and strategies, including proselytism, infiltration of our institutions, taking over Muslim institutions, creating parallel societies and enforcing shariah in Muslim communities, but also intimidation and terrorism. More recently, shariah finance has become yet another potent weapon in the Islamist arsenal. It pursues the legitimization of shariah while providing a new source of financing of extremism and terrorism.

In the West, this plan for conquest by undermining our society from within has been doggedly pursued by the Muslim Brotherhood with the help of Saudi money for at least three decades now. And it isn’t something that is a great secret. It was described in great detail in an Ikhwan document known as “the Project” found in Switzerland in the early 1980s…

I say there is no greater honour we can pay to the memory of those murdered on 9/11 than to knock it off with the “War on Terror” palaver and, for the sake of clarity and the lives of our children and grandchildren, resolve to call it what it really is: the War for Western Freedom.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:20 | link | comments

Tempest in a pig pen: Since Bambi doesn't get why his off-the-cuff  "lipstick on a pig" comment touched off such an explosion allow me to explain it to him. It's not just that equating your opponents (one of whom does indeed wear lipstick) with pigs is offensive; it's that employing such ill-chosen words demonstrates a disturbing lack of judgement, an inability to weigh how your words will likely be received.

How anyone can think the "lipstick on a pig" guy can go mano a mano with Ahmadinejad and the mully-bullies (or anyone else) is beyond me.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:55 | link | comments (2)

Mail call: There's something seriously awry with Tory targeting if Sonia Zilberberg of Montreal is getting a Rosh Hashanah card from Stephen Harper, but I didn't make his mailing list.

Not that I'm as upset about it as Ms. Z., whose reaction can be described as near-apoplectic.

Could some loved one please hose the poor woman down, before she spontaneously combusts?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:33 | link | comments

Back to sleep: I can think of no better way to commemorate 9/11 than by quoting from Mark Steyn’s piece that appeared in The National Post on 9/12. It's from Steyn’s book of post-9/11 articles, The Face of the Tiger:

You can understand why they’re jumping up and down in the streets of Ramallah, jubilant in their victory. They have struck a mighty blow against the Great Satan, mightier than even the producers of far-fetched action thrillers could conceive. They have driven a gaping wound into the heart of his military headquarters. They have ruptured the most famous skyline in the world, the glittering monument to his decadence. They have killed and maimed thousands of his subjects, live on TV. For one day they reduced the hated Bush to a pitiful Presidential vagrant, bounced further and further from his White House to ever more remote military airports, from Florida to Louisiana to Nebraska, by a security staff which obviously understands less about the power of symbolism than America’s enemies do.

And, for those on the receiving end, that “money shot,” as they call it in Hollywood—the smoking towers of the World Trade Center collapsing as easily as condemned chimneys at an abandoned sawmill—represents not just an awesome loss of life but a ghastly intelligence failure by the US and a worse moral failure by the west generally.

There was a grim symmetry in the way this act of war interrupted the President at a grade-school photo-op. The Federal Government has no constitutional responsibility for education: it is a state affair, delegated mostly to tiny municipal school boards. But one of Bill Clinton’s forlorn legacies is that the head of state and the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth must now fill his days with inconsequential initiatives designed to soothe the piffling discontents of soccer moms and other preferred demographics of the most pampered generation in history; programs to connect elementary schools to the Internet, prescription drug benefits for seniors, government “lock-boxes” for any big-ticket entitlement focus groups decide they can’t live without, and a thousand and one other woeful trivialities.

And so the President was reminded of his most awesome responsibility at a time when he was discharging his most footling. If you drive around Vermont and Massachusetts and California, you spend a lot of time behind cars with smug bumper stickers calling for more funds to be diverted from defence to education, because this would prove what a caring society we are. Tuesday was a rebuke to those fatuities; the first charge of any government is the defence of the borders—and, without that, it makes no difference how much you spend on prescription drug plans for seniors. From the moment Colin Powell advised against marching on Baghdad and ended the Gulf War, the world has been on a ten-year long weekend off.  It loaded up on the SUV, went to the mall, enjoyed the good times and deluded itself that in the new world politics could be confined to feelgood initiatives—big government disguised as lots and lots of teensy-weensy bits of small government. Yesterday’s atrocities were a rude awakening from the indulgences of the last decade, with some awful stories to remind us of our illusions—disabled employees in wheelchairs, whom the Americans with Disabilities Act and the various lobby groups insist can do anything able-bodied people can, found themselves trapped on the 80^th floor, unable to get downstairs, unable even to do as others did and hurl themselves from the windows rather than be burned alive.

On Tuesday, the post-Cold War era ended and a new one began…

If only that were so. Seven years after that rudest of awakenings, the Candides of the Western world would prefer to go back to sleep, secure in their delusion that, if only we could solve that tricky Israel-Palestinian situation—or, better yet, get rid of the Jewish state—all would be for the best on this, the best of all possible globes. The desire to take a vacation from history is alive and well as the world lines up behind Bambi Obama, the candidate whose “charisma” acts like a comforting sedative that induces somnolence and ameliorates pain even as it clouds the mind: the Bambi people in the U.S. and abroad have convinced themselves that the greatest evil in the world (aside from Zionism) isn’t the totalitarian will to power; it is global carbon emissions.

Well, if you want to commit suicide, carbon monoxide is a far pleasanter way to go; far pleasanter than, say, being blown to smithereens by jihadis, or submitting to your divinely-decreed dhimmitude, and dying, slowly but surely, every day.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:39 | link | comments

Thanks for coming and try the veal:  There’s a new cut-up on the circuit, and, as James Taranto notes, he’s a hoot and a half:

Ladies and gentlemen, we are proud to present the comedy stylings of Barack Obama:

"I mean think about it, you guys remember this, it was just like a month ago they were all saying 'experience, experience, experience,' " Obama said as the crowd snickered, "Then they chose Palin and started talking about 'change, change, change'--What happened?" . . .

When discussing McCain's energy plan, Obama poked fun at his line on drilling. "What were the Republicans hollerin', 'drill baby drill'? What kind of slogan is that?! They were getting all excited about drilling!"

He even found a way to make an answer to a question on civil liberties comical. While speaking about the importance of habeas corpus, Obama said, "We don't always catch the right person. We may think this is Mohammed the terrorist, it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You may think it's Barack the bomb thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president." . . .

He got a lot of laughs.

We guess you had to be there.

Guess so.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:09 | link | comments

Soft sell: Yesterday the Toronto Star reported that the Khadr family had hired a PR expert to help them soften their image (and help get li’l Omar sprung from Gitmo). Here are some slogan suggestions for the “new and improved” Khadrs:

·         “Come see the softer side of jihad.”

·         “Khadrs heart Kanuckistan.”

·         “On second thought, decadent, imperialistic kaffir swine aren’t so bad after all.

·         “Hug a Khadr; share a smile.”

And my own personal favourite:

·         “Osama bin Who?”

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:58 | link | comments

A good sign?: It’s refreshing to see a Canadian union break ranks with its fellows and condemn the boycott of Israel, as the carpenters’ union has just done. Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre, which helped engineer this auspicious event, has high hopes it will encourage other to follow suit:

"The road to lasting peace can only be paved on a foundation of tolerance and security, which is impossible to achieve given the current terrorist activities of Hamas and Hezbollah," said Avi Benlolo, president of Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center. "Resolutions such as this one are needed to counter the animosity toward Israel which is inherent in recent union activity - a situation which encourages further threats and violence from terrorist groups in the region. Our organization and its more than 25,000 members wholeheartedly support the Carpenters' resolution and believe it will resonate with Canadians and other labour advocates."

The leadership of the Carpenters' Union and local community leaders in attendance at the convention are hopeful this new perspective will encourage other unions to issue similar resolutions.

I wouldn’t count on it, Avi. Anti-Zionism/Palestinianism is a core shared value of Leftists and Islamists, and it’s going to take a lot more than a resolution by some carpenters to shake it. My prediction: the move will perceived as “the Jewish lobby” using its wiles on the guileless, and will probably not make not a whit of difference with the likes of CUPE and CUPW. It take that back: it will likely harden their resolve to further smear and shun the Jewish state in their quest for "justice" for the Palestinians.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:58 | link | comments

Election critters: In the U.S., it's pigs; in Canada, it's puffins.

Update: Sing it, Connie:

Lipstick on a piggy,

Told a tale on you.

Lipstick on a piggy,

Words that you will rue.

Say it’s not a biggie.

Would that it were true.

Lipstick on a piggy,

Told a tale on you.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:30 | link | comments

He neither walks on water nor cures the scrofular: This essay by Michael Knox Beran in City Journal was written pre-Palin, when Bambi’s mojo was still going full throttle, but it (the essay, not the mojo) remains the most insightful, articulate explanation I have read on the subject of the candidate’s charisma and those who succumb to it:

…The danger of Obama’s charismatic healer-redeemer fable lies in the hubris it encourages, the belief that gifted politicians can engender a selfless communitarian solidarity. Such a renovation of our national life would require not only a change in constitutional structure—the current system having been geared to conflict by the Founders, who believed that the clash of private interests helps preserve liberty—but also a change in human nature. Obama’s conviction that it is possible to create a beautiful politics, one in which Americans will selflessly pursue a shared vision of the common good, recalls the belief that Dostoyevsky attributed to the nineteenth-century Russian revolutionists: that, come the revolution, “all men will become righteous in one instant.” The perfection would begin.

In rejecting the Anglo-American politics of limits, Obama revives a political tradition that derives ultimately from Niccolò Machiavelli. In the Discourses on Livy and The Art of War, Machiavelli argued that it is possible to create a communitarian republic like the one whose outlines he glimpsed in Livy’s (highly romanticized) version of Roman history—a polity in which citizens, forsaking their own swinish pursuits, would become happy in the pursuit of a common good. Wise laws, he maintained, would “make citizens love one another.” The virtuous res publica of the Romans could be conjured anew.

To liberate a people from the bondage of pain and establish a new communal order, a statesman must possess, Machiavelli argued, a kind of charisma he called virtù. He described the most charismatic statesman with whom he was (personally) acquainted, Cesare Borgia, in Weberian terms, as one who “exhibits a fortune unheard of, a virtù and confidence [so much] more than human that he can attain all he desires.”

Jacob Burckhardt credited the luminaries of the Italian Renaissance with envisioning the state as a work of art. More tragically, they envisioned it as a machinery of redemption. Machiavelli’s prince was the first intimation of a modern charismatic type, the demiurge who used a demonic virtù to overcome divisive self-seeking in the name of social solidarity. Self-interest led to market capitalism and alienation; civic selflessness led to public-spirited communitarianism and happiness. The “Machiavellian vocabulary,” the historian J. G. A. Pocock argued in The Machiavellian Moment, became the “vehicle of a basically hostile perception of early modern capitalism.” Machiavelli rejected the commercial ethos (predicated on the pursuit of private interest) that the leading Anglo-American statesmen sought to encourage.

In doing so, he anticipated modernity’s childish dream of an anodyne world. His communitarian state is the prototype of the workers’ paradises of Marx and Lenin and the Nordic Valhallas of Hitler and Houston Stewart Chamberlain. His influence is evident in both the enlightened despot celebrated by the Continental philosophes and the socialist wizard admired by intellectuals like Edmund Wilson, who hailed Marx as a mix of “Prometheus and Lucifer,” a heroically diabolic figure who could redeem the waste land of modern capitalism, the forerunner of Lenin and Stalin, Castro and Mao...

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:21 | link | comments (1)

Tammy’s “victory”: The CJC once again goes the extra distance to make Canadian Jewry feel “safe,” this time by extracting an apology  from a pea-brain who employed a Hitler analogy (h/t MK):

Toronto---Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) today helped secure a full and public apology from Mr. Brent Fullard, the Liberal Party of Canada proposed candidate for Whitby-Oshawa, for earlier comments he made comparing Prime Minister Stephen Harper to Adolf Hitler and applying Nazi analogies to Canadian politics. 

"Mr. Fullard understood our concerns and responded with his apology," said CJC Co-President Sylvain Abitbol. "We are pleased that Mr. Fullard recognized that his earlier comments are incompatible with the stated values of Stephane Dion, the Liberal Party and all Canadians." 

CJC Co-President Rabbi Reuven Bulka added a plea for an election campaign based on civil discourse. "We can be passionate about issues, but at the same time we must be passionate about respect and human dignity. Respect generates respect, disrespect generates disrespect." 

CJC has a longstanding history of condemning the fallacious and often malicious use of Nazi references and analogies. In an op-ed published earlier this year, CJC CEO Bernie M. Farber wrote, "Attempting to raise one's profile by invoking the name of Hitler may even work in the short term, but eventually it will be seen for what it is: A dismal attempt at self-promotion. The issue being advocated gets lost in the condemnation that ensues. It has to stop." 

A “dismal attempt at self-promotion”? Sounds like the pot's describing the kettle.

Update: Tammy wants Canadians to be genteel and respectful, since that "generates respect." The head of the Canadian Arab Federation would have to agree.

Posted by: scaramouche at 08:53 | link | comments (1)

Kinder, gentler, cuddlier Khadrs: The notorious Khadr clan are tired of being known as Canada's "first family of terror." They have lauched a PR campaign designed to rebrand themselves. (As what--Canada's second family of terror?--ed.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:48 | link | comments

Everyday popular delusions and the madness of the Egyptian crowd: There’s a word for good people of Cairo, and that word is “bonkers”. From the New York Times:

CAIRO — Seven years later, it remains conventional wisdom here that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda could not have been solely responsible for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that the United States and Israel had to have been involved in their planning, if not their execution, too.

This is not the conclusion of a scientific survey, but it is what routinely comes up in conversations around the region — in a shopping mall in Dubai, in a park in Algiers, in a cafe in Riyadh and all over Cairo.

“Look, I don’t believe what your governments and press say. It just can’t be true,” said Ahmed Issab, 26, a Syrian engineer who lives and works in the United Arab Emirates. “Why would they tell the truth? I think the U.S. organized this so that they had an excuse to invade Iraq for the oil.”

It is easy for Americans to dismiss such thinking as bizarre. But that would miss a point that people in this part of the world think Western leaders, especially in Washington, need to understand: That such ideas persist represents the first failure in the fight against terrorism — the inability to convince people here that the United States is, indeed, waging a campaign against terrorism, not a crusade against Muslims.

“The United States should be concerned because in order to tell people that there is a real evil, they too have to believe it in order to help you,” said Mushairy al-Thaidy, a columnist in the Saudi-owned regional newspaper Asharq al Awsat. “Otherwise, it will diminish your ability to fight terrorism. It is not the kind of battle you can fight on your own; it is a collective battle.”

There were many reasons people here said they believed that the attacks of 9/11 were part of a conspiracy against Muslims. Some had nothing to do with Western actions, and some had everything to do with Western policies.

Again and again, people said they simply did not believe that a group of Arabs — like themselves — could possibly have waged such a successful operation against a superpower like the United States. But they also said that Washington’s post-9/11 foreign policy proved that the United States and Israel were behind the attacks, especially with the invasion of Iraq.

“Maybe people who executed the operation were Arabs, but the brains? No way,” said Mohammed Ibrahim, 36, a clothing-store owner in the Bulaq neighborhood of Cairo. “It was organized by other people, the United States or the Israelis.”

The rumors that spread shortly after 9/11 have been passed on so often that people no longer know where or when they first heard them. At this point, they have heard them so often, even on television, that they think they must be true.

First among these is that Jews did not go to work at the World Trade Center on that day. Asked how Jews might have been notified to stay home, or how they kept it a secret from co-workers, people here wave off the questions because they clash with their bedrock conviction that Jews are behind many of their troubles and that Western Jews will go to any length to protect Israel.

“Why is it that on 9/11, the Jews didn’t go to work in the building,” said Ahmed Saied, 25, who works in Cairo as a driver for a lawyer. “Everybody knows this. I saw it on TV, and a lot of people talk about this.”

Zein al-Abdin, 42, an electrician, who was drinking tea and chain-smoking cheap Cleopatra cigarettes in Al Shahat, a cafe in Bulaq, grew more and more animated as he laid out his thinking about what happened on Sept. 11.

“What matters is we think it was an attack against Arabs,” he said of the passenger planes crashing into American targets. “Why is it that they never caught him, bin Laden? How can they not know where he is when they know everything? They don’t catch him because he hasn’t done it. What happened in Iraq confirms that it has nothing to do with bin Laden or Qaeda. They went against Arabs and against Islam to serve Israel, that’s why.”…

As I’ve previously observed many times, Judenhass is a corrosive; it rots the brain.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:35 | link | comments (1)

"Youts" in Spain: Jihad juvvies are getting testy in al Andalus.

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

"It's springtime for Iran and Khomeini/Moollahs are foolin' the world...": Who knew Iran's Revolutionary Guards, who are usually into doing the bidding of their crazed genocidal masters, were also into amateur theatrics? Here they are, performing a scene from their incendiary spectacle about human history--all of it--with particular emphasis on, what else?, the infamy of the Jews. Note the impressive stage decor--a gibungous Jewish star with a swastika in the centre. Very clever. And so original. (h/t Elder of Zion)

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:20 | link | comments

From those wonderful folks who brought you 9/11: Al Jazeera broadcasts a new al Qaeda video.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:46 | link | comments

Lagging behind: On average, Ontarians file 2,500 gripes each year with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. That’s significantly less than the number being fielded by Saudi Arabia’s Human Rights Commission—reported to be 10,000 cases over three years.

Maybe the Saudis could send us some of their backlog since, in certain keys areas, we’re already sharia-compliant. 

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:37 | link | comments

‘Balance’ of power: A UN-sponsored seminar on the victims of terrorism has run into a hitch—the Arabs are insisting that Jews killed by Islamic terrorists not be considered “victims” since they, you know, deserve to be killed. From the New York Sun:

UNITED NATIONS — A one-day seminar organized by the United Nations to highlight the plight of victims of terrorism is coming under heavy criticism from Arab diplomats and reporters who say the process of selecting the participants is flawed.

The inclusion of the father of an Israeli girl who was killed in a 2001 suicide bombing in Jerusalem among the 18 victims of terrorism in today's seminar set off a volley of questions yesterday from U.N. reporters, who accused a top aide to Secretary-General Ban, Robert Orr, of bias against Muslims and of ignoring the victims of "state terrorism."

In one of the most pointed criticisms of the seminar, Arab diplomats wondered aloud how the organizers could have chosen a list of terror victims when the United Nations has not yet managed to settle on a definition of terrorism. The failure of the U.N. General Assembly to decide on a comprehensive definition, however, is widely seen as a result of Arab countries' insistence that Israeli civilians who die in attacks be defined as casualties of a just war against a "foreign occupation," not as victims of terrorism.

"The holding of a symposium for victims of terrorism and not for other victims, such as those of foreign occupation, raised numerous questions," the Egyptian ambassador to the United Nations, Maged Abdelfattah Abdelaziz, told the General Assembly last week. "Moreover, the criteria for selecting victims, in the absence of an agreed legal definition of terrorism, could lead to the politicization of the event."

The list of seminar participants includes Arab victims of the 2003 bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad and terror attacks in Jordan and Algeria, as well as Muslim victims of a bombing in Bali, Indonesia, and victims from Africa, Eastern and Western Europe, and the Americas. Mr. Orr said that in composing the list, the organizers relied on definitions of terrorism found in 16 international "legal instruments."

The definitions include acts of violence directed at civilians, aimed at promoting political goals, and perpetrated by non-state actors. State acts of violence are covered by a number of international treaties and pacts, including the Geneva Conventions.

Even without a comprehensive definitions of terrorism, its victims should not be ignored, Mr. Orr said. "These people do not have a voice," he said.

As the seminar has neared, the criticism of the organizers has grown louder, and now includes accusations that the four countries that underwrote the cost of the $300,000 event — Italy, Spain, Britain, and Colombia — got a say in its content. Some also complained of an "imbalance" to the seminar after the head of the Palestinian Permanent Observer Mission to the United Nations, Riyad Mansour, was reported not to have been invited initially to contribute.

Mr. Orr said yesterday that the organizers had sent an invitation to the Palestinian Mission to contribute to the seminar at the same time the other U.N. missions received their invitations; the organizers apologized for not including Mr. Mansour's name on the letter, he said.

According to several diplomats, the sensitivity of the Israeli-Arab dispute led the United Nations to add a Gaza-based activist on the psychological effects of the conflict, Marwan Diab, to a list of "presenting experts" who will talk about terrorism at today's seminar.

"There was tremendous pressure to create 'balance' between Israeli terror victims and so-called Palestinian terror victims," an Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Daniel Carmon, said. "The fact is that the United Nations could not find even one Palestinian terror victim because there is no such thing. While there are Palestinian victims of the dispute, the only victims of terrorism on that side are those hurt by Arab-on-Arab terrorism."

What the Arabs are demanding is a fake ‘balance’, one that would ignore the reality that the vast majority of those caught up in terrorism—both perpetrators and victims—are Muslim. Don’t be surprised, though, if the feckless UN ends buckling (i.e. submitting) as per usual.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:58 | link | comments (1)

Nine-year-old chicks are hot: Western culture is frequently criticized for the way it sexualizes young girls, encouraging them to dress like mini-strumpets. At least, though, here in the West we don’t marry off our pre-pubescent Lolitas to dirty old pedophiles, like they do in some other “cultures”. From ANSAmed:

ANSAmed) - RABAT, SEPTEMBER 8 - "A nine-year-old girl has the same sexual capacities like a woman of twenty and over". Thus reads a fatwa issued by Skeikh Mohamed Ibn Abderrahmane Al-Maghraoui, according to Moroccan daily 'Aujourd'hui Le Maroc'. This immediately sparked off a hot debate, with most of the public opinion absolutely against this stance which is a permit for paedophilia, many say, among other things. Among the various stances against the fatwa (in the Islamic culture, a decree of religious character issued by Islamic experts which regulates issues of topical character), the daily reported those of extremist MP Abdelbari Zamzami and the president of association 'No one touches my children', Najia Adib. Zamzami, referring to the fact that Al-Maghraoui wanted to make his fatwa unassailable reminding that Muhammad "married Aisha who was nine", reiterated that the sheikh used the event as a pretext for this "scandalous practice". "The era of our Prophet is completely different from ours," he said on the issue. "These days a marriage of the kind would be a true injustice towards the girl. A true aberration." "Aberrant" was also the judgement of Najia Adib ('No one touches my children'), according to whom "this sheikh is simply encouraging paedophilia. If he is so deeply convinced of what he thinks, let's tell him to get his daughter married". But perhaps, she explains, this unknown sheikh was searching a little media attention. And concluded her interview with the Moroccan daily: "This type of people look at Islam from the point of view which is convenient for them. It is a restrictive vision of Islam. And it is bad. Fatwas like these show the lack of reasoning from those who issue them. I cannot understand via what intellectual road or for what mental construction they come to such aberrations". The law in Morocco envisages the minimum age for getting married at 18 years for both men and women. Marrying below this age requires the consent of the parents and of a judge. But it refers to teenagers not children.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:19 | link | comments

A whole new Stephane: Liberal strategists have decided that Stephane Dion, a man with all the appeal of tepid oatmeal, all the oomph of a flat soufflé, all the pizzazz of a watery blancmange, could use a bit of a makeover. They want to transform him from Stephane Dion, Soporific Wimp, to Stephane Dion, Outdoorsman and Fierce Eco-warrior. The Globe and Mail's Michael Valpy has the unintentionally comical details:

The Liberal Party will unveil today a website profile of leader Stéphane Dion as an outdoorsy, passionate, family- and dog-loving man with rugged interests welded to the Canadian mythologies of nature and the North.

The campaign site, called This is Dion, is designed to counter the Conservatives' substantially successful efforts to date to characterize Mr. Dion as the polar opposite of their leader, Stephen Harper – less manly, less decisive, more aloof and lacking the spine of leadership.

The portrait comes hard on the heels of 48 hours of slugfest campaigning launched by Tory attack ads against Mr. Dion and a predawn news conference where prominent Conservative MPs Jason Kenney and Lawrence Cannon tried to set the day's election news agenda. They claimed Mr. Dion would reverse the Harper government's GST cut, claw back the $1,200 child-care benefit and further burden Canadians with a carbon tax as part of his so-called Green Shift.

Mr. Dion immediately responded by calling Mr. Harper a liar, and saying his party was “piling lies upon lies” – language rarely heard in modern Canadian political campaigns.

Although ironically both the Liberals and Conservatives are warming up their leaders early in the campaign as lovable family men – Mr. Harper's dad-ads have been running for a week – political strategists unanimously agree that it's Mr. Dion who is most in need of what is called in the trade “image reframing.”

The party's conceptual description of This is Dion – campaign director Gordon Ashworth said it went through a couple of name changes – says: “The new website will show another side of the Liberal Leader. It shows how inextricably linked his policies are with his personal values of fairness, justice and love for Canada.”

Mr. Ashworth adds: “A family man, we meet his wife Janine Krieber and daughter Jeanne as they spend time together, skiing, talking and walking the family dog Kyoto. An avid outdoorsman, we can see why he's so passionate about nature, we follow him enjoying time at the lake fishing, hiking and snowshoeing.”…

I think I get it now. They want to try to turn the pale and bookish Stephane Dione into a semblance of the “rugged” and "sexy" Pierre Trudeau.

Yeah, that’ll work. 

Update: Memo to "fisherman" Dione: Watch out for flying carp.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:25 | link | comments (1)

Fools on the Hill: Alleged terror plotter Momin Khawaja was angling to have his charge of terrorism dropped, but in a major victory for the crown, the judge in the case has said no can do. The Ottawa Sun article about their home town boy, a whiz with technological gadgetry,  includes an interesting nugget of info I hadn’t heard before (my bolds):

The former Foreign Affairs contract employee faces seven terrorism-related charges, involving his building of a detonator device for use in a U.K. bomb plot, along with offences related to facilitating and financing terrorism in Canada, the U.K. and Pakistan.

Exsqueeze me? You mean old Momin used to work for the feds? Clearly, some better screening is needed to weed out potential jihadis from both contract and full-time positions.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:57 | link | comments (2)

Crooked, feckless and clueless: So why is Ehud Olmert still around?

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

The last thing Canada needs: An October election? Nah. That last thing this country need is an edifice shaped like a WWI German helmet dedicated to "human rights".

Why on earth would we want to glorify a concept that has been co-opted by the enemies of freedom in order to destroy the West and, first things first, the Jewish state?

My suggestion: How about a Museum of Clarity instead, with exhibits showing the history of cant, propaganda and bafflegab, and those who have had the sense and the guts to cut through the crapola in an effort to reveal the truth?

Mind you, it could be contained in a much smaller building.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:21 | link | comments (1)

Zero hour approaches: Israel, which is disinclined to allow itself to be incinerated by an Iranian nuke, will soon be forced to take action to defend itself--since it's clear no one else is going to stop the mullahs.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:38 | link | comments

Ramadan viewing: What's on the Arab tube this Ramadan season? Why, that ever-popular, ever-festive subject, Kill the Jews, of course

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:07 | link | comments

Biden on AIPAC: Bambi’s choice for Veep admires “the Jewish Lobby” about as much as do the Harvard intellectuals who penned the noxious tome with that title. From the New York Sun:

It is quite a swipe at the organized Jewish community that the Jerusalem Post is reporting Senator Biden has launched against the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. "I take a backseat to no one — including Aipac — when it comes to supporting Israel," the Post quotes the Delaware Democrat just chosen as Senator Obama's running mate as saying. "They don't speak for the entire Jewish community. There are other organizations that are just as strong and consequential," he said. "Aipac does not speak for the State of Israel."

Well, it is true that Aipac does not speak for the state of Israel; it is not a foreign agent. But Aipac is the formal voice of the pro-Israel lobby in America, and through its governance structure, represents the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations that is the umbrella group for the Jewish community in this country. Aipac has not publicly criticized Mr. Biden, though it did take different stances than he did on some Iran-related legislation. Aipac has described Mr. Biden as pro-Israel, a description whose accuracy we do not dispute.

If Mr. Biden, though, really thinks there are other American Jewish organizations that are as strong or as consequential as Aipac when it comes to the America-Israel relationship it sure will be illuminating to see him name them. If he has in mind dovish groups such as the Israel Policy Forum or the J Street Project, Mr. Biden is only going to hurt the Obama ticket with that portion of the Jewish vote that is actually up for grabs in this election.

The Biden comment is eerily reminiscent of the anti-Israel polemicists Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, who wrote, "Many of the key organisations in the Lobby, such as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organisations, are run by hardliners who generally support the Likud Party's expansionist policies, including its hostility to the Oslo peace process. The bulk of US Jewry, meanwhile, is more inclined to make concessions to the Palestinians."

When the Sun reported back in September 2007 that an Obama campaign advertisement was appearing on the Amazon.com page of Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer's book, the campaign pulled it. "The ad has been removed from the site because the views of the book do not reflect the views of Senator Obama on the U.S.-Israel relationship," an Obama spokeswoman, Jennifer Psaki, told us then. It was the right move at the time. It is going to be more difficult, but just as appropriate, for Mr. Obama to distance himself from Mr. Biden's reported comments.

I guess Bambi figures it doesn’t matter if Obiden sounds like Waltslimer, since the (clueless) Jews (many of whom proudly display their lefty credentials and inherent "goodness" by distancing themselves from the "wicked" Jewish state) are going to vote for him anyway.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:27 | link | comments

A cry you probably thought you'd never hear: No, not "Allahu akbar"; "bring back Tony Blair!" (a.k.a. Bush's lap doggie).

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:22 | link | comments

Woe is them:  California Muslims angered they can't incite hatred of Jews.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:58 | link | comments

Random harvest: Are you an Arab-Canadian who’s been “randomly profiled” during the course of your travels?  Don’t get mad; get even. The Canadian Arab Federation’s latest newsletter tells you how:

5-Participants Sought For Research Project on Traveller Surveillance

The Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN) is conducting a research project on the surveillance of travellers. Have you been "randomly" stopped, searched and interrogated when attempting to cross the border although you've never been charged or convicted of any crime? Do you feel you’ve been unfairly targeted or suspect being profiled based on religion or ethnicity? If so, The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG) wants to hear your story. The ICLMG along with CAIR-CAN have set up this website: www.travelwatchlist.ca to explain this research project. The project's aim is to document the number of people who believe they have been mistakenly or unfairly targeted, and the nature of the incident. Its purpose is also to investigate and generate better public understanding of the practices, programs and systems used to screen travellers at Canadian airports and at Canada/U.S. border crossings, in order to assess the scope and depth of their concrete impacts on privacy rights and mobility rights. Contact www.travelwatchlist.ca; by regular mail, or toll-free at: 1-866-613-0778 (in Montreal area: 514-484-2020). See also: www.surveillancedesvoyageurs.ca This is a confidential study. The project will not divulge your identity or any of your personal information without your explicit consent.

 

It’s obvious that one man’s “random profiling” is another man’s security efforts aimed at preventing Islamic terrorists from boarding large aircraft and blowing them—and their occupants, and the occupants of famous landmarks—up. But the “randomly profiled” have twigged to the fact that, in a multishmulti culture of victimhood, an argument can be made that “hurt feelings” and “embarrassment” are numero uno, and therefore trump common sense concerns over security. (Hey, it ain’t Inuit grandmas and Hawaiian hula dancers trying to sneak on board with exploding shoes and shampoo bottles. And if they were trying to sneak on board, you can be sure they, too, would be subjected to “random profiling”.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:55 | link | comments

Bird brains: Iran TV parrots Dem talking points.

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

A demonstration of "interfaith" esteem: Arabs urinate on Torah scrolls in Hebron. And, unlike those kaffirs who purportedly desecrate the Koran via the loo (thereby setting off frenzied rioting), they don't even bother to flush.

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

Sign of the times: In Germany, an "iconic church is crumbling" as a massive mosque rises.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:51 | link | comments

Inter-jihadi squbble: A "shadowy" jihadi group affiliated with al Qaeda is warning an out-of-the-shadows jihadi group affiliated with Iran to release its fearless leader--or else.

In the words (more or less) of Rodney King, "Can't we all get along?"

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:44 | link | comments

And speaking of "culture wars"...: There are those in Gaza who want to be able to tune into the hilarious decadent infidel antics of Ross, Rachel and the other Friends. Then there are those who don't want them to be able to.

Hmmm. Wonder how they'd feel about the "friends" of Little Mosque on the Prairies?

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

War and “peace” and Bushwah: The Toronto Star’s resident shill for Islam, Harpoon Siddiqui, is back from his well-deserved summer vacance (it’s exhausting work doing endless battle on behalf of HRCs and against our “Bushian” P.M.). Today he warns us to be wary of what he calls the “culture wars.”

...Culture wars are coming. McCain constantly speaks of "Judeo-Christian values." That's not that far off from Palin saying the war in Iraq was "a task that's from God." George W. Bush, too, had said he consulted the Almighty before invading and occupying that country.

McCain chose Palin to please the evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians.

She is so pro-life that she ensured that her step mother-in-law did not succeed her as mayor in Wasilla, Alaska, because the latter supported abortion rights.

Will Palin's fame last more than 15 minutes, and take her and McCain through the remaining eight weeks of the campaign? Can she be effective beyond the party's mostly male white constituency?

Issues of substance – Iraq, Afghanistan, the sinking economy, etc. – obscured by her drama will resurface, as they always do in America, albeit slowly. Obama has offered thoughtful alternatives to the policies that created the crises.

He has also set the tone and tenor of the campaign, so much so that McCain is championing change and running against Washington, of which he has been an integral part since 1982. Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton could run as outsiders, but not McCain.

It should also matter that he has abandoned his principled positions on just about every major issue. He is now to the right of Bush on Iraq, taxation, environment, immigration laws and abortion.

Unless there's an October surprise (bombing of Iran or the capture/killing of Osama bin Laden), which could help McCain, Obama should win.

Here at home, Stephen Harper's Bushian tendencies come through despite his attempts to hide them.

Bypassing parliamentary tradition, he had passed an American-style law to fix an election date, which he now wants to break. He is going to the polls because the opposition won't bow to his demand that it accept his agenda. But the job of Her Majesty's loyal opposition is to oppose the government.

Governor General Michaëlle Jean could have advised him that her duty to uphold the Constitution implies upholding the election law passed by Parliament and signed by her, and that a more proper way would have been to have sought and lost a vote of confidence in the House of Commons.

There's also the issue of whether or nor the Harper Tories would run their own version of culture wars.

We shall see.

What Harpoon is describing is not, in fact, a “culture war”. It is a law war: the struggle (or jihad) to ensure that Allah’s law takes precedence over man’s law so that true world peace—a peace available only through Islam—will finally come to pass. Not that Harpoon, a master of the veiled reference, the implicit threat, would ever be so foolish as to tip his hand and admit that that’s what’s really going on.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:09 | link | comments

Don't look now but...: Someone has made off with Bambi's "change" mantra. Bambi's not amused.

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

It's official: Canadians will be going to the polls on October 14th. The best thing about the Canadian election (as opposed to the American one): charisma is not a factor.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:39 | link | comments

Canadian justice: Well, the Mantua v. Indigo case has wrapped up in a most Canadian manner. The judge has ruled that author Howard Rotberg, who was called “an effing Jew” at an Indigo-hosted event, and who then, it was claimed, said that “all Muslims are terrorists" (or words to that effect), is as culpable as the Jew-hating hecklers. In the judge’s words

As to whether Mr. Rotberg did or did not make a racist comment of his own generalizing about Muslims or Arabs being terrorists, I find that the evidence is overwhelming that he did retort to the second heckler with an offensive remark. It appears clear and I find as a fact that Mr. Rotberg said something in response to the second heckler's racist epithet that was unpleasant to listening ears and which was noted by most such listeners. Reports of the precise content of his statement varied…

It seems to me that in the context of how the exchange had developed, Mr. Rotberg had launched into references to people from the Middle East who come to Canada with views that are different from those which prevail here. His comments, like his presentation, were focused on those described as Islamists. The entire tenor of the exchange, from the perspective of both the hecklers and Mr. Rotberg, and therefore of the others in attendance who heard the exchange, was an "us and them" outlook on conflict in the Middle East. On balance, it appears likely that Mr. Rotberg's intended retort was directed at those described as Islamists who come here from the Middle East. I need not attempt to define the precise words used. I accept that the version of those words recorded by Ms. Al-Halimi and other witnesses may have been inaccurate in minor respects, but it appears probable and I find as a fact that they captured the flavour of Mr. Rotberg's utterance with reasonable accuracy. His retort was to describe a group of people as terrorists and his intent was that the two hecklers with whom he had directly engaged in this angry exchange be included within his generalization…

The entire tenor of the exchange, from the perspective of both the hecklers and Mr. Rotberg, and therefore of the others in attendance who heard the exchange, was an "us and them" outlook on conflict in the Middle East. On balance, it appears likely that Mr. Rotberg's intended retort was directed at those described as Islamists who come here from the Middle East...

To which Howard comments

Apparently the author showed an “us and them” outlook on the conflict in the Middle East, and to the Court this shows racism.    Apparently no political objection can be made to “Islamists”, being the extremist fundamentalists who use the religion of Islam as a political and terrorist weapon to impose their beliefs and lifestyles on other peoples.   

My e-mail to Howard re this depressing and distressing denouement:

Scary. Tragic. Shameful. But, alas, not surprising. The judge turns out to have been a regular Canadian, i.e. a mush-mouthed multiculti moral relativist.

So an “us and them mentality” is “racist,” huh? By that reasoning, the Jews of Europe, who certainly had an “us and them mentality” toward the Nazis, were racist, too; by that reasoning, everyone who raises an objection to jihad and sharia are ipso facto racist.

To paraphrase T.S. Eliot (a great poet but a terrible antisemite): This is the way the world ends…not with a bang, but with a multicultural whimper.

Memo to Canadian Jews: Should a sharia afficionado hurl an antisemitic epithet at you in public, Canadian politesse requires that you remain silent and take it lest you, too, be accused of having internalized "racist" thoughts. The Rotberg case once proves once again that, here on the multishmulti Animal Farm, all animals are equal, but some animals--the ones who are pushing for sharia to prevail--have been granted special privileges.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:57 | link | comments

Poster boy for creepy, disfiguring plastic surgery: This is how Mickey Rourke used to look . This is how the actor, who plays the title role in the film The Wrester (which just took first prize at the Venice Film Festival), looks today.

Yikes. Who’s his surgeon, Edward Scissorhands?

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:49 | link | comments

Sports jihad: Muslims are being told to play hard—and win—on another field of conflict.  From Muslim News:

KUALA LUMPUR, (Bernama): Muslims are encouraged to take up sports as they are a form of 'jihad,' provided they do not go against Islamic teachings.

National Sports Council (NSC) Islamic Affairs Unit head Mohammad Hasnol Bakar said 'jihad' in Arabic may have been translated as holy war but what it actually meant was to do something wholeheartedly.

"Sports are a form of jihad for Muslims provided the intentions are good and are not against Islamic teachings," he told Bernama here today.

Present-day 'jihad' may not be as challenging as a holy war but important nonetheless as it was about sacrifices to achieve prosperity for the benefit of Muslims.

Muhammad Hasnol said history had it that Prophet Muhammad had used sports as a medium to propagate Islam.

"Prophet Muhammad had been challenged by a Quraish tribesman named Rukanah Abu Yazid who said he would embrace Islam if he was defeated in three rounds of wrestling.

"He accepted the challenge and defeated the wrestler. This showed that early day Muslims had physical strength derived from sporting activities. This is consistent with a popular Arab saying; "A Healthy Mind Comes From a Healthy Body," he said.

Scholar Al-Bukhary in his writings stated Prophet Muhammad had also been known to join fellow Muslims in archery and had also gone horse-back riding with wife Siti Aisyah.

The prophet's close friend Umar Al-Khatab had also been known to encourage archery, swimming and horse-back riding.

Muhammad Hasnol however said there should be a limit to interaction between athletes of the opposite sex, not only to conform with Islamic teachings but to prevent untoward incidents.

He said Islam allowed women to compete in sports but they must follow the Muslim dress code to keep the 'aurat', (parts of body that need covering, the same applies to men.

"Nowadays, swimmers can opt for the 'burqini', an attire for Muslim women. Ruqaya al-Ghasara of Bahrain proved at the Beijing Olympics that her Muslim attire was not an obstacle."

Ruqaya shot to world fame when she sprinted to the gold medal at the Doha Asian Games in 2006.

She was among three Muslim women athletes who wore the Islamic attire in Beijing. Two others were Homa Hosseini of Iran and Shaimaa El-Gammal of Egypt.

Mohammad Hasnol said Muslim athletes must prove that they were not weak but could compete against the best in the world.

He said this was consistent to a 'hadis' (sayings of the prophet) by Prophet Muhamaad as written by the scholar Muslim which meant: "A Strong Muslim Loves Allah More Than A Weak Muslim."

Words to live by—for both sporty and athletically-challenged strugglers alike.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:02 | link | comments

Dastardly Zionists: They've gone and saved the life of a dying Palestinian child.

The brutes.

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

On second thought…: After initially downplaying reports about Hezbollah activity in Toronto, CJC Grand Poobah Tammy F. has done a complete about face. He has now concluded that the report may not, in fact, be largely a matter of inconsequential “chatter,” and for the sake of not looking completely asinine, he had better appear to be taking the threat seriously. From the Toronto Sun via the CJC site (its bolds):

Report; Hezbollah has moved in, former CSIS expert says, amid Israeli reports they are tracking El Al Airlines staff

A former Canadian Security Intelligence Service official says Toronto could soon discover the pitfalls of Canada's "wildly out-of-control" immigration policy after reports Hezbollah was targeting an Israeli airline in the city.

David Harris, former chief of strategic planning at CSIS, said an influx of Hezbollah and its supporters into Toronto has left the city wide open to a terrorist attack.

Israeli television claimed Hezbollah is targeting El Al Airlines, Israel's national airline, by tracking its staff staying in Toronto.

"We have got even bigger problems than we'd imagined," Harris said from Ottawa yesterday.

TOLD TO BLEND IN

"It's not a pretty situation and we are perhaps going to be very suddenly reminded of that fact at some point in the future."

El Al flight staff have reportedly been told to blend in and to refrain from wearing their uniforms in public.

The suspected terrorists were apparently seen at the Sheraton Centre Toronto Hotel, one of the hotels where the pilots and crew of the Boeing 767s that fly El Al's direct Tel Aviv-Toronto route stay.

CSIS and the Israeli consulate in Toronto refused to comment on the reports yesterday.

Scott Armstrong, a spokesman for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, said he is unaware of any specific threats but has been in regular contact with CSIS, Peel Regional Police and Transport Canada.

Peel Const. Wayne Patterson said police are monitoring the situation but are not investigating any specific threats.

But Harris, now an Insignis Strategic Research director, said the threat is "unsurprising in the extreme."

He said Toronto is effectively a second home to Hezbollah and its supporters.

It is likely Hezbollah's prominence has grown further from that displayed during the Israel-Hezbollah war of 2006.

"One should be chilled over at that thought," Harris said.

"With out-of-control immigration numbers, goodness knows what kind of influx we have experienced and then what sort of influence those interests have (generated) within the country in radicalizing individuals already here."

Bernie Farber, Canadian Jewish Congress CEO, urged caution but said the reports have to be taken seriously.

GET OUT OF HAND

He said the original Israeli television report claimed the terror cell members were arrested in Toronto.

Such reports have a tendency to get out of hand and create unnecessary fear in the community, he said.

He likened it to al-Qaida releasing threatening video tapes but then failing to follow through on their threats.

"I don't want people to think that in any way we are belittling the fact that this can happen because without question we know that this can happen," Farber said…

We “know that this can happen,” but prefer to duck and cover (and focus our efforts on hunting scary “Nazis”) until the last possible moment, so as not to disrupt our bridge-building activities with the Islamic community and our “friendships” with Mo Elmasry and Harpoon Siddiqui.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:33 | link | comments

What’s the diff?: Phyllis Chessler articulates what is perhaps the most salient difference between team Obama and team McCain:

In my opinion, President Amadinejad might indeed have  formidable opponents in Senator McCain and Governor Palin who understand that we are at war and that it is one we must win. Unlike Senator Obama,  I bet they do not view the terrorists as “perverting the Islamic faith” (Obama said this in his interview with O’Reilly) but rather, as expressing it all too well. On this very point,  (whether there is a “good” and “peaceful” Islam or not),  our Republic will either stand or fall.

And as the Republic goes, so goes the globe.

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

Par-tay!: Lahore Conference celebrates jihad.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:47 | link | comments

Moo Moo koo koo: For reasons that utterly escape me, Condi Rice has hooked up with the Rico Swavay of the Arab world, Moo Moo Gadafi. Moo Moo appears to be bowled over by Condi’s masterful ways (betokening a fondness for the dominatrix-type, perhaps?). From the New York Times:

TRIPOLI, Libya — For the first time in more than half a century, a sitting American secretary of state is in Libya. Condoleezza Rice arrived here on Friday to meet with the man whom Ronald Reagan famously called the “Mad Dog of the Middle East.”

But that was then. Ms. Rice stepped off her plane into the hot desert sunshine of the Maghreb to meet a very different Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. The Libyan leader, in the eyes of the Bush administration, is rehabilitated, his country removed from the State Department’s terrorism list, his debt to the families of the victims of the bombing of Pan Am’s Flight 103 on its way to being paid, Libya’s stockpiles of chemical weapons destroyed and its secret nuclear weapons program dismantled.

“Quite frankly, I never thought I would be visiting Libya, though this is quite something,” Ms. Rice told reporters aboard her flight to Tripoli, noting that a lot had happened since 1957, when Richard M. Nixon visited Libya as vice president in the last trip here by a high-ranking American official.

She said she had thought through what she planned to say to Colonel Qaddafi, and, not mentioning him by name, added, grinning, “I look forward to listening to the leader’s world view.”

“In Lisbon before departing for Tripoli, Ms. Rice called the visit “a historic moment,” albeit “one that has come after a lot of difficulty, the suffering of many people that will never be forgotten or assuaged, a lot of Americans in particular. It is also the case that this comes out of a historic decision that Libya made to give up weapons of mass destruction and renounce terrorism.”

Although the State Department announced Ms. Rice’s trip a few days ago, details of the visit have been shrouded in so much secrecy that even as her plane left Lisbon for the three-hour flight to Libya, many on board still did not know where she would be meeting Colonel Qaddafi. As it turned out it was in Azizia, site of the Qaddafi headquarters that were bombed by the United States in 1986.

The meeting is bound to have more punch than the by-the-book diplomatic meet-and-greets which Ms. Rice usually engages in when traveling abroad; the Libyan leader, after all, has professed a profound “love” for the American secretary of state.

Speaking to the Al Jazeera network last year, Mr. Qaddafi got downright gushy when asked about Ms. Rice. “I support my darling black African woman,” he said. “I admire and am very proud of the way she leans back and gives orders to the Arab leaders.”

He continued: “Yes, Leezza, Leezza, Leezza,” and said, “I love her very much.”…

Sounds like Moo Moo’s spent a tad too much time out in the desert sun sans his burnoose.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:49 | link | comments

Lamest. Response. Ever: Last month I sent an e-mail to the Prime Minister, various Cabinet Ministers and my MP, asking why it was that Canada, though its international development agency, CIDA, was continuing to help develop the super-infrastructure plan for Gaza, an area controlled by Hamas. I pointed out the, well, madness of such an effort, given that Hamas has an agenda of wiping out the Jewish state and that it has the dubious distinction of having made Canada’s short list of terrorist organizations. I just received the following reply, which answers my query...not in the least:

As the Minister of International Cooperation, I am responding to your message of August 7, 2008, to the Honourable Helena Guergis, Secretary of State, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, regarding Canada's position on assistance to the Palestinian Authority.

On March 29, 2006, Canada decided to suspend direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority in light of the new government’s failure to commit to the Quartet's principles of non-violence, recognition of Israel and of previous peace agreements. However, we have continued to respond to the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians with programs implemented through multilateral and other partners. Canada has also started working again with the new Palestinian government led by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in June2007.

Canada contributes humanitarian aid to assist Palestinians, especially those in Gaza. Through the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Canada focussed close to $40 million in 2006–2007 in assistance to Palestinians, delivered in large part through humanitarian assistance programs implemented by the United Nations and other multinational partners.

CIDA carefully analyzes and monitors aid recipients and works with trusted, well-established international and Canadian partners to ensure that assistance does not benefit Hamas or other terrorist groups either directly or indirectly.

Through these partnerships, Canada is working to help create an environment conducive to peace in the Middle East. Canada has a long-standing commitment to regional stability and socio-economic development in the region. We support the vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side within secure and recognized borders, and a peaceful resolution to the current conflict through negotiation. In seeking to help realize this vision, development assistance is a vital element of our Middle East policy.

Thank you for sharing your views on this important development issue.

Sincerely,
Hon. Beverley J. Oda

Oh. So CIDA is ensuring that absolutely none of its super-infrastructure planning will benefit Hamas, the terrorist group that’s in power and that has an iron grip on the benighted territory, eh? CIDA and Bev and certain that only the good citizens of Gaza, who, um, ELECTED THE BLIGHTERS and who continue to support it, are reaping the benefit of Canada’s largesse, right?

Thanks, Bev. I feel so much better now.

The most sickening part of this pathetic missive —it was written by (or at least on behalf of) a Conservative cabinet minister, who should know better. Shame on the Hon. for shovelling this warmed-over tripe.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:17 | link | comments (2)

 Gabriel’s gift of gab: Don’t miss the FrontPage Magazine interview with “Islamophobe” (as she was recently described by the usefully imbecilic New York Times) Brigitte Gabriel, who discusses her new book, They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It. Here’s a taste:

FP: What inspired this book?

Gabriel: After writing my first book, “Because They Hate,” which tells my personal experiences facing Islamic terror and is a warning to people in the West, I realized that I must go even further defining the threat we face and follow up the warning with solutions and a call to action. “Because They Hate” paved the way and prepared readers for me to take the gloves off and really define in outright terms what we and all non-Muslims are really facing. Events following the first book dramatically enabled me substantiate the underlying motivation behind Islamic terror and Islamic goals and aspirations. I felt that the additional dearth of historically proven implications of these goals can be ignored only at our own peril. Everyone must become informed and mobilized to stop them before it is too late.

FP: You title one of your chapters, Purists Drink Their Islam Straight. Tell us a little bit about what this means.

Gabriel: This is a straightforward inside look at a devout enemy motivated by religion who is willing to destroy the whole world in order to achieve our complete submission under Islam. I do not mince words. What we are calling radical Muslims are nothing more than devout purists. I quote the Koran verse after verse using the same words these terrorists use in their speeches and their videos. We have turned a deaf ear and pretend that this couldn't be true for too long. I use a publicly suppressed and potentially volatile Pentagon intelligence study on the source of Islamic extremism to substantiate the fact that it is the Koran, the holy Islamic book, that is driving them. It is the religion itself, straight from the mouth of the Prophet Mohammed, the perfect man, according to Muslims. It is not yet politically correct to talk about a religious war. But this is exactly what we are facing: a religious war declared by devout Muslims. The Islam of Mohammed is back. It’s not radical Islam. It is not Wahhabi Islam, it’s Mohammed’s original Islam. We are committing cultural suicide by turning a blind eye to the danger Islam continually spells out.

FP: What exactly is a moderate Muslim?

Gabriel: A moderate Muslim is a non-practicing Muslim. A non-practicing or non-devout Muslim is a man who doesn't pray 5 times a day, does drink alcohol, doesn't attend a mosque regularly, believes he is equal to all other people and God's creation. Does not believe that Apostates should be killed. He believes that people have the freedom to chose what religion they want to belong to. He does not believe that Jihad should be declared on non Muslims until they convert or pay the Jizya. He believes that gays should not be killed according to Sharia Law even if he disagrees with their lifestyle. He believes that his wife is his equal and is entitled to the same respect and education as any other man; that she is not his property according to the Koran; that she should not be covered from head to toe or even wear a hijab; that he does not have the right to beat her just because he is a man and she is a woman, that Jews are his equals in the eyes of God.

Most moderate Muslims do not know the real teaching of the Koran and many of them have never read it. In debates between the moderates and the radicals about the Koran, the radical always win the arguments because Islamic law is on their side. They can quote you chapter and verse from the Koran to support their arguments while the moderates just sit speechless not knowing how to respond…

And if they do respond, they can usually count on receiving a death threat or two, or twenty.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:08 | link | comments (1)

Troofer turfed: A candidate for the Greenery-Yallery Party has caught heck due to the free expression of his beliefs about “da Jews”. From the Globe and Mail (my bolds):

VANCOUVER, TORONTO -- The Green Party announced yesterday that it would drop John Shavluk, its nominee in the suburban Vancouver riding of Newton-North Delta, as a candidate over an allegedly anti-Semitic remark in a years-old blog post.

During a 2006 Internet exchange with a policeman in Washington, D.C., about conspiracy theories on the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Mr. Shavluk wrote: "hey i heard some guy in Australia knows someone who says he had something to do with your governments complicate attack on your shoddily built Jewish world bank headquarters. you know 'the 2 towers' (who has the ring I wonder) better invade there too eh,,oh no oil?..."

In a press release, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May called the comments "anti-Semitic."

She said she had spoken to Mr. Shavluk and explained that his views were not consistent with Green Party philosophy. "I will not sign his nomination papers and the Green Party will nominate another candidate."

Mr. Shavluk, 51, was outraged by the decision and categorically denied that his blog posting was anti-Semitic. He said he was merely parroting what others had been saying…

Exactly. Shavluk’s mistake: He didn’t realize that here in Canada only Muslims are given leave to “parrot” such words in public. Now, if he had limited his comments to “the Zionists,” there would have been no problem.

Live and learn, eh, John?

Update: Some more "deep thoughts" from the former candidate/atheist/wacky weed enthusiast--a peroration about how we're here for a good time, not a long time. Or something like that:

the coming apocalypse??

what do i know ,,zip,,

I'm no soooothsayer

all i look at is our past ,,
human past and that it seems to repeat

grow , kill-off , grow , kill-off ,

one hundred years ago we were all on horseback

one hundred years from now we could be again

although we will eat all of those by then and just have to make all the brown eyed people the horses,,,hahahahaha
what would be the difference?

didn't the people that had a golden cow as their god hate the ones who's god was a bird,,,hmmm what did they both switch to,,oh yeah right

the end is a personal matter for all of us, if we are lucky

i am so egotistical ,,, i think when i die ,,,,
my egg opens and i am ready to party

what all these questioners here fail to realize is the freedom one gets in this existence with certain beliefs and they also fail to realize

i may in fact be right!!! as no one really knows,,,,
oh , lots saying they do know ,,,but you and i both know ,,they don't


its the moments we created with other people
that we string together
between holocausts
that we will cherish and saver
when our time is done ,,,nothing else will matter 

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:06 | link | comments

Enquiring IOL readers want to know: Islam Online readers had oodles of queries for everyone's favourite "Islamic resistance" movement, Hamas, including one labelled, ominously yet fittingly, "Final Solution."

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:40 | link | comments

The "art" of martyrdom: Hellzbollocks mounts a gory, gruesome kitschy "art" exhibition in Lebanon.

Picasso, it ain't.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:29 | link | comments

"Fancy, dancey, prancey": What Bambi has in common with the Spitz?

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

Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck: During the dark days of WW2, when Hollywood's Official Jews were afraid to take on Hitler lest they offend, three brave and brazen knuckleheads dared to go where the timid feared to tread. Check out this JWR piece about the Stooges and their all-out comedic assault on the Nazis.

Begging the question: Where, oh where, are today's brave Stooges, willing to skewer the genocidal fascists of our era?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:01 | link | comments

Eyes wide shut: Remember how Tammy F., ever vigilant to the “real” threat to Canadian Jewry--"the Nazis"--assured us that a report about Hezbollah operating in and possibly unleashing terror here in Canada was, to say the least, farfetched?

Wrong.

Update: Tammy suggests we take the report "with a grain of salt." At the moment he's telling CFRB's Bill Carroll that we need a lot more "corroboration" before we allow ourselves to get, you know, all upset about it. (At the same time, he says he's not discounting the reality of terrorism since he's--and I quote--"been to Sderot".)

Thanks, Tammy.

Update: To clarify, Tammy wants Canadian Jews to take the whole thing with a grain of salt and also to be mindful of the fact that "there is a potential threat of terrorist attacks on them."

Okay, maybe "clarify" wasn't the right word.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:44 | link | comments (2)

Back off, kaffir!: The father of a lad who was killed in a schoolyard fracas in Saudi Arabia says he’s willing to “forgive” the two Canadian brothers implicated in the death—and thus spare them their date with the Magic Kingdom’s lord high executioner—but only if several conditions are met. From the Globe and Mail:

…He is demanding that Saudi Arabia order the death penalty for Mohamed and Sultan Kohail, a public admission of guilt from the brothers and an apology from their family for the killing of Munzer, his 19-year-old son.

Most crucially, he is asking the Canadian government to stop interfering in their case.

"When the court has taken its decision and if we have an apology, then there is a chance. We don't want to see more blood spilled," Mr. Al-Haraki said in an interview at a downtown office tower in Jeddah where his brother serves as director of a powerful consortium of Saudi companies with ties to the royal family.

"But I have a message for the Canadian government: Don't interfere and let our brand of justice run its course," he said, explaining he would forgive the Kohails only at the last possible moment - on the day of their execution, when according to Saudi law, the executioner is obliged to visit the victim's family to inquire about forgiveness that could lead to a criminal's life being spared…

In other words, there’s an outside change that these lives could be spared—on condition that Canada agrees to bow, kowtow and submit to the authority of Allah’s law.

I’d say that’s an offer we can—indeed, must—refuse.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:27 | link | comments

Palin pile-on: Have you noticed that the reaction in certain quarters to Sarah Palin’s Veep nomination is a tad, er, overheated? Not to mention splenetic, frenetic and apoplectic? Not to mention completely over-the-top verging on the bonkers?  Melanie Phillips has, and accounts for the furor as follows:

The more savage the left are about someone, the more you can be sure that they feel profoundly threatened by that person. Their vicious reaction to John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice-presidential candidate is deeply revealing -- but about themselves rather than her. They have hurled smears, contempt, condescension, ridicule and every other rhetorical missile her way. You can get a sense of the stuff being spread about her from this rebuttal by the McCain camp to this story in the New York Times, which appears to have plucked rumours circulating about Mrs Palin and published them without a qualm. (How anyone continues to take the NYT seriously beats me.)

Why do the left feel so threatened by Sarah Palin? Clearly, they see her place on the McCain ticket as a major threat to Obama and thus know they have to destroy her. The more venomous their onslaught, therefore, the greater the compliment they are paying her. But just why does she present such a danger to the Obama campaign?

On one level it’s obvious enough: she presses many of Obama’s own buttons, being young, fresh, attractive, embodying active opposition to machine politics (you surely can’t get much further away from the Beltway than Alaska) and with a compelling and poignant personal history; and she is also a woman and a mother and a successful politician, thus potentially exciting and attracting female voters. She therefore embodies youth, dynamism, change, excitement and hope – the very qualities identified with Obama and which the Democrats assumed would present such a cruel comparison with McCain.

As for her most obvious drawback -- her lack of political experience -- the Obama camp cannot use that against her without it boomeranging straight back. Their instant jibe that the neophyte Mrs Palin would be ‘merely a heartbeat away from the presidency’ loses its bite somewhat given that Obama, with even less experience than her, will not be a heartbeat away from becoming the President: he will be the President.

But there’s a deeper reason for the foaming vituperation of the left at Mrs Palin’s candidacy. It is the same reason that they lash out at all those who are not on the left: their profound lack of confidence in their own belief system. At some subterranean level, they know they are wrong and that they cannot defend their own position. Which they simply cannot bear. This is because the left is always correct, everyone else is a conservative and therefore if they are wrong about anything they will also be -- a conservative! They'd rather pull out all their fingernails. Which is why they are so vicious: instead of reasoned argument with their opponents they resort to demonisation, intimidating and browbeating any opposition or dissent to shut them up altogether.

Central to this aggressive defensiveness is their feverish characterisation of all dissent as conservatism, of conservatism as evil, fossilised, stupid and selfish, and all conservatives as hateful, decaying, cretinous and corrupt. The idea that a conservative may be an attractive, youthful, smart and principled, funky grizzly bear-hunting beauty queen doubling up as Elliot Ness doesn’t just rip apart the Democrats’ electoral strategy but the core belief of the left that they are uniquely good and everyone else is universally bad…

The Jihadists have the same “core belief”—that they are uniquely good and everyone else is universally bad. No wonder the two groups get on so well.  

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:10 | link | comments

Sock talk: The mullahs' sock thingy/bum boy, Stretch Assad, predicts a global 'disaster' if Iran is attacked.

And if Iran isn't attacked? Well, that would result in another kind of global 'disaster'--for those who don't want mad mullahs and chinless eye doctors calling the shots for the globe (and excising the 'cancers' they see as threatening its 'health').

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:16 | link | comments

My First Ramadan: Islam Online's touching story about a revert named Jelly--she used to be Catholic-- and her very first holy month as a member of the ummah.

Personally, I think she reverted because her first name is Jelly.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:33 | link | comments (1)

Ramadan in Londonistan: Thanks to some dhimmi useful idiots, the Islamic holy month isn't just for Muslims anymore.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:21 | link | comments

How Khurrum spent his summer vacation: What’s Elmo’s chief sock-thingy been up to lately? Well, it seems late last month he blew into Vancouver to participate in the same event as his sock-meister, the CIC’s Grand Poobah for life. Blogger Covenant Zone has the details:

…Khurrum Awan began his talk by making some kind of apology that confused our friend [the friend of the blogger who attended the event]. He referred to some memo he had received from his employer and suggested this was an explanation for why, despite having come all the way from Ontario, he was not as prepared to speak as he might have been.

It seems Awan told something of the story he has often told in the Canadian media and kangaroo courts about his fight against Maclean's magazine. He began by claiming there had been some long history of hate speech in Maclean's and in the National Post so that he and some law school friends decided to do something about it after counting 22 Islamophobic articles in Maclean's penned by Mark Steyn and by Barbara Amiel who is Conrad Black's wife, he desired to point out.

Our friend's mind was elsewhere when he heard Awan complaining about some writer's comment about "sheep shaggers" but those words jolted him and brought thoughts of Awan's apparent lack of concern for the young ears and perhaps the sensitivities of the women in the audience. Awan also made some sex-related comment about Aisha, the Prophet's bride, but unfortunately the logic or point in invoking this story was lost on our friend.

Awan claimed that the celebrated writer, Oriana Fallaci, whom he compared to Ernst Zundel, had been cited by some UN body for hate speech. He called Mark Steyn names along the lines of rightwing Muslim-hating bigot.

Awan said Maclean's magazine had refused to treat with him and his aggrieved lawschool friends when they first complained about the "Islamophobic" articles, because Maclean's just assumed they would go away if ignored. They didn't know Khurrum Awan, apparently.

He also said the Canadian Muslims had Jewish people to thank for going after North Vancouver columnist, Doug Collins, showing that the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal could be used to sanction hate speech. Muslims like himself, he implied, were only doing what Jews had already done. This no doubt explains why he feels somewhat upset at the waves of criticism he and his fellow "sock puppets" have received.

Awan complained about certain well known journalists for their bigotry: our friend remembers mention of the names Margaret Wente, Christopher Hitchens, Christie Blatchford, Daniel Pipes; David Warren was mentioned as not quite as bad. Referring to "right wing" writers he made some comment like "all of you know what kind of people they are".

He suggested that in response people should write letters to the editor. If the letters are not published people should complain to the press councils, though that wouldn't work with reprobate publications like Maclean's that are not a member of any press council.

Awan declared the Canadian criminal law useless for going after hate speech. Apparently the legal test to prove criminal hate speech is demanding; and so there needs to be an easier way to shut up what Awan considers to be hate mongers.

So Muslims have to mobilize politically. British Columbia Muslims should go after the media - particularly the one company that apparently controls so much of it. And they should threaten to punish the government with their votes and voices if it thinks to dismantle the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

Awan tried to get some symbolic credit for the sixteen or seventeen thousand dollars that he said he and his young law school friends have spent in pursuing Maclean's; and he bragged that they had cost Maclean's two million dollars in legal expenses and lost circulation. He said that "we" need your help; and he called on the audience to give money to help fight Islamophobia…

I can see where he’s coming from. After all, without the funds to fight “Islamophobia” (a.k.a. criticism of the jihad, sharia and the disturbing world view and actions of some of the faithful), Canadians might yet have a shot at being exposed to the truth—and then where would he and Elmo be?

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:08 | link | comments

My absolute favourite title—ever—for a paper delivered at an Islamic conference: And the winner is…Mo Elmasry’s “From Neofascist Apartheid Globalization to Fair and Equitable Globalization,” delivered by the man himself at the Cairo Islamic Conference, 2006.

I’ll do you the favour of boiling it down (not that you can't figure out what it's about on your own without even having to read the sucker): The cure for what ails the world is less power for America and the Zionists and more power for “the Third World”.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:54 | link | comments

Quadruple whammy: Michelle Malkin details the four stages of how the left deals with mouthy right chicks, a category of creature it finds particularly loathsome:

…The first stage of Conservative Female Abuse by the left is infantilization. Right-wing women can't possibly believe what they say they believe about the sanctity of life, self-defense, free markets or foreign policy. They must be submissive little dolls of the White Male Hierarchy. Or, as a far-left (Is there any other kind of left in San Francisco?) San Francisco Chronicle columnist wrote of first lady Laura Bush, they must be put in their place as "docile doormats" with no brains of their own. True to form, no sooner had John McCain announced Gov. Palin as his veep pick than jeers of "Palin = neocon puppet" sprouted across the Internet.

The second stage of CFA is sexualization. A conservative woman is not merely a sellout. She is an intellectual prostitute. Unable or unwilling to argue with them on the merits, detractors resort to mocking the physical appearance of their ideological opponents in skirts and denigrating them with vulgar epithets. MSNBC hosts insulted former GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson's accomplished wife and mother of two, Jeri Thompson, as working the stripper pole. Newspaper cartoonists Ted Rall, Pat Oliphant and Jeff Danziger have caricatured Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, including as a mammy, thick-lipped parrot and a Bush "House nigga" armed with "hair straightener." New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd derided former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, a Republican, for applying "her makeup with a trowel."

True to form, Dowd was first out of the box to snicker at Gov. Palin's beauty pageant past, ridicule her "beehive and sexy shoes" and compare her path to the vice-presidential nomination as a "hokey chick flick." Joe Biden backhandedly praised her as "good looking." And left-wing bloggers worked overtime on lurid Photoshops of Palin as a bikini model and porn star. At the Democratic Underground, a highly trafficked liberal website raising money for Barack Obama, members held a contest to come up with nicknames and posters to slime GOP Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- and then to "spread [them] all over the 'Net." Among the nicer entries: "Cruella," "Gidget," "Governor Jesus Camp," "VPILF," "Fertilla the Huntress," "Iditabroad" and "KILLER PYSCHO FUNDIE B***H FROM HELL!!"

The third stage of CFA is demonization. When the left tires of hurling whore insults, it turns conservative women in the public eye into nefarious creatures. Bill Maher called Laura Bush "Hitler's dog." George Carlin attacked Barbara Bush as "the Silver douche bag." A Huffington Post website member wrote of Nancy Reagan: "Like her evil husband, she has lived far too long. Here's hoping the hag suffers for several weeks, then croaks in the tub." Another commenter added: "I feel no pity for the bitch who took delight in watching thousands die of a horrible disease and watching the poor having to eat out of dumpsters because of her husband's political beliefs."

True to form, rumors of Palin being a crypto-Nazi surfaced on the Internet and in the fringe media. And liberal critics used her gun-rights record to smear her as bloodthirsty.

The final stage of CFA is dehumanization. Conservative women aren't real women according to the liberal feminist establishment's definition. Remember when Gloria Steinem called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a "female impersonator"? Or when curdled NOW leader Patricia Ireland instructed Democrats to vote only for "authentic" female political candidates? Or when Al Gore's fashion consultant Naomi Wolf described the foreign-policy analysis of Jeane Kirkpatrick as being "uninflected by the experiences of the female body"?...

Isn’t it ironic that, in bashing their sisters on the right, “feminists” Mo, Glo and Nao reveal themselves to be so sexist?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:14 | link | comments

What happens in Dubai doesn’t stay in Dubai: Dubai has successfully “rebranded” itself as a lavish and enticing playground, a wonderland of posh hotels, gobsmacking skyscrapers and, yes, even indoor skiing in a desert.  But make no mistake—it’s a lavish and enticing playground ruled by sharia. A couple of Brits—now on trial for allegedly engaging in some jiggery-pokery on a Dubai beach, a clear violation of Islamic law—are now finding that out, to their great dismay. Times pundit Sonia Verma comments on the case, which Dubai authorities seem to be using to underscore the reality that, even though most of the people who live and work there come from the decadent West, Dubai is and will remain a sharia entity:

...[Michelle] Palmer [the woman on trial] claims she has been slandered and humiliated by false press reports detailing her alleged encounter with Acors, who also appeared in court yesterday. Both remain free on bail, but their lives are on hold. They are barred from leaving the country until the verdict.

Palmer has previously denied prosecutors' accusations that the couple were having sex on the beach, saying in an earlier court appearance they were only hugging and kissing. However, the note goes further, saying there was never “any slur on Islam”, “any abuse/attack/hitting with shoe” nor was there “any caution” given before her arrest.

She says there is no DNA evidence, as has been widely reported, to prove that the couple had intercourse. The note also claims that Acors never “admitted to sex. He didn't”. Prosecutors in Dubai are standing by their case, which is expected to conclude after the policeman who arrested the couple gives evidence next week.

One source familiar with the case says: “The result will have far-reaching effects, because it has become a symbol of the basic contradiction of life here.” Under the rule of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al-Maktoum, Dubai has embarked on an ambitious and successful quest to become the Middle East's centre for trade and tourism: many Westerners, including the Beckhams, have invested in property. But some of its laws, rooted in Sharia and tribal life, are clearly on a collision course with the values of some of the very people it seeks to attract. Public decency laws forbid everything from kissing in public to cross-dressing. There is zero tolerance for drugs or pornography. Homosexuality is banned. So is sex outside marriage.

For years, expats have found ways around these laws. Unmarried couples who live together falsify marriage certificates when needed. Those without an alcohol licence purchase liquor through friends. But the era of authorities turning a blind eye to these violations appears to be coming to an end.

With expats now accounting for more than 80 per cent of the population, there is an emerging effort on the part of the ruling authorities to assert “Emirati values”…

The couples’ mistake: they thought they were living in Vegas when they were really living in a jazzier version of Riyadh.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:54 | link | comments

Money talks: Don’t look now, but an egregiously wealthy oil emirate which adheres to a stringent version of Allah’s law is slowly but surely buying up the world. From FT:

Fresh from buying into English Premier League football, Abu Dhabi has its eye on another trophy.

The emirate on Wednesday set out plans to become one of the world’s largest film producers, with $1bn to invest in productions to be made in Hollywood, Bollywood and beyond.

The funding, provided by Abu Dhabi’s government, will allow the Gulf state to back up to eight films a year over the next five years, Edward Borgerding, chief executive of the Abu Dhabi Media Company told the Financial Times.

ADMC has set up a company, called imagenation abu dhabi, to manage its film investments.

Confirming a report in the Financial Times, the new company on Wednesday said in a statement: “Our target output of eight films every year will make imagenation abu dhabi one of the world’s top producers of feature films and establish Abu Dhabi as a leading centre for content creation.”

Some Hollywood studios are struggling to replace the funds that rushed in from private equity and hedge funds in recent years. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer last month hired Goldman Sachs to “explore enhancements” to its long-term capital structure, amid reports Merrill Lynch was wavering in its commitment to finance MGM’s Universal Artists studio.

Abu Dhabi is seeking to usurp Dubai as the region’s leading media hub. The Islamic state remains wary of some western content, however, only agreeing to show edited versions of Syriana, the George Clooney film, because it feared that it would show the Gulf in a negative light…

Yikes! The thought of Abu Dhabi becoming a creative force in Hollywood seems to have put me off my breakfast. Let’s everyone go have lunch at McDonald's—before the Y’Abu Dhabi doers get their hands on that “trophy,” too.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:49 | link | comments

"Please come to our Jew-bash": "It won't be the same without you."

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:01 | link | comments (1)

Ceeb query: "Do you have Little Mosque mania?"

Uh, no, but some folks over in Cologne, Germany have massive mosque mania.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:33 | link | comments

Avi Lewis on al Jazeera TV: Same old Ceeb Avi; same old Ceeb guests.

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

What happens when the OIC calls the shots: What happens? The bulk of the ammo is aimed squarely at the uppity Jewish entity whose continuing existence is a rebuke to Islamic doctrine, the reason it is perceived as Islam’s greatest threat.  On the FrontPage Magazine site, Christine Williams outlines what's likely in store at Durbn II, the upcoming OIC-helmed Fiesta of Judenhass (where, as per Durban I, Israel is set to be the designated pinata):

…And if early evidence is any guide, Durban II, as the Geneva event is already being called, will be a replay of its predecessor. Consider that the chair of the conference’s planning committee is Libya, whose longtime leader, Muammar Gadhafi, has recently claimed that the Israeli Mossad aims to assassinate Barack Obama. The vice chair of the conference, meanwhile, is communist Cuba. And the fact that Iran's president has notoriously called for Israel’s destruction has not, expectedly, prevented it from playing a key leadership role in the upcoming conference.

Nor does it bode well for Durban II that its agenda will be set by the 56-member Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). In particular, the conference will consider responses to “Islamophobia.” In this connection, the OIC’s members will consider what they regard as the problematic Western right to free speech. Referring to the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed published in Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten and to “Fitna,” Dutch politician Geert Wilders’s documentary about Islam, OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu recently promised to send “a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed.” He went on to warn Western countries to “look seriously into the question of freedom of expression.”

For their part, Western countries should make clear that they will not allow the OIC to dictate what can and cannot be said about Islam. Instead, they should shift the focus onto the OIC. Instead of concerning themselves with alleged Western prejudices, Islamic states would do well to ponder the rampant racism in the Muslim World. Darfur, where an estimated 300,000 Muslims have been killed by their fellow Muslims, prompting the United Nations to call it the worst human rights disaster in the world, would be a logical starting point. From there, the OIC might consider the continued bloodshed between Shiites and Sunnis, and the fanatical suicide bombers who have claimed the lives of thousands of their co-religionists. One need hardly look to the West to find “Islamophobia” in action…

“Shift the focus onto the OIC,” huh? What a scathingly brilliant idea. Too bad most dhimmi nations are too cowed and bowed to display any testicular fortitude.