Run warm those souls: America is bad?
Sit down, stare in their faces, see!
You be the hoped-for thing a hopeless world would be.
In tides of immigrants that this year flow
You still remain the beckoning hearth they'd know.
In midnight beds with blueprint, plan and scheme
You are the dream that other people dream.
A friend of mine who works at a Washington think-tank told me to see Office Space to understand what goes on at the US State Department. Note the "TPS reports," he said.
Entertainer Bill Cosby yesterday chastised churchgoers who preach religion but fail to confront problems that plague their communities.And another from Casey Lartigue in BlackElectorate.com:, contrasting Cosby to Eric Dyson:
Over his 4 decade career, Cosby has made it clear that he believes that there are barriers (Dyson literally swoons when discussing Cosby’s 1976 dissertation bashing institutional racism). But Cosby has also made it clear that we can’t just “stay where we are.” After those four decades of giving his own money and time to the effort, Cosby may be telling people to stand up because he is tired of stepping over them.
While the Soviet Union may have stifled open internal debate about these divisive issues, it could not prevent the West, during more than forty years of the Cold War, from appealing to nationalism and making religious and ethnic freedoms, along with the defense of national cultures, into effective anti-Soviet propaganda tools. Thus positioned as defender of the rights of Christians, Jews, Muslims and other groups, the United States and its allies stoked the fires of national identity and ethnic and religious rights that burned in the memory of those who mourned a lost nation or dreamed that a motherland, gone for decades or even centuries, could rise again.
In the 1970s, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and its aftermath rekindled the late 19th century Great Game that pitted the Russian Empire against Great Britain, though now the protaganists were the Soviet Union and its successor, Russia, vying with the United States for the future of the region. Afghanistan was the tipping point: throughout the war, which was fought, on the Afghan side, largely with Western arms and financing, the thousands of guerilla fighters who poured in from other Muslim nations and their political backers used Islam as a motivating factor and argued that the presence of “atheistic” Soviet troops in Afghanistan was an offense to Muslims all over the world. In an ironic twist, for the West—particularly the United States—Islam was, for a time, a useful buffer against “the red menace” of Communism, a weapon to be wielded as necessary, and sheathed when it was no longer needed. But that decision turned out not to be one that could be made without long-term consequences: once the Soviet Union collapsed, other nations such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan saw that money and influence could be used to promote the rebirth of Islam as a potent political weapon to be used in the name of Muslim solidarity in the region but also to support their own national and regional ambitions.
Now, as competing international interests—the United States, China, and any number of Muslim states—continue jockeying for power, the newly minted Russian Federation is forced to face its own future. It may chose to be autochthonous, echoing with the Slavophile aspirations of those 19th century advocates of the supremacy of Slavic culture and historical institutions as a better model of development for Russia than the Western European one. Or it can continue the process of Westernizing begun under Peter the Great, and carried on by both the Czarist and Soviet governments, and thus continue bridging the divide between Europe and Asia. Which path Russia will follow is critical for the future of democracy in the region. Perhaps, defying hegemonies of all sorts, the new Eurasia will seek to find a way to embark upon new forms of regional cooperation suited to its common economic needs, including outreach to global markets, while at the same time leaving breathing room for discordant national, ethnic and religious interests to coexist. But even if this type of collaborative effort is a possibility, one thing is clear: throughout the region, Russian culture, language and Soviet models of governance and development still remain influential. (Let us remember, for example, that many of the newly independent states were or are still run by former KGB leaders or other strongmen.) For all these non-Russian republics—some of them multi-ethnic, including a major Russian population—the challenge is to transition from authoritarian rule to a rule of law and begin to build a future based on democratic principles that include not only free elections, free speech and freedom of assembly, but the creation of the institutions that make democracy possible. In capitals around the world, the impact of the choices made in post-Soviet Eurasia are waiting to be measured.
A more coherent forum for negotiation would combine the three European nations with the United States, China and Russia as the countries most directly affected and in the best position to act jointly in the Security Council. This could be set up after the passage of the Security Council resolution now under discussion. It would permit elaboration of the one hopeful scheme that has emerged in Iranian diplomacy. Put forward by Russia, it is to move certain enrichment operations out of Iran into Russia, thereby preventing clandestine weaponization. The new, broader forum could be used to establish an international enrichment program applicable to future nuclear technologies to curb the looming specter of unchecked proliferation.
Obviously, nuclear proliferation cannot be prevented simply by multiplying negotiating forums. The experience with existing conferences demonstrates the capacity for procrastination and obfuscation. To be effective, diplomacy must involve a willingness to provide clear penalties for obstruction.
Only after we have created the requisite negotiating framework and explored all aspects of diplomacy should the issue of military measures be addressed. But neither should force be rejected in principle and for all time before we know the circumstances in which this last resort should be considered.
The issue before the nations involved is similar to what the world faced in 1938 and at the beginning of the Cold War: whether to overcome fears and hesitancy about undertaking the difficult path demanded by necessity. The failure of that test in 1938 produced a catastrophic war; the ability to master it in the immediate aftermath of World War II led to victory without war.
The debates surrounding these issues will be conducted in the waning years of an American adm1inistration. On the surface, this may seem to guarantee partisanship. But thoughtful observers in both parties will know that the consequences of the decisions before us will have to be managed in a new administration. The nuclear issue, capable of destroying mankind, may thus, one hopes, bring us together in the end.
Sec. 1385. - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
She has had to live under police protection ever since, and when I saw her again last week in Washington, I had to notice that there were several lofty and burly Dutchmen acting in an unaffected but determined way somewhere off to the side. I would urge you all to go out and buy her new book, The Caged Virgin, which is subtitled An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam. The three themes of the story are: first, her own gradual emancipation from tribalism and superstition; second, her work as a parliamentarian to call attention to the crimes being committed every day by Islamist thugs in mainland Europe; and third, the dismal silence, or worse, from many feminists and multiculturalists about this state of affairs.
Before being elected to parliament, she worked as a translator and social worker among immigrant women who are treated as sexual chattel—or as the object of "honor killings"—by their menfolk, and she has case histories that will freeze your blood. These, however, are in some ways less depressing than the excuses made by qualified liberals for their continuation. At all costs, it seems, others must be allowed "their culture" and—what is more—must be allowed the freedom not to be offended by the smallest criticism of it. If they do feel offended, their very first resort is to violence and intimidation, sometimes with the support of the embassies of foreign states. (How interesting it is that the two European states most recently attacked in this way—Holland and Denmark—should be the ones that have made the greatest effort to be welcoming to immigrants.) Considering that this book is written by a woman who was circumcised against her will at a young age and then very nearly handed over as a bargain with a stranger, it is written with quite astonishing humor and restraint.
But here is the grave and sad news. After being forced into hiding by fascist killers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali found that the Dutch government and people were slightly embarrassed to have such a prominent "Third World" spokeswoman in their midst. She was first kept as a virtual prisoner, which made it almost impossible for her to do her job as an elected representative. When she complained in the press, she was eventually found an apartment in a protected building. Then the other residents of the block filed suit and complained that her presence exposed them to risk. In spite of testimony from the Dutch police, who assured the court that the building was now one of the safest in all Holland, a court has upheld the demand from her neighbors and fellow citizens that she be evicted from her home. In these circumstances, she is considering resigning from parliament and perhaps leaving her adopted country altogether. This is not the only example that I know of a supposedly liberal society collaborating in its own destruction, but I hope at least that it will shame us all into making The Caged Virgin a best seller.
PARIS Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali- born Dutch politician known for her criticism of Islam, said Monday that her life in the Netherlands had become untenable because of security issues and a controversy over reports that she had lied on her application for asylum in 1992.
Hirsi Ali, 36, said she would resign her seat in Parliament on Tuesday and speed up her intended departure for the United States, where she plans to take a job at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
A Muslim who has received frequent death threats from Islamic militants, Hirsi Ali is a gifted speaker and is easily one of the country's most famous politicians. But she has faced rising political pressure over charges that she lied to the immigration authorities when she fled from an arranged marriage in Somalia to hide in the Netherlands in 1992. Her critics accuse her of further polarizing the already difficult immigration debate and of alienating rather than defending Muslim women.
In a telephone interview from The Hague on Monday, she said she had learned that as a result of the asylum application controversy she might be stripped of her Dutch citizenship. She said that was the last straw in a series of setbacks that made her decide to leave for the United States a year earlier than planned.
As the young cashier took my order, she thanked me for not making a big deal out of the situation. I said: "I don't think they understood me." She replied: "I don't think they did either. It's why I just shrugged my shoulders." And that is exactly the problem. We have "shrugged" our collective shoulders far too long in response to the problem of illegal immigration. It is one thing to enter the United States illegally and not pay taxes or medical bills and lean on hard working American citizens for support. It is another to actively refuse to learn our language - english, customs, and code of public behavior. It is tantamount to a blatant slap in the face.
The Moose observes that the President may be dispatching the Guard not so much to defend the borders but rather to protect the Republican majority.
Desperate times demand desperate action. No, the Moose is not referring to the illegal immigration problem at our nation's borders. The Moose is talking about resolving the civil war within the Republican Party.
The Political Office in the White House is receiving reports that potentially millions of conservative refugees are streaming across the border from the President's popularity. They are fleeing a party that has betrayed them with high taxes and gross incompetence. These immigrants who are threatening to stay home in November and Mr. Rove must call on all of the nation's resources to send them home.
And thus, the President may call out the National Guard. Guard members have already made extraordinary sacrifices for our country and the Guard is overstretched. At least one Republican Governor has reservations about the President's plan. The New York Times,
"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California said in Sacramento that using Guard troops was "not the right way to go," in part because many were just returning from Iraq."
However, Republicans on Capitol Hill foresee a disaster of biblical proportions. To further mix metaphors, the Republican infighting on immigration has come to resemble the conflict between the Shiites and Sunnis. Peacekeepers may be called to restore order. The business Republicans and right wingers are clashing in the Halls of Congress. The President must demonstrate to the right that he is still one of them.
Therefore, he is addressing the nation to declare a national emergency- GOP control over Congress must be maintained by any means necessary.
The economy avoided two looming problems last week. First, the Federal Reserve Board’s monetary policy committee decided not to bow to pressure from the housing industry and some investors. Ben Bernanke and colleagues refused to announce a halt in its series of interest rate increases. Instead, they took short-term rates to 5%, its 16th consecutive ¼-point increase. More important, the Fed pointed out that “some policy firming may yet be needed to address inflation risks”, and then added the unexceptionable statement that it would study incoming data before deciding what to do at its next meeting. I would hope so, the alternative being to ignore the deluge of new data that will become available when the monetary policy committee again reviews its interest rate policy next month.
So, rather than give in to the increasing crowd of nervous economy watchers who see a slowing housing market as a forerunner to a major general economic softening, and announce that it would hold the line on rates, the Fed chose not to unleash inflationary expectations. With good reason. Most indicators suggest that when the Fed’s monetary policy committee next meets, inflation will be above Chairman Bernanke’s comfort zone of 1%-2%. Consider these offsets to a softening housing market:
*commodity prices are soaring;
*high gasoline prices are starting to ripple through to air fares, freight rates and other prices;
*retail sales are slowing a bit, but remain buoyant;
*wage rates are starting to rise;
*the economy is continuing to grow at something like an annual rate of 3½.
So this is not the time for the Fed to decide that its work is done, and announce that it is packing up its rate-rising tools. Better to let markets know that it is keeping its options open.
What Western intelligence authorities know about The Project begins with the raid of a luxurious villa in Campione, Switzerland on November 7, 2001. The target of the raid was Youssef Nada, director of the Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, who has had active association with the Muslim Brotherhood for more than 50 years and who admitted to being one of the organization’s international leaders. The Muslim Brotherhood, regarded as the oldest and one of the most important Islamist movements in the world, was founded by Hasan al-Banna in 1928 and dedicated to the credo, “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
The raid was conducted by Swiss law enforcement at the request of the White House in the initial crackdown on terrorist finances in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. US and Swiss investigators had been looking at Al-Taqwa’s involvement in money laundering and funding a wide range of Islamic terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, HAMAS (the Palestinian affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood), the Algerian GIA, and the Tunisian Ennahdah.
Included in the documents seized during the raid of Nada’s Swiss villa was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, which outlines a 12-point strategy to “establish an Islamic government on earth” – identified as The Project. According to testimony given to Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by “Islamic researchers” associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
What makes The Project so different from the standard “Death of America! Death to Israel!” and “Establish the global caliphate!” Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the “cultural invasion” of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood “master plan”. As can be seen in a number of examples throughout Europe – including the political recognition of parallel Islamist government organizations in Sweden, the recent “cartoon” jihad in Denmark, the Parisian car-burning intifada last November, and the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London – the plan outlined in The Project has been overwhelmingly successful.
Rather than focusing on terrorism as the sole method of group action, as is the case with Al-Qaeda, in perfect postmodern fashion the use of terror falls into a multiplicity of options available to progressively infiltrate, confront, and eventually establish Islamic domination over the West. The following tactics and techniques are among the many recommendations made in The Project:
*Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist organizations;
*Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”;
*Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals;
*Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law;
*Avoiding social conflicts with Westerners locally, nationally or globally, that might damage the long-term ability to expand the Islamist powerbase in the West or provoke a lash back against Muslims;
*Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers;
*Conducting surveillance, obtaining data, and establishing collection and data storage capabilities;
*Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of “international plots fomented against them”;
*Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements;
*Developing a comprehensive 100-year plan to advance Islamist ideology throughout the world;
*Balancing international objectives with local flexibility;
*Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant;
*Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;
*Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam;
*Drafting Islamic constitutions, laws and policies for eventual implementation;
*Avoiding conflict within the Islamist movements on all levels, including the development of processes for conflict resolution;
*Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals;
*Creating autonomous “security forces” to protect Muslims in the West;
*Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”;
*Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support;
*Making the Palestinian cause a global wedge issue for Muslims;
*Adopting the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination;
*Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against Jews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them;
*Actively creating jihad terror cells within Palestine;
*Linking the terrorist activities in Palestine with the global terror movement;
*Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world.
In reading The Project, it should be kept in mind that it was drafted in 1982 when current tensions and terrorist activities in the Middle East were still very nascent. In many respects, The Project is extremely prescient for outlining the bulk of Islamist action, whether by “moderate” Islamist organizations or outright terror groups, over the past two decades.
The changes of the early 1990s were a time of great hopes for millions of people, but neither the authorities nor business fulfilled these hopes. Moreover, some members of these groups pursued their own personal enrichment in a way such as had never been seen before in our country’s history, at the expense of the majority of our citizens and in disregard for the norms of law and morality.No wonder Cheney is angry, after all he's trying to undo FDR's New Deal here at home . . .
“In the working out of a great national program which seeks the primary good of the greater number, it is true that the toes of some people are being stepped on and are going to be stepped on. But these toes belong to the comparative few who seek to retain or to gain position or riches or both by some short cut which is harmful to the greater good.”
These are fine words and it is a pity that it was not I who thought them up. It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the President of the United States of America, in 1934.
These words were spoken as the country was emerging from the great depression. Many countries have faced similar problems, just as we are today, and many have found worthy ways to overcome them.
But this is the mother of all mother songs – the one that’s lasted longer than almost all the others, if only because its lyric is reprinted every May on a gazillion greetings cards, some of which even play the music, too. It was written in 1915 by two second-rank Alleymen, composer Theodore Morse and lyricist Howard Johnson. Morse had quite a few hits in his day, though “I’d Rather Be A Lobster Than A Wise Guy” seems to have dropped out of the repertoire, and “We’ll Knock The Heligo Into Heligo Out Of Heligoland” didn’t outlast the First World War. But “Hurray For Baffin’s Bay” was one of the big songs in the original Broadway production of The Wizard Of Oz (1904) and “Two Little Boys” was revived with great success by Australia’s didgeridoo maestro Rolf Harris and has the distinction of being one of Mrs Thatcher’s favorite songs. Howard Johnson, though no relation to the household name, did share an interest in one of the items on the menu: “I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream For Ice Cream”. He also wrote war songs – “I’d Like To See The Kaiser With A Lily In His Hand” – and novelty songs that were a bit too novel – “I Don’t Want To Get Well (I’m In Love With A Beautiful Nurse)”.
But these words are Johnson’s claim to posterity. Eva Tanguay, Broadway’s “I Don’t Care” girl, introduced it in on stage, and Henry Burr, the soft-voiced son of New Brunswick, had a huge selling 78 with it in 1916, and thereafter it became a mainstay for every sentimental Irish tenor. Happy Mother’s Day to Irish mothers, dear old mammies, red hot mamas, and all the rest. And, as it’s a spelling song, see if you can fill in the missing words:
M is for the m ------- things she gave me
O means only that she’s growing o--
T is for the t---- she shed to save me
H is for her h---- of purest gold
E is for her e--- with lovelight shining
R means r----- and r---- she’ll always be
Put them all together, they spell MOTHER
A word that means the world to me.
Some information for those who are mystified by Putin’s “Comrade Wolf” metaphor. Comrade Wolf comes from an old Soviet joke.Apparently, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack doesn't read Konstantin's Russian Blog:
Rabinovich and his pet sheep are walking in the woods. Suddenly they fall into a deep pit. A minute later a wolf also falls into the same pit. The scared sheep starts bleating. “What do you mean – baa, baa, baa?” – says Rabinovich, “Comrade Wolf knows whom to eat”.
QUESTION: What about the speech today from President Putin, his state-of-the-nation speech, where he compared the United States to a voracious wolf and said, "We are aware of what is going on in the world. Comrade Wolf knows whom to eat, it eats without listening and it's clearly not going to listen to anyone." What does that say about the state of Russia-U.S. relations and the prospects for bringing them along on this?Here's the conclusion of another version of a Russian wolf story from Sister Alyonuskha's Russian Folk Tales website, about a wolf and some baby goats he plans to eat:
MR. MCCORMACK: Secretary Rice has talked about this. We have, in many areas, a strong partnership with Russia. As for differences, you've heard about them in public over the past several months, Secretary Rice has talked about them, President Bush has talked about them, Vice President Cheney has talked about them. But we do have the kind of relationship where, if we do have differences, we'll speak about them frankly. And there are a lot of different issues on the table between the United States and Russia and we're going to try to push forward on those areas where we can. And where we have differences, we're going to try to work through them.
QUESTION: But can you specific for me on this "comrade wolf," the "voracious wolf" comment?
MR. MCCORMACK: I hadn't seen it, Jonathan, honestly. I haven't seen it before you just mentioned it.
QUESTION: You didn't see the wolf or the comment?
MR. MCCORMACK: I had not heard the comment before Jonathan brought it up. So in fairness, I'd like to take a look at it before I offer a specific response. I'm not commenting that you are not giving me the entire quote, but I'd like to take a look at the whole thing.
The Wolf did as the Fox told him and made straight for the smithy. He came up to the Blacksmith and said:
"Please, Blacksmith, forge me a new throat, for I want to bleat like a goat."
"What will I get in return?"
"I don't know what you want. We animals have no money, but I can make you a gift of some kind."
"Well, then, Wolf, bring me a pair of geese, live ones, mind, and then I'll forge you a new throat."
The Wolf went to the river bank and began crawling through the rushes there, and he was soon muddy and wet up to his ears. But he finally
managed to catch two geese, and, holding them by their wings, carriec them to the Blacksmith. He felt very cross, for he would have liked to eat the geese himself, but this he could not do as he had to keep his promise. He brought the geese to the Blacksmith and said:
"I have brought you what you asked for, Blacksmith, so now be quick and forge me a new throat."
"Very well, Wolf, it's time to get to work," the Blacksmith replied "Move up closer to the anvil, stick out your tongue as far as it will go and close your eyes, and I will be quick and do the rest."
The Wolf moved up close to the anvil, he stuck out his tongue and closed his eyes, and he stood there as if frozen to the spot. And the Blacksmith at once seized his biggest hammer and he struck the Wolf with it over the head! The Wolf dropped dead on the spot, and the Blacksmith skinned him and sold the skiji at the market for ten silver pieces. And he kept the geese for himself to be eaten when he had a mind to.
And as for the Kids, they remained alive and well.
The terrorist threat remains very real. Local conflicts remain a fertile breeding ground for terrorists, a source of their arms and a field upon which they can test their strength in practice. These conflicts often arise on ethnic grounds, often with inter-religious conflict thrown in, which is artificially fomented and manipulated by extremists of all shades.
I know that there are those out there who would like to see Russia become so mired in these problems that it will not be able to resolve its own problems and achieve full development.
I repeat that our relations with our closest neighbours were and remain a most important part of the Russian Federation’s foreign policy.
I would like to say a few words briefly about our cooperation with our other partners.
Our biggest partner is the European Union. Our ongoing dialogue with the EU creates favourable conditions for mutually beneficial economic ties and for developing scientific, cultural, educational and other exchanges. Our joint work on implementing the concept of the common spaces is an important part of the development of Europe as a whole.
Of great importance for us and for the entire international system are our relations with the United States of America, with the People’s Republic of China, with India, and also with the fast-growing countries of the Asia-Pacific Region, Latin America and Africa. We are willing to take new steps to expand the areas and framework of our cooperation with these countries, increase cooperation in ensuring global and regional security, develop mutual trade and investment and expand cultural and educational ties.Putin is attempting to put Russia back to work with the mission of "balancing" the USA, without directly opposing America or restarting the Cold War. Sort of a "loyal opposition" vision for international relations, not a threat, rather a dissenting and independent power.
I wish to stress that at this time of globalisation when a new international architecture is in the process of formation, the role of the United Nations Organisation has taken on new importance. This is the most representative and universal international forum and it remains the backbone of the modern world order. It is clear that the foundations of this global organisation were laid during an entirely different era and that reform is indisputably necessary.
Russia, which is taking an active part in this work, sees two points of being of principle importance.
First, reform should make the UN’s work more effective. Second, reform should have the broad support of a maximum number of the UN’s member states. Without consensus in the UN it will be very difficult to ensure harmony in the world. The UN system should be the regulator that enables us to work together to draw up a new code of behaviour in the international arena, a code of behaviour that meets the challenges of our times and that we are so in need of today in this globalising world.