Obama's Ramadan Message

As American, British and NATO troops continue to fight, die and be maimed in Afghanistan, as Islamic honour killings, terrorist attacks and general medieval values continue to render large parts of the world violent, backward hell holes, here is the President of the United States - the supposed leader of the free world - simpering to Islam for all he is worth.



But then what does anyone expect? For those who have forgotten or not seen it at all, this is the speech which Obama gave in Cairo back in June - a shameless mix of lies, apeasement and revisionist history, all aimed at making the Muslim world love us.

Worked out well so far, hasn't it?

Bear in mind this is also the man who has vastly increased U.S. aid to Muslim states:

In the latest in a recent series of increased American assistance efforts for Arab and Muslim states, U.S. President Barack Obama has allocated an additional $150 million to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

The regimes leading Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates and even Saudi Arabia have all benefited from recent American policy shifts.

Jordan's Minister of Planning and International Cooperation, Suhair Al-Ali, was quoted by The Jordan Times as explaining that the kingdom receives $363 million annually from the United States in economic assistance. The allocations signed into law by Obama this week mean that Jordan will receive a total of $513 million from the U.S. in 2009. The minister told the Jordanian newspaper that the additional American aid was the result of ongoing efforts by Jordan's King Abdullah II, as well as Obama's "recognition of the important role Jordan plays in the region."

Egypt received $310 million in supplemental appropriations from the U.S. House of Representatives, currently controlled by Obama's Democratic party. At the same time, 2009 State Department funding for the promotion of democratic initiatives in Egypt was cut from $50 million to $20 million. In addition, the U.S. has agreed not to give any of the pro-democracy funds to organizations that are not approved by the Mubarak regime. In the year 2007, Egypt received a total of $2.4 billion.

On another front, in March of this year, it was reported that the Obama administration planned to dramatically increase funding to the Palestinian Authority for security training, which is conducted by Jordanian police under the supervision of U.S. General Keith Dayton. The U.S. allocated $75 million for the PA police training in 2008, but reports indicated that the Obama administration was planning to pump up to $130 million into the program in 2009. In any event, the U.S. has already pledged $600 million in funds to the Palestinian Authority, with another $300 million for humanitarian aid to the Hamas regime in Gaza.

In Pakistan, the U.S. president proposed $2.8 billion in aid for that nation's military, alongside civilian aid of $1.5 billion a year for the next five years.The military aid is ostensibly to allow the Pakistanis to more effectively fight jihadist and al-Qaeda terrorism emanating from the Swat Valley and along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

The man who has sent more military aid to Lebanon, even whilst it refuses (or cannot) disarm Hezbollah, and cannot guarantee weapons will not fall into their hands.

The man whose government has sent aid money to "Palestine" which has been spent on honouring murderous terrorists:

The PA chose to name its latest computer center “after the martyr Dalal Mughrabi,” who led the most deadly terror attack in the country’s history. Her 1978 bus hijacking killed 37 civilians, 12 of them children, including American photographer Gail Rubin. The new center is funded by Abbas’s office, which is bolstered by Western aid money. (Al-Ayyam, May 5).

US law prohibits the funding of Palestinian structures that use any portion of their budget to promote terror or honor terrorists. But $200 million of the US’s proposed $900m. aid package is earmarked to go directly to the Abbas government, which regularly uses its budget to honor terrorists. In fact, this latest veneration of Mughrabi is not an isolated case, but part of a continuing pattern of honoring terrorists that targets children in particular.

Last summer the PA sponsored “the Dalal Mughrabi football championship” for kids, and a “summer camp named for martyr Dalal Mughrabi… out of honor and admiration for the martyr.” It also held a party to honor exemplary students, also named “for the martyr Dalal Mughrabi,” under the auspices of Abbas and at which Abbas’s representative “reviewed the heroic life of the martyr [Mughrabi] (Al-Hayat al-Jadida, July 23, 24 and August 8, 2008). All these PA-funded activities were to teach kids that a killer of women and children is a role model.

TWO MONTHS AGO, 31 years to the day after the Mughrabi murders, PA TV broadcast a special program celebrating the terror attack, calling the killing of 37 civilians “one of the most important and most prominent special operations… carried out by a team of heroes and led by the heroic fighter Dalal Mughrabi” (PA TV March 11). And its not just Mughrabi who is a Palestinian hero. Despite professions in English by Abbas and other PA leaders that they reject terror, the PA has a long and odious history in Arabic of celebrating terrorists as role models and heroes, often involving US money.

USAID spent $400,000 in 2004 to build the Salakh Khalaf soccer field. After Palestinian Media Watch reported that Khalaf was the head of the Palestinian terror group that murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics and two American diplomats in Sudan, USAID publicly apologized and said it would demand that the PA change the name. The name was never changed.

The man whose administration is also busy making sure that American charity donations can reach Hamas and Fatah - without worrying about trivial nonsense such as being in violation of U.S. law.

The man who sanctioned the release of the 'Irbil 5', Iranian special forces sent into Iraq to kill American and British soldiers:

A senior Qods Force officer who led one of the three commands in Iraq assigned to attack US and Iraqi forces was one of five Iranians released by the US military on July 9.

Mahmud Farhadi, the leader of the Zafr Command, one of three units subordinate to the Qods Force's Ramazan Corps, was among five Iranians turned over to the Iraqi government and then subsequently turned over to the Iranians.

A spokesman from the Iranian foreign ministry identified Farhadi as one of the five men released on July 9, according to a report on Iranian state-run television.

Reports initially indicated that five Iranians who were captured by the US in Irbil in northern Iraq in January 2007 were released from custody. But US military intelligence officials told The Long War Journal that Farhadi was disguised as one of the Irbil Five to soften the blow of the release.

The US had previously released two members of the Irbil Five in November 2007, according to The Associated Press, but the report received little attention. This "left room for Farhadi to be pawned off as one of the Irbil Five and snuck out the back door," one official told The Long War Journal.

The Ramazan Corps is responsible for the death of hundreds of US soldiers in Iraq,and the corps backed the various uprisings by Shia extremist groups. Ten percent of US deaths in Iraq are estimated to have been caused by the Iranian-supplied, armor-piercing explosively-formed projectiles, or EFPs.

US intelligence officials who directly deal with the Iranian threat in Iraq are dismayed by the release of the Qods Force agents, who they believe will quickly return to initiate attacks on US and Iraqi forces.

The US will continue to release more of these dangerous Iranian agents as time goes by, intelligence officials say.

"If you didn't like the release of Laith and the Irbil Five, you'd better get used to it," one official told The Long War Journal on July 11.

His DHS chief, Janet Napolitano, hired this man, whilst ranting about how people with anti-Obama bumper stickers or an independent mind will be the real downfall of the United States:

An Arab politician recently appointed to a key position by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano helped raise funds for an Islamic group that has labeled a deadly anti-U.S. terrorist attack a legitimate operation, referred to terrorists as "freedom fighters" and equated Muslim jihad with the sentiments of American statesman Patrick Henry, WND has learned. In April, Napolitano appointed Arif Alikhan, then Los Angeles deputy mayor of homeland security and public safety, to serve as assistant secretary for the Office of Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security.

WND has learned that just 13 days prior to his appointment by Napolitano, Alikhan joined the Muslim Public Affairs Council, or MPAC, for a special fundraiser called "Be the Change" to support what the group calls its innovative leadership development programs.

MPAC describes itself as "a public service agency working for the civil rights of American Muslims, for the integration of Islam into American pluralism, and for a positive, constructive relationship between American Muslims and their representatives." The organization has eight chapters in California and one each in Texas, Kansas, Nevada and Iowa.

According to Discover the Networks, MPAC asserts the Hezbollah terrorist organization "could be called a liberation movement" and likens Hezbollah members to American "freedom fighters hundreds of years ago whom the British regarded as terrorists."

Indeed, terrorism expert Steve Emerson notes that in a 1999 position paper, MPAC justified Hezbollah's bombing of the American Marine barracks as a "military operation" rather than a terrorist attack.

A few hours after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, MPAC co-founder Marayati told a Los Angeles talk radio audience: "If we're going to look at suspects, we should look at the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list, because I think this diverts attention from what's happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies."

On his watch, a Congress-funded think tank urged talks with Hamas - "from an Islamic point of view":

Since Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal’s interview with the New York Times last month, some analysts have sugggested that Hamas is becoming more pragmatic.

This new reportfrom the United States Institute for Peace (USIP), which describes itself as a “nonpartisan, US Congress established and funded organization”, seems well timed then.

The report - titled “Hamas: Ideological Rigidity and Political Flexibility” - explores the idea that Hamas might be influenced in negotiations by using an “Islamic point of view”.

The report suggests that “it is not inevitable that Hamas will accept coexistence” but that “acceptance [of Israel] is more likely if it is framed within its Islamic ideology.”

The report’s authors - Paul Scham and Osama Abu-Isrhad, Jewish and Muslim respectively - say they have different ideological backgrounds, but agree that negotiations are possible with Hamas if participants are willing to work around Hamas’ religious rhetoric, which will not change: “Although Hamas, as an Islamic organization, will not transgress shari‘a, which it understands as forbidding recognition [of Israel], it has formulated mechanisms that allow it to deal with the reality of Israel as a fait accompli.

These mechanisms include the religious concepts of tahadiya [short-term calming period] and hudna [longer-term truce] and Hamas’s own concept of “Palestinian legitimacy.”

His tenure to date has also seen Islamist shills within the United States become emboldened. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) sent out 100,000 free Korans to leading American politicians and other figures back in June:

On Tuesday, June 30, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) will hold a news conference in Washington, D.C., to announce the launch of a major campaign to distribute free copies of the Quran, Islam's revealed text, to 100,000 local, state and national leaders.

CAIR's "Share the Quran" educational campaign was prompted by President Obama's recent address to Muslims worldwide in which he quoted from that holy text.

In the multi-year initiative, American Muslims will sponsor Qurans for distribution to governors, state attorneys general, educators, law enforcement officials, state and national legislators, local elected and public officials, media professionals, and other local or national leaders who shape public opinion or determine policy.

They also chose around that time to tell the FBI that American mosques were "off limits":

Revelations that the agency has been surveilling popular leaders and infiltrating mosques and schools has many organizations turning away from their post-9/11 cooperation.

As they sipped tea and nibbled on dates, more than 100 men and women listened to a litany of speakers sounding the same message: The FBI is not your friend.

"We're here today to say our mosques are off limits," Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations for Greater Los Angeles, told the crowd last month at an Anaheim mosque.

"Our Koran is off limits," Ayloush said. "Our youth, who they try to radicalize, are off limits. Now is the time to tell them, 'We're not going to let this happen anymore.' "

Such strong words from a man who once was a vocal advocate of ties with federal law enforcement was yet one more signal that the fragile relationship between Muslim American groups and the FBI is being tested.

Add that to a series of domestic terror plots and the murder of a soldier on U.S. soil, all barely mentioned by Obama, and I suppose you can see why it is a happy Ramadan for some.

For those of us who have to stare in disbelief at this tragedy which has befallen the world's most powerful nation - not quite so much.

The Daily Mail Suffers a Sense of Humour Failure

The Daily Mail brings us the following outrageous, barely believable story from this year's BNP Red, White & Blue Festival:

The BNP have often denied being a racist party.

But as a man dressed as U.S. president Barack Obama was put in stocks, the true colours of the party were clear for all to see.

The shocking scene was part of the BNP's annual Red, White and Blue festival which is taking place in Codnor, Derbyshire this weekend.

So, what we are supposed to conclude here is that because Obama is black, he is above mockery and being lampooned, something which pretty much all politicians all over the world are subjected to (except of course in repressive states)?

Would we be urged to be disgusted if the mask depicted Reagan, Thatcher, Bush, even Brown?

It's clearly a charity game where people throw wet sponges at the person in the stocks, not an effigy; perhaps the BNP simply have contempt for the man and his ridiculous policies, or his even more ridiculous cult of celebrity.

Perhaps they should have made a film imagining his assassination instead - it might have been shown on Channel 4!

Incidentally, I don't remember the Mail concluding that, for example, the following shocking scenes show the true nature of Islam:

Which one is a bit of harmless fun with a political flavour, and which one is genuine murderous hatred?

Ex-Guantanamo Detainee Fighting in Afghanistan

As if coalition forces fighting in Afghanistan don't face enough dangers already, it has been revealed that one of the Taliban leaders fighting in Helmand province was released from Guantanamo Bay - after telling a review board it would be fine to fight Jihad against Americans and Jews - if they 'were invading his country'.

From the New York Post:

KABUL, Afghanistan -- As Marine Corps forces roll into southern Afghanistan, they face an enemy familiar to US officials -- Mullah Zakir, a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner who now leads a reconstituted Taliban.

Abdul Qayum Zakir, also known as Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, is from Helmand Province and has taken a circuitous route to become head of the radical Islamic group.

Zakir was a senior fighter during the Taliban regime in the 1990s. In a memorandum prepared for his administrative review board at Guantanamo, Zakir apparently "felt it would be fine to wage jihad against Americans, Jews, or Israelis if they were invading his country."

And he acknowledged that he was "called to fight jihad in approximately 1997," when he joined the Taliban.

In 2001, he surrendered to US and Afghan forces in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif as the regime was collapsing. He spent the next several years in custody, was transferred to Guantanamo around 2006, then to Afghanistan government custody in late 2007, and was eventually released around May 2008. American officials won't say why he was let go and have not released a photograph of him.

Zakir wasted little time rekindling his relationship with the Taliban, especially its inner shura, or leadership council, based in Pakistan. According to some accounts, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar appointed Zakir as a senior military commander in mid-2008. He quickly developed a reputation as a charismatic leader.

By this time, the Taliban had established a system of shadow-government structures in parts of Afghanistan: provincial governors, military commanders, and mullahs who served on Islamic courts.

The Taliban's goal, as with many insurgent groups, has been to provide more effective law and order than the Afghan government. But it has been one of the most oppressive governments in modern history, banning many forms of entertainment, prohibiting women from working, and conducting public executions of suspected collaborators.

It was in this context that Zakir made his defining contribution to the southern insurgency -- and created an opportunity for US forces to exploit. Early this year, he began to reorganize the Taliban. He helped create an "accountability commission" to monitor and evaluate the performance of key Taliban leaders and track spending.

In some ways, Zakir's efforts paralleled those of the United States, which was laying out a new Afghanistan strategy under the Obama administration at about the same time. The Taliban, apparently concerned that some governors and military commanders had become ineffective and bracing for the growing US military presence, announced its own new strategy in April.

They called it Operation Nasrat ("victory") and pledged to use "ambushes, offensives, explosions, martyrdom-seeking attacks, and surprise attacks." The Taliban also warned that they would attack "military units of the invading forces, diplomatic centers, mobile convoys and high-ranking officials" of the Afghan government.

As Marines move through Helmand, they will be on the lookout for Zakir and his support network. But like many senior Taliban leaders, Zakir spends a lot of time in Pakistani cities like Quetta and Karachi, frightened he'll be killed in an attack.

Zakir's restructuring presents an opportunity for NATO and Afghan forces. As in any business reorganization, firing senior leaders is bound to create a contingent of disgruntled individuals who may be co-opted to turn against the Taliban. A number of fired Taliban commanders have apparently refused to give up their jobs.

As part of the current US military offensive, Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson stated that "where we go, we will stay and where we stay, we will hold, build, and work toward transition of all security responsibilities to Afghan forces."

The allies will need the support, or at least acquiescence, of local Afghans -- including tribes and subtribes that oppose the Taliban but have been intimidated because Afghan and NATO forces have failed to protect them.

The face of the Taliban may not be new, but defeating the Taliban and other insurgent groups requires taking advantage of their vulnerabilities and better understanding local politics in Afghanistan.

I thought the point of fighting this war was to destroy the Taliban; how can we do that when we can't even neutralise a dangerous fanatic who was held in our custody for several years?

This weekend saw three British soldiers die within 24 hours. I think real questions need to be asked about what this war has achieved and can achieve.

Richard Reid's Father on 'Obama the Merciful'

Richard Reid is a British-born Muslim convert currently serving life in a U.S. jail after trying to blow up a transatlantic jet with explosives hidden in his shoes.

His father has released a letter to the British press in which his son brands Obama as no better than Bush, insisting that the only difference between the two men is the fact that Bush 'was more open in his enmity towards Islam'.

Of course. I quite clearly remember Bush taking the opportunity of all eyes being upon him after 9/11 to declare that Islam, the religion in whose name 3,000 of his own citizens were slaughtered on their own soil, was 'a religion of peace, love and tolerance'.

Harsh words indeed.

Reid's father sounds almost as crazy as his son:

Robin, 59, who lives near Southampton, said: "They've censored part of the letter where he tells me the reason he is on hunger strike.

"But I know from earlier letters that all he ever does is study Islam - so he must be protesting about something to do with that.

"It must be because they are stopping him getting the materials like books he needs which is infringing his human rights."

He added: "I don't want my son to die. Islam is all he cares about, not himself.

"Personally, I don't agree with his view of Obama and I think he is a breath of fresh air after Bush. But he is right that we should be wary of any new president.

"I'm writing to tell him that he should have more faith in Obama, though. I haven't been allowed to visit all my son in jail and maybe my only hope of ever seeing him again is if someone merciful like Obama realises he's that just an idealist who never really wanted to kill anyone."

He said released the photo "so Richard does not get forgotten about and people hear what he has to say".

Mr Reid insisted: "I believe he deliberately made a hash of it on that plane and tried to get caught before he hurt anyone. If he had been serious, he'd have gone to the toilets to set off his bomb.

"He was convinced of his cause and sure that American policy under Bush was wrong - and he tried to make a dramatic statement. But I will never believe he was serious about killing anyone."

Reid has made it quite clear that his Islamic faith is fuelled by hatred and murderous intent, ranting about Bush against all facts and logic when Islamic hatred of America and the entire non-Muslim world is rooted deep.

Why should the prison authorities not prevent his studies on that basis?

To call a man who wanted to kill as many innocents as possible 'an idealist' is simply an insult.

What interests me is the fact that Robin Reid seems to think that Obama might somehow have some empathy with his son - where could he have got an idea like that?

As much as I dislike Obama and disagree with pretty much all he has said and done to date, I'm not sure even he would be brave enough to publicly show solidarity with Reid or his sordid cause.

Four Uighur Terror Suspects Living it up in Bermuda

After the idea of releasing inmates from Guantanamo Bay into mainstream American society was resoundingly rejected, Barack Obama had to look around for governments gullible or eager to please enough to take the inmates who were blocking the camp's closure.

Where to resettle the 17 Uighur inmates was a particularly pressing problem - as America pressured smaller governments to accept the men, China was also putting pressure on countries to reject them.

The Uighur are China's Muslim, Turkic minority, and many desire the independence of their home province, Xinjiang, from China. Because of this, China has demanded their repatriation so they can be put on trial. To be completely fair, whilst assuring us that they are not 'enemy combatants', the U.S. has failed to explain the presence of the men in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they were arrested.

It was announced on Saturday that the small Pacific island nation of Palau would take 13 of the men for 'temporary resettlement'. It seemed the perfect solution - Palau got $200 million in development aid, and it has no diplomatic relations with China. They would also get favourable conditions when re-negotiating a defence agreement with the United States.

What of the remaining 4 Uighurs?

Well, Obama palmed them off on the island of Bermuda, a British Overseas Territory located about 640 miles south west of North Carolina.

The only problem is that he failed to get the permission of officials in London - or even tell them that the deal was taking place:

The Foreign Office responded with ill-disguised fury tonight after it emerged that Britain's oldest colony has done a deal behind its back with the U.S. to accept four Guantanamo detainees.

The four Chinese Uighurs are already on the tiny North Atlantic island, with the U.S. Justice Department extending its thanks to the semi-autonomous Government of Bermuda.

But the Foreign Office slammed Bermudian Premier Ewart Brown's decision to accept the detainees without consulting the British Governor on the island first.

Though Bermuda's Constitution renders it largely independent, Britain retains control over four reserve powers including international affairs and security.

Tonight Sir Richard Gozny, Governor of Bermuda, said he and London had no knowledge of the deal struck by the Bermuda government.

He said: 'We were not involved in the negotiations, and we should have been. The government of Bermuda should have consulted government house at every stage and through me the British government.

'They didn’t do that.

'This is an issue that goes far wider than these four individuals. We now need to assess these four individuals.'

He said London has launched urgent talks with Washington.

Announcing the decision to accept the Guantanamo detainees this morning, Premier Ewart Brown said they would have the option to apply for Bermudian status - making them citizens of the British colony and theoretically able to apply for a British passport. He told a press conference: 'These men are landed in Bermuda in the short term, provided with the opportunity to become naturalized citizens and thereafter afforded the right to travel and leave Bermuda, potentially settling elsewhere.'

Ah yes. So, send them to a small country which does not have the power to resist - then let them apply for their Western passports later, when all the fuss has died down.

Some typically Machiavellian thinking from the Obama administration there.

The four men in question are Abdul Nasser, Huzaifa Parhat, Abdul Semet and Jalal Jalaladin. They were secretly flown to Bermuda two days ago, and are now living in beach front cottages at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Bermudian Home Affairs Minister David Burch made it quite clear that the men are innocent and more than welcome in Bermuda - but he did concede:

'We've underlined to the Bermuda Government that they should have consulted with the United Kingdom as to whether this falls within their competence or is a security issue, for which the Bermuda Government do not have delegated responsibility,' an FCO spokesman said.

'We have made clear to the Bermuda Government the need for a security assessment, which we are now helping them to carry out, and we will decide on further steps as appropriate.'

Yesterday the Daily Mail treated us to a spread about the new lives the Uighur are enjoying in Bermuda, which is a millionaire's playground with one the highest GDPs on earth.

They enjoyed sunset swimming, fishing, and a spot of shopping. Their dream is to open Bermuda's first Uighur restaurant:

'When we didn't have any country to accept us, when everybody was afraid of us ... Bermuda had the courage and was brave enough to accept us,' said Abdulla Abdulgadir, who at 30 is the youngest of the four men who relished their first weekend of freedom in seven years.

'We are not moving anywhere,' he said.

He and his companions have traded drab prison jumpsuits for comfortable cotton pants and knit shirts, and razor wire-encircled jail compounds for beach cottages, where they are staying at U.S. taxpayers' expense.

They hope to quickly find jobs in Bermuda - one of the world's wealthiest places because of its financial and insurance sector - and eventually start families.

The four Uighurs (pronounced WEE'-gurs) also have immediate priorities, such as learning to drive, scuba dive and bowl, said Glenn Brangman, a former military official who is helping reintroduce them to the world outside prison.

'I told them one step at a time,' Mr Brangman said. 'They're beginning to live all over again.'

The latest developments have sparked a rash of jokes with Bermuda's tourism slogan 'feel the love' changed to 'Bermuda, it don't GITMO better than this'.

Aww. Despite all the cries about innocence - still no one has explained just what they were doing when they were captured, or why so many released prisoners from Guantanamo returned to terrorism, often fighting against Allied troops in Afghanistan.

Let's hope that this decision doesn't turn out to be as rash as it first appears.

U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Shooting

A National Socialist called James von Brunn walked into the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. late yesterday and opened fire with a rifle.

Von Brunn is 88 years old, and has been described as a 'hardcore neo-Nazi'. His rampage left a security guard, Stephen T. Johns, dead.

Fortunately, he was badly wounded by two other guards before he could kill anyone else.

An event like this is tragic, and puts the dangers of extremism and being blinded by ideology into a great deal of perspective.

But it seems that some sections of the media are portraying this maniac, a committed Nazi, as simply an ambiguous 'Right-wing extremist' - and going as far as to suggest that if conservatives didn't exist, if we all loved Obama or Islam more, the world wouldn't be such a bad place and people like this wouldn't exist.

What nonsense. Vlad Tepes writer ' jdamn' claims that some of Von Brunn's disgusting writings have been quoted to him by Muslims during past arguments.

This stuff includes, apparently, not only anti-semitism and denial of the Holocaust, but unadulterated hatred of Christianity. He also loathed, amongst others, George W. Bush and John McCain.

Barack Obama said he was 'saddened' by the shooting, but you have to wonder.

Wasn't it Jeremiah Wright, the black racist Obama spent over 20 years listening to, who recently said something like 'Obama doesn't talk to me anymore, the Jews don't allow it?' The black supremacist and racist movements are well known for their anti-semitism.

Didn't Obama very recently show the soles of his shoes in a photograph taken whilst he was on the phone to the Israeli government?

Wasn't it just yesterday that Obama's lackeys told Benjamin Netanyahu that he had no right to be involved in deciding the fate of his nation's capital, Jerusalem, with George Mitchell saying:

“We are going to change the world. Please, don’t interfere.”

Whatever MSM commentators seem to think, anti-semitism's growth is mainly on the Left. That is where the real danger lies, for it is where the power lies - and the existence and actions of scum such as von Brunn does not change that.

The Post-Cairo Middle East

Well, all of Barack Obama's simpering appeasement to the Muslim and Arab world really paid off.

A couple of very recent incidents show just how successful talking to and trying to understand your opponents can be. Particularly when they are as tolerant and rational as many found in 'Palestine' and the wider Arab world.

Israel Matzav reports that on the 6th June, Arab journalists who had clearly absorbed Obama's message of peace and love refused to attend an interview because it would mean sitting next a Jewish Israeli:

Yediot Aharonot reports that after basking in the light of President Obama for an hour in Cairo on Thursday, two Arab journalists out of seven didn't show up for an interview with The One because an Israeli Jew (Nahum Barnea of Yediot) was also invited (translation from The Weekly Standard via Memeorandum).

After Obama’s speech yesterday at Cairo University, we gathered, six senior journalists from all over the Muslim world and I, the reporter for Yedioth Ahronoth, around a circular table in a side room. The president wanted to give us an interview.

The original group had eight. The Syrian did not show after hearing that a reporter from Israel had been invited. The Lebanese, Naoum Sarkis, had been sitting with us all at the front of the hall but when he realized where I was from and whom I was representing, he passed on the opportunity and fled.

If further proof were needed that a new era in Jewish-Arab relations beckons, today Arab militants launched an attempted terrorist attack on Israel from Gaza.

Around ten men fired upon the Israeli military, and four were killed when the Israelis returned fire. With them the terrorists had horses which had been booby-trapped with explosives.

It is believed that they were either trying to abduct Israeli soldiers or attack a nearby Israeli community.

As Israeli tanks and helicopters came to assist ground troops, mortar shells were fired from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip to help the cell escape.

Aussie Dave over at Israelly Cool covers this story in more detail, but he also has some information on what became of 48 ambulances donated by other Arab states during January's conflict in Gaza:

“The [Palestinian] Health Ministry stated yesterday that Hamas militias had raided 46 ambulances, donated by Arab states during the recent aggression on the Gaza Strip, of the medical equipment that they contained… and used them as military vehicles to arrest civilians, after painting [the ambulances] black.

The Ministry’s director of public relations and information, Dr. Omar Nasr… said that the medical equipment removed from the ambulances was expensive. He demanded that the Hamas militias declare, courageously and openly, what had become of the thousands of tons of medical equipment which had been brought into the Gaza Strip as assistance for the Palestinian people, and which had passed at its [Hamas's] orders to private warehouses and its own medical centers, and was later sold to the helpless citizen…”

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 20, 2009]

Seems that the peace plan is on track. Occidental Soapbox has a very good rebuttal to Obama's speech - well worth a watch. A transcript can be found at his blog.

Obama in Germany

After he compared Palestinians to every fashionably oppressed group on earth yesterday in a speech given at a university from which rabidly anti-semitic clerics and Islamic terrorists have graduated, Obama flew on to Germany.

After speaking with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Dresden, they went on a 'personal' tour of Buchenwald concentration camp.

Naturally, Obama seized on the opportunity to pretend that modern animus from the West to those who wish to destroy it is the route not only of all evil, but to another tragedy such as the Holocaust - merely one day after appeasing those who wish to launch the next Holocaust, including the Muslim Brotherhood:

Obama said he wants to "reflect on this difficult history" on his visit because it is a reminder of the "dangers when peoples are in conflict and not acknowledging a common humanity."

But Obama stressed that he also wants to "celebrate how out of tragedy you now have a unified Europe," and he wants to highlight the power of "reconciliation, forgiveness and hope."

We may have a unified Europe for now, but unity is not about stifling conformity - it is about the recognition of differences and also the right to be different.

I'm fairly certain that if Europe's unity was important to Obama, he would not be pressing for the admission of Turkey to the Union.

Difference and hostility are not the same thing. Accepting that some things don't fit or won't work is not xenophobia or hatred.

Anyway, Obama was very keen to play up his personal connection to Buchenwald - his grandmother's brother Charles Payne, now 84, was one of the first U.S. soldiers to come into contact with the wickedness of the Holocaust - his unit liberated Ohrdruf, a sub-camp attached to Buchenwald.

Mr Payne was not present at the tour, but he will attend tomorrow's D-Day landing commemorations in Normandy.

What is interesting is that last week, the Telegraph ran an article in which Mr Payne, pictured below, took the unprecedented step of showing Obama up for the vain, posturing politico that he undoubtedly is.

Barack Obama faced unprecedented public criticism from a member of his own family when his great uncle said he was only visiting a concentration camp next week for 'political reasons'.

Asked if his great nephew was following in his footsteps, which the White House has suggested as a reason for the trip, Mr Payne told the German magazine Der Spiegel: "I don't buy that. This is a trip that he chose, not because of me I'm sure, but for political reasons."

Denting the normally smooth-running presidential public relations machine, he added: "Perhaps his visit also has something to do with improving his standing with Angela Merkel. She gave him a hard time during his campaign and also afterwards."

Exposing the haste with which political biographies can be formed, Mr Payne expressed surprise at how his great-nephew had used his wartime experiences on the campaign trail. As a candidate, Mr Obama used the wartime service of his white mother's parents and family to allay concerns about his heritage.

"I was quite surprised when the whole thing came up and Barack talked about my war experiences in Nazi Germany. We had never talked about that before," he said, adding that he enjoyed a "warm and friendly relationship" with his great nephew, though he was not part of his inner circle.

The first time they discussed his participation in the war was when Mr Obama wrongly said during the campaign that Mr Payne had "liberated" Auschwitz. Opponents swiftly pointed out that had been done by the Red Army.

"He couldn't have gotten it from me since we had never talked about this particular episode in the war," he said. "My sister and her husband were both great storytellers and sometimes made up the details to go along with it. They told him about my deployment with the 89th Infantry Division and apparently they mixed up a few details."

Mr Obama soon called Mr Payne to check the details of his war experience, he said. "He wanted to know where this camp was that I had helped liberate. I told him that it was Ohrdruf and that it was a subcamp of the Buchenwald concentration camp. I described a little bit of what I had seen," he said.

Well, there you have it from the horse's mouth. Not only is Obama not really interested in his own family's history (well, the non-Muslim, non-Marxist parts at least), he is not really interested in Europe's past or future, or the tragedy which befell the Jewish people and millions of others over 60 years ago.

He is slightly more dangerous than 'all talk, no action', however; he wants to take actions, no matter how ill-advised or proven foolish by history, which make him look good today - and sod the consequences tomorrow.

It's not as if he has to live in a defenceless Israel or a Europe in which tens of millions of illiterate Muslim peasants have freedom of movement, after all.

He can sit with his bodyguards behind gates and tell his grandchildren that he is the great peacemaker, the man who united the people of the world into one mind.

By that point, perhaps there won't be anyone left who wishes to contradict him - such are the gifts ego and ideology combined give to formerly free people.

Obama in Cairo

When Barack Hussein Obama was asked why he stopped in Saudi Arabia before making his much anticipated keynote speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, he gave the following answer:

'I thought it was very important to come to the place where Islam began and to seek His Majesty's counsel and to discuss with him many of the issues that we confront here in the Middle East.'

This tells us an awful lot; it tells us that whilst playing peacemaker, Obama isn't really interested in peace. He is interested in how he can surrender whilst saving the most face and still having the opportunity to be elected for a second term. Who, serious about pursuing peace and freedom, would seek the counsel of one of the bloodiest despots the modern world has known?

What were we treated to when he got to Cairo?

The sight of Hillary Clinton, who merely a year and a half ago was apparently pushing the envelope for women's rights by attempting to become the first female President of the United States, simpering in a hijab.

The British media fawning over the sight of armed, masked Palestinian militants, the likes of which have been responsible for the deaths of countless innocents, watching Obama's speech on the television.

We were also, predictably, treated to apologies, lies, distortions and revisionist history, but we will come to the actual speech in a moment.

Obama apparently fancies himself as a peacemaker. Many feel that his vision is the way forward. The point which he is unable or unwilling to grasp is that you cannot make peace of any kind with those who wish to fight you, who are determined to cause you harm.

You can lay down your arms, plead and beg, refuse to hit back - but if your assailant is determined or aggrieved, it will simply not work. In the case of the clash between the West and the Muslim world, our deference makes many Muslims feel more aggrieved, not less - by admitting to mistakes we haven't made and apologising for things we haven't done, we only pour fuel on the fantasist flames of injustice.

For all Obama has done today, selling out his allies, apologising for the history and achievements of America and the West in general - Islam and many Muslims won't hate us any less. They will simply scent victory.

As Obama arrived in the Middle East, Osama bin Laden released an audio tape condemning him for sowing hatred in the Arab world, and urging all proper Muslims not to be fooled by his talk of peace.

That aside, you would think that a fortnight which has included a plot to bomb synagogues and shoot down military jets, plus the killing of an American soldier, all on American soil might make Obama think - America may not be at war with Islam, but many Muslims seem very much under the impression they're at war with America - even the American ones.

The speech was an elaboration on the one he made to the Turkish parliament back in April. I very much doubt anyone would want to sit through 55 minutes of it, but I will present the full video anyway:

A full transcript can be found here.

The speech itself is, quite simply, shameless. We get treated to a list of grievances the Muslim world has against the West at 'this time of tension' - but of course, no mention of Jihad, of Islamic expansion, piracy and slavery, no mention of the desecration of the sacred sites of other religions.

Of course, there is no mention at all of the gifts which Western civilisation has given the world.

Obama is also desperate to draw attention to his own links to Islam - with no mention at all of the silence such links received during the election campaign:

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

This would presumably be the same dignity and peace which led to the Sears Tower plot, would it not?

We then are treated to a series of lies about the 'gifts' Islam has given our civilisation; almost all are based on half-truths and distortions. One of my favourite lines, however, is:

And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

Oh yes. It certainly has. The idea that blacks are inferior, Jews and Christians apes and pigs who deserve second class status, Hindus and Buddhists must be destroyed - what a truly glorious set of tolerant values. You can still see those values in operation in places as diverse as Kosovo, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Sudan and Israel.

Not to mention nearly every major Western city!

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognise my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, 'The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.'

Yes, it has always been part of America's story. Wasn't the U.S. Marine Corps founded to fight Muslim Barbary Pirates?

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America.

The freedom to oppress your wife or daughter. I'm sure that is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

He goes on to insist that whilst Islam will be respected and tolerated, 'violent extremism' will be confronted at all costs, as well as highlighting how much money will be wasted in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Then we move on to the more interesting subject of Israel. Here the speech descends further into double standards, downright falsehoods and absurd moral equivalencies.

For a good breakdown, see this article from Jihad Watch. Needless to say, it's nothing that hasn't been said before - calling on the Palestinians to renounce violence and the Israelis to give up the more tangible prize of land and defences, without learning from history.

The speech goes on to Iran - Obama states that no nation has the right to decide whether or not another can have nuclear weapons.

For all the talk of peace at any price:

Obama made sure that Muslim Brotherhood members attended this speech. Yet the Brotherhood is dedicated, in its own words, to "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

He seems to desire the abject surrender of the West; Western leaders must 'educate' themselves about Islam (presumably not to the extent of Geert Wilders), we must open our countries up more to Muslim ideas and colonisation whilst prosecuting those who object or tell the truth, we must abandon our allies when it becomes a little tricky - and all Muslims have to do is bide their time and not be too blatant about their goals.

Obama Calls the U.S. 'a Muslim Country'

Well, this time he only bowed to the Saudi King to allow the medal to be placed around his neck, but I think Obama's very presence in Saudi Arabia, the very purpose of this Middle East tour, speaks volumes about him and his agenda.

He does not go as an equal, or as the leader of the world's most powerful nation - he goes as a submissive, an adherent in all but name. Like Chamberlain, he does not wish for peace (for he surely knows that peace will never be forthcoming on America's terms without inflicting a crushing defeat) - he simply wishes to surrender.

Chamberlain surrendered before a shot was fired, abandoning an ally to the tender mercies of the Nazis.

Now Obama is in Saudi Arabia, plotting the best way to sell out Israel, a close friend and ally of America and the American people, not to mention the region's only truly free nation.

I will wait until his speech tomorrow before going into more detail, but this story from Islam in Action is worthy of note; yesterday Obama called the United States of America, home of the brave and land of the free, victim of countless terrorist atrocities fuelled by Islam both at home and abroad 'one of the world's largest Muslim countries'.

He seems to think that America's 3 million or so Muslims, about 1% of its population, mean that some could see it as a Muslim country is they so chose:

In an interview with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station, Mr. Obama noted that the United States also could be considered as “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” He sought to downplay the expectations of the speech, but he said he hoped the address would raise awareness about Muslims.

“Now, I think it’s very important to understand that one speech is not going to solve all the problems in the Middle East,” Mr. Obama said. “And so I think expectations should be somewhat modest.”

He previewed several themes and objectives for the speech, which aides said the president intended to tinker with — and rewrite — aboard Air Force One during his 12-hour flight to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

“What I want to do is to create a better dialogue so that the Muslim world understands more effectively how the United States, but also how the West thinks about many of these difficult issues like terrorism, like democracy, to discuss the framework for what’s happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and our outreach to Iran, and also how we view the prospects for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians,” Mr. Obama said.

The president said the United States and other parts of the Western world “have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam.”

“And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,” Mr. Obama said. “And so there’s got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples.”

The speech on Thursday has many intended audiences, but among them are the young people in Cairo and beyond.

“I think the most important thing I want to tell young people is that, regardless of your faith, those who build as opposed to those who destroy I think leave a lasting legacy, not only for themselves but also for their nations,” Mr. Obama said. “And the impulse towards destruction as opposed to how can we study science and mathematics and restore the incredible scientific and knowledge — the output that came about during centuries of Islamic culture.”

Here is a video of his arrival in the Muslim kingdom:

British Hostage Killed by Al-Qaeda

As Barack Obama jets off for his 'peace is submission' tour of the Middle East, it is being widely reported that a British hostage being held by al-Qaeda in the Maghreb has been murdered.

Downing Street says it 'has strong reason to believe' that Edwin Dyer has been killed.

The following message was posted on an Islamist website:

"The British captive was killed so that he, and with him the British state, may taste a tiny portion of what innocent Muslims taste every day at the hands of the Crusader and Jewish coalition to the east and to the west."

Dyer was seized at an African music festival in Niger by militants demanding the release of hate preacher Abu Qatada, currently held in a British prison awaiting extradition to Jordan.

From the BBC:

Mr Dyer, who spoke fluent German and had been working in Austria, was kidnapped in Niger on 22 January, close to the border with Mali.

He was captured along with a number of other European tourists, including two Swiss and one German. The group had been visiting the Anderamboukane festival on nomad culture.

In a statement issued on Wednesday, Mr Brown said: "We have strong reason to believe that a British citizen, Edwin Dyer, has been murdered by an al-Qaeda cell in Mali.

"I utterly condemn this appalling and barbaric act of terrorism.

"My thoughts are with Edwin Dyer's family. I offer them the condolences of the whole country."

Mr Brown said the killing reinforced Britain's "commitment to confront terrorism".

"It strengthens our determination never to concede to the demands of terrorists, nor to pay ransoms," he added.

Most of the other hostages have been released, but one Swiss man remains in captivity and the British government urged the kidnappers to release him "immediately and unconditionally".

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said Mr Dyer was believed to have been kidnapped by local tribesmen and sold on to Algerian members of al-Qaeda in Mali.

British officials had been using intermediaries to try to secure Mr Dyer's release, our correspondent said.

Other European countries are understood to have paid ransoms to secure their hostages' release, but the British government has a blanket policy against such methods, he added.

An Appropriate Picture of Obama

Some European Obama-worshippers decided to use the occasion of the 60th anniversary of West Germany's democratic constitution to pay homage to their hero.

I think what they came up with is strangely apt.

Roxana Saberi is Free

It has been announced that Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi has been freed from an Iranian jail, where she was sent after being convicted of spying.

Saberi was on hunger strike, but an Iranian appeal court has just reduced her sentence from 8 years jail to two years suspended.

Her father has confirmed that she has 'just left' the prison, the notorious Evin jail in Tehran.

Seeing as we know that not much happens in Iran without the backing of the Mullahs, I can only deduce that this case is what I said it was all along - part of an elaborate game of chess between Obama and the Iranian regime.

I wish Miss Saberi all the best.

Obama & Roxana Saberi

It was announced earlier this week that at least 70% of Americans are happy with the direction in which Obama is taking America.

Rarely, far more people think that the country is heading in the right direction than not.

I must say this surprises me greatly, because I can't really see that Obama is headed in the right direction at all, particularly when it comes to foreign policy.

The tip of this iceberg is the case of US journalist Roxana Saberi, arrested in Iran in January - allegedly for buying a bottle of wine.

Miss Saberi, who is of Iranian and Japanese parentage, was then accused of working as a journalist without a valid press card. Finally, on 8th April 2009, the charges against her were upgraded to a full blown accusation that she was an American spy.

Between January and March, Miss Saberi was only able to contact her family twice, and confirmed that she was being held in Tehran's Evin Prison. She claimed that she was not being physically harmed.

On 20th of April she was convicted of espionage and sentenced to 8 years in prison.


It is understood that Iranian President Ahmadinejad personally told the prosecutor that Saberi should be permitted a proper defence.

However, it has now been announced that Miss Saberi is on hunger strike, and has been so for five days.

The BBC refers to this as a 'strange case'. Former colleagues of Miss Saberi describe her as careful, and insist she was aware of the dangers of operating as a Western journalist in a repressive state and would not have taken unnecessary risks.

So what exactly is going on?

In my humble opinion, Miss Saberi is a pawn in the game between Obama and Ahmadinejad. Admittedly, she was arrested before Obama's Newroz message overture to the Iranian regime, but the charges have been slowly escalating, and now obviously she is in prison and possibly in grave danger.

Her father and Western observers claim that the trial was a sham which lasted only a few minutes.

This is quite clearly a test of Obama's mettle. Some disagree; they claim it is the easiest way for Iranian hardliners to shoot down Obama's peace and reconciliation hopes in flames, by forcing his hand.

There's probably some partial truth in this. However, what I see is a very inexperienced US President increasingly floundering and being played by his friends and his enemies alike when it comes to the world stage.

The world is curious; how far can this man, who talks peace and has no real foreign policy experience, be pushed?

How far will he go to preserve the fantasy of an America loved equally by all the peoples of the world?

My fear is that he will actually go quite far. Then, like Bush, when he feels forced up against the wall, he may well lash out and regret it. Unlike Bush, he seems to believe that every other leader on earth is also a naive optimist who just wants to play nice.

That is a hallmark of inexperience.

As 'The Frozen North' has it:

At least Obama has finally spoken up about Saberi’s case. He says that “we are going to be in contact” with Iran via the Swiss, and that it is “appropriate” that Saberi is released. (Tough talk, eh?) It’s not clear why Saberi being released should be seen as ”a coup” for Obama. If Saberi is innocent, and Iran is playing political games here, then forcing an American president to go on bended knee to them, via the Swiss, would be something of “a coup” for Iran, not for America.

Exactly. The problem with negotiating with regimes such as Iran's is that there is very little common ground, which is absolutely necessary for meaningful dialogue, promises and compromise.

If one side wants peace and the other simply sees peace as a stop on the road to more concessions and ultimate victory - well, we have the Israeli-Arab conflict. This is the elephant in the room when it comes to modern negotiations, but that doesn't mean it's untrue.

I am fairly confident that if Ahmadinejad thought of Obama as a man who says what he means and means what he says, then Miss Saberi would be back at home.

These are dangerous times - can the civilised world afford Obama's learning curve?

As Miss Saberi turns 32 in Iranian custody today, I would suggest not.

Hat tip: The Frozen North.

Media Sympathy for the Somali Pirates

The Somali piracy saga is becoming increasingly bizarre.

A week after the announcement of a US strategy on piracy, the only surviving pirate responsible for the kidnap of American Captain Richard Phillips has arrived in New York to face trial.

After one unsuccessful escape attempt, Captain Phillips was rescued in a dramatic and skillful operation by US Navy SEALs. Snipers fired three shots in the dark from a rolling deck, killing three pirates simultaneously.

A fourth pirate, who had boarded a US warship to seek a ransom payment and medical treatment, was captured.

Abduhl Wali-i-Musi, pictured above grinning as he arrives on American soil, seems to be a fast learner, however; he not only claimed to be 16 to try to get restrictions on the ability of the US to try him, but he also broke down in tears in court.

His mother wants to be flown to the US so she can 'be with him'; before she gets a stack of US taxpayers' cash, there are probably some pertinent questions to be asked about where she was when he was holding terrified hostages at gunpoint and robbing innocent people.

She appealed directly to President Obama to release her son: 'I appeal to President Obama to pardon my teenager; I request him to release my son or at least allow me to see him and be with him during the trial,'

Preferably the latter option, presumably - might as well bring the family, too.

Incredible as it may seem, some are already plotting to throw every obstacle possible in the way of the trial - the man's mother has also appealed to the Somali Justice Advocacy Centre in Minneapolis. Director Omar Jamal has promised to help get 'justice' for her son.

Jamal said:

'What we have is a confused teenager, overnight thrown into the highest level of the criminal justice system in the United States out of a country where there's no law at all,'

Ah yes. Best absolve him of all responsibility for his actions, then. Because everyone who has never had an education and comes from a failed state becomes a murderous robber, don't they?

Even Americans are in on the act:

Ron Kuby, a New York-based civil rights lawyer, said he has been in discussions about forming a legal team to represent the Somali.

'I think in this particular case, there's a grave question as to whether America was in violation of principles of truce in warfare on the high seas,' said Kuby.

'This man seemed to come onto the Bainbridge under a flag of truce to negotiate. He was then captured. There is a question whether he is lawfully in American custody and serious questions as to whether he can be prosecuted because of his age.'

I personally find such thinking astounding, but then Mr Kuby is far from alone. At the weekend, Dutch commandos freed 20 hostages from yet another ship being held to ransom by Somali pirates.

A fishing vessel had been captured and was being used as a 'mother ship' to instigate attacks on larger ships in the region. What did the Dutch do with all the captured pirates?

The spokesman said the pirates were set free because NATO does not have a maritime detainment policy, meaning Dutch national law would apply in this case.
"They can only arrest them if the pirates are from the Netherlands, the victims are from the Netherlands, or if they are in Netherlands waters," he said.

Of course. I'm surprised that they haven't launched a legal action against the Dutch government to get their confiscated weapons back.

However, the 'poor them' aspect is perhaps the most effective strategy these people have. The BBC are in on the act, using the term pirate in inverted commas and calling the man involved a 'teenager' to evoke sympathy.

Independent journalist Johann Hari, a man who once compared the British Empire to Stalin's Russia, seizes the opportunity to rehabilitate not only Somali pirates, but the European ones that were the curse of the 17th and 18th Centuries. Apparently their egalitarianism and system of wealth distribution was second to none, and their only crime was being murderous, thieving thugs - not much of a crime at all, nowadays.

According to Hari - and this may shock you - Somali piracy is all the fault of the West anyway. Who'd have thought it?

You see, mysterious European ships apparently keep dumping toxic and even nuclear waste off of Somalia's coast. They don't have an effective government (something else which is presumably our fault rather than theirs), so they were powerless to prevent this. It seems that Hari found at least one trustworthy minister in Somalia, who told him that European governments were passing hospital and industrial waste on to the Mafia, who then kindly dump it off the coast of Somalia to the consternation of all poor, law-abiding Somalis.

No, this is not the plot of the next Rambo film, although it does seem just as unlikely.

I'm prepared to accept that some unscrupulous criminals are doing things like this; but the way the Somali government tells it through Hari, we get very much into the famous Somali/Muslim 'everything is a Western plot against us' mindset.

He then goes on to pretend that these pirates, or at least many of them, are romantic, heroic figures, plucky little men taking on the might of an unjust world. Maybe Hari could write the script for that new Rambo film?

Because his worldview is pure fantasy. He acknowledges that some of the pirates are 'just gangsters', but fails to explain in any meaningful detail how taking innocent people hostage then demanding large sums of cash is helping to defend Somalia from anything. I'm sure if one of these brave men (whom he refers to as 'the Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia', seemingly without embarrassment) had ever captured a vessel which intended to dump illegally, he'd have told us all about it.

So I can only surmise that not once, out of the hundreds of pirate attacks over the last few years, has such a vessel ever been caught. This either means that Hari's perspective is based on lies and self-deception, or the volunteer coastguard work about as well as everything else in Somalia - you decide.

Hari continues:

The independent Somalian news-site WardherNews conducted the best research we have into what ordinary Somalis are thinking - and it found 70 percent "strongly supported the piracy as a form of national defence of the country's territorial waters." During the revolutionary war in America, George Washington and America's founding fathers paid pirates to protect America's territorial waters, because they had no navy or coastguard of their own. Most Americans supported them. Is this so different?

If you've ever wondered about the famous British sense of humour, I can only assume it is on display right here. Of course ordinary Somalis support the pirates - the ransoms account for their only national income other than the aid we give them. That and the fact they're stuck with the 'us Vs. them' mindset which permeates the Muslim world and does far more harm than good.

As for the George Washington example - well yes, it is actually very different, clearly.

Does protecting the coast really entail robbing and holding to ransom everyone who approaches it? Is this what George Washington had in mind? I doubt it - there is a huge difference between pirates and mercenaries.

Anyway, the bottom line is we must stop committing 'crimes' before expecting the Somalis to do the same.

But these men are no modern day versions of Robin Hood. Whilst their country starves and collapses around them, they spend their cash on flash cars, women and even have accountants and spokesmen. If anything these gangsters perpetuate the sorry cycle of misery that is life in Somalia.

Ben MacIntyre in the Times has a different and slightly more interesting perspective; he outlines the idea that these men are not pirates but 'Shifta', African bandits which have plagued this region for centuries. The difference is that now they operate at sea because the pickings are far richer.

Here's a description of these fine, upstanding Robin Hoods (as Johann Hari would have it):

They had a reputation for extreme barbarity. One British officer based in the Northern Frontier District of Kenya in 1942 described the marauding, heavily armed bands of Somali shiftas as “ruthless outlaws who killed for the sake of killing, holding human life cheap if it stood in the way of rape and pillage”.

However, the telling 'we must improve conditions in Somalia' tone is still there.

We tried, and we failed. We now prop up a puppet government which effectively has no control outside the grounds of the presidential palace and pretend we're helping.

We're not. We must leave Somalia's internal affairs to Somalis. It is the only way. Pirate vessels should be blown out of the water on sight, and it should be made clear that any ship taken will be rescued with lethal force if necessary, and that includes attacks on the pirates' land bases.

No payment, no legal aid, no asylum for captured pirates.

We need to demonstrate that we will defend our property, our citizens and our trade routes, and not let the world descend into darkness and barbarity.

There came news last Saturday that French troops had stormed a yacht being held to ransom. Four French hostages were freed successfully, but one died in the operation, along with two pirates. The French government confirmed that they were willing to recapture any French-flagged vessel targeted by pirates, by force if necessary.

It is tragic that a hostage died, but the crack troops will get better with practice. It seems the only way to stop Somalia's problems further becoming the entire world's problem.

US Sheriff Threatened with Bombing if He Jails Illegals

The Obama administration seems to be making immigration reform a top priority. Obama himself recently called for 12 million illegals, mostly Hispanic Mexicans, to be granted amnesty and a 'path to citizenship' after paying some sort of token fine.

He wouldn't want anyone to think he endorses breaking the law, you see. It's just that, as he explained, 'you can't deport 12 million people'.

A more pertinent question might be 'can we get 12 million illegals registered to vote in time for the next election?'

The answer is one of Obama's most famous three word catchphrases.

The methods chosen to sell this to the American public are two-fold. Firstly, the predictable 'those poor immigrants, this is a nation of immigrants' etc, along with re-branding illegal immigrants 'undocumented workers'.

This is coupled with outright lies about how after the 12 million people in question are granted amnesty, the government will finally attempt to control the flow of illegals better and prevent more coming in - as if you have to completely undermine the law to be justified in enforcing it.

The second method is even more underhanded and unpleasant, however. It involves a smear campaign against any sections of American society which are against amnesty and for tougher border control.

As Michelle Malkin reminds us:

Remember: Nancy Pelosi thinks enforcing immigration laws is “un-American.”
Geraldo Rivera thinks it’s “anti-American.”
And Barack Obama thinks ICE agents are “terrorizing” families.

Using the general generosity of Americans and the concepts upon which their nation was founded against them is really quite low, particularly when the people doing this are elected officials who are trying to undermine America and change the nation beyond recognition.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano went one better, however.

She recently implied that ordinary Americans disgruntled about the carnage wrought by failed immigration policies might form terror cells, with particular risk attributed to 'veterans of the war on terror'.

As well as anyone who wouldn't vote for her, no doubt. I suppose this is the first step in making opposition to mass immigration illegal under some obscure anti-terror law - but it seems that, astoundingly, not all the terrorist rhetoric comes from conservative opponents to immigration:

The Weld County sheriff’s office is looking for whoever sent it a letter threatening to put bombs around Greeley next week unless illegal immigrants are released from jail.

The sheriff’s office says the letter was handwritten in Spanish, and the threats were directed primarily toward judicial and law-enforcement officials.

Sheriff John Cooke says he wants the public to know his office is working diligently to find and arrest whoever wrote the letter. The Greeley police department and state and federal law enforcement agencies have been notified…The Weld County jail has 58 inmates who are waiting for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to pick them up and deport them.

The threat was a handwritten letter in Spanish threatening judicial and law enforcement officers with the bombs with the “intent to kill the most number of Americans,” according to a press release.

Currently, there are 58 inmates with immigration holds being held in the Weld County Jail.

Who'd have thought? Maybe Janet should do her job and pursue the actual enemies of the American nation, rather than making up fantasy ones.

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin

Obama's True Colours?

The above picture shows Barack Obama meeting Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez at the 5th Summit of the Americas in Trinidad & Tobago.

Holger Awakens also provides some choice Chavez quotes:

" The left is back, and it's the only path we have to get out of the spot to which the right has sunken us. Socialism builds and capitalism destroys. " - Hugo Chavez

"The grand destroyer of the world, and the greatest threat ... is represented by U.S. imperialism," - Hugo Chavez