Saturday, February 28, 2009

Account Closed

This morning, I was watching The Today Show, the Saturday morning news on NBC TV. Apparently credit card companies are closing customers' accounts immediately after debts have been paid or otherwise settled. The talking head on the screen bemoaned (paraphrase), "What is a person to do if all his credit cards are canceled and then loses his job?"
The talking head's whining doesn't take into consideration that no lender can indefinitely afford to carry a debt which isn't paid or which can't be paid in the foreseeable future. Having made three personal loans a few years ago and having seen those loans go into default, I understand on a much smaller scale that unpaid debts do indeed adversely affect the lender. I've seen normally honest individuals place repayment to me as the last item on their lists of bills to pay. At the same time, some of those same individuals who owe me financial debt have feathered their own nests quite nicely: throwing fancy weddings for their daughters, buying big screen televisions, purchasing new vehicles, and taking expensive vacations. My debtors tell me that they are making sacrifices; if so, I don't see them.

In my view, it is unreasonable to expect or require any entity — a large company or an individual — to extend a loan to a bad risk. Nonetheless, the whiner The Today Show seems to think taking risk with regard to debt should be the norm. Does most of our society feel the same? Does our "illustrious" leadership intend to force lenders to make bad loans?

Labels: ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/28/2009 08:17:00 AM  


Friday, February 27, 2009

Video: Will The U.N Make Blasphemy Illegal?

The video is below the fold:

Labels: , , ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/27/2009 07:28:00 AM  


Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Weekly Blog Talk Radio: February 27 — Chaim & Elisabeth of Austria

Listen to The Gathering Storm Radio Show, which WC and I cohost. The show broadcasts live every Friday beginning at noon, Pacific Time.

The call-in number is (646) 915-9870.

Callers welcome!

Our guests for the first half hour is Chaim of Freedom's Cost. For the second half hour, our guest is Elisabeth of Austria.

Listen to the February 27, 2009 edition of The Gathering Storm Radio Show, live or later, by CLICKING HERE.

March 6: Epaminondas and John Kenneth Press
March 13: Elmer's Brother
March 20: Dr. Paul L. Williams

Labels: , ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/24/2009 01:00:00 AM  


Monday, February 23, 2009

Open Thread

For an indeterminate amount of time, I'm going to be busy preparing lesson preparations and study activities for Shakespeare's King Lear [Watch the video documentary] and tending to some personal matters. Therefore, now is a good time for me to offer to my readers an open-discussion forum here.

So, what's on your mind?


Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/23/2009 09:00:00 PM  


Sunday, February 22, 2009

Must-Read AP Article About The Beheading In Buffalo

A follow-up to this posting I did on February 13 (hat tip to Raven for the link to the AP article):
Gruesome killing poses another test for US Muslims

Feb 21, 2:27 PM (ET)


The crime was so brutal, shocking and rife with the worst possible stereotypes about their faith that some U.S. Muslims thought the initial reports were a hoax.

The harsh reality of what happened in an affluent suburb of Buffalo, N.Y. - the beheading of 37-year-old Aasiya Hassan and arrest of her estranged husband in the killing - is another crucible for American Muslims.

Here was a couple that appeared to be the picture of assimilation and tolerance, co-founders of a television network that aspired to improve the image of Muslims in a post 9-11 world.

Now, as Muzzammil "Mo" Hassan faces second-degree murder charges, those American Muslims who have spoken out are once again explaining that their faith abhors such horrible acts, and they are using the tragedy as a rallying cry against domestic violence.

The killing and its aftermath raise hard questions for Muslims - about gender issues, about distinctions between cultural and religious practices, and about differing interpretations of Islamic texts regarding the treatment of women.

"Muslims don't want to talk about this for good reason," said Saleemah Abdul-Ghafur, a Muslim author and activist. "There is so much negativity about Muslims, and it sort of perpetuates it. The right wing is going to run with it and misuse it. But we've got to shine a light on this issue so we can transform it."

There is evidence of movement in that direction in the 10 days since the Hassan slaying. In an open letter to American Muslim leaders, Imam Mohamed Hagmagid Ali of Sterling, Va., vice president of the Islamic Society of North America, said "violence against women is real and cannot be ignored."

He urged that imams and community leaders never second-guess a woman in danger, and said women seeking divorces because of physical abuse should not be viewed as bringing shame to their families.

Muslim women's advocates consider the statement significant after years of indifference in a community which has seen only recent progress - for example, the opening of shelters for battered Muslim women in a few major cities.

"This is a horrible tragedy, but it gives us a window," said Abdul-Ghafur, editor of the anthology "Living Islam Out Loud: American Muslim Women Speak.""The next time a woman comes to her imam and says, 'He hit me,' the reply might not be, 'Be patient, sister, is there something you did, sister? Is there something you can do?' The chances are greater the imam will say, 'This is unacceptable.'"

At least nine mosques, imams and Islamic organizations also agreed to denounce domestic violence this week at the behest of a coalition of Muslims that organized on Facebook after Aasiya Hassan's death.

"What you have is a cultural problem our communities have been silent about too long," said Wajahat Ali, a journalist and playwright who helped drive the effort. "What people with an agenda are trying to do is say this is an example of a barbaric religion. This is an example of barbaric misogyny and domestic violence."

At the South Bay Islamic Association in San Jose, Calif., Imam Tahir Anwar said he preached at Friday prayer services about keeping peace in the family and denounced physical and emotional domestic violence.

"I wouldn't say (the problem) is particular to the Muslim community, but to the immigrant community whether you're Muslim or otherwise," Anwar, whose parents are from India, said in an interview. "Women don't speak up about it. It's a taboo that all immigrant communities sort of face."

Of Islam's potential role in the Hassan slaying, Anwar said: "All religions have texts that can be misinterpreted. Good people regardless of faith would never do something like this."

While sermons like Anwar's are encouraging, other Muslim clerics in the U.S. likely preached that Aasiya Hassan could have avoided her fate by being more obedient, said Muqtedar Khan, an associate professor of political science and international relations at the University of Delaware.

"The imam has to be enlightened enough to recognize this violence happens, to not hide in denial or somehow blame it on American culture," said Khan, author of "American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom."

"In order to essentially condemn violence against women, they will have to treat women with greater respect. Unfortunately, the level of enlightenment among imams in North America varies significantly."

Asra Nomani, a Muslim journalist, author and activist from Morgantown, W.Va., challenged Muslims who say the murder has no link to Islamic teachings. While Islam does not sanction domestic violence or murder, a literal reading of a controversial verse in the Quran taught in some mosques can lead to honor killings and murder, she said.

"It's sort of like the typical reaction to terrorism in the community, where people want to say, 'This had nothing to do with Islam,'" Nomani said. "Well, it doesn't have anything to do with your interpretation of Islam that teaches you can't kill innocent people. But terrorism, violence, honor killing - they are all part of ideological problems we have in the community we need to eradicate."

The passage - Chapter 4, Verse 34 - has been widely translated to sanction physical discipline against disobedient wives. There is disagreement about to what degree and whether it's punitive or symbolic.

The verse is cited "all the time" to justify domestic violence, just as people of other faiths cite scriptures to support oppression of women, said Salma Abugideri of the Peaceful Families Project, which offers training and workshops to combat domestic violence in Muslim communities.

"People will use whatever they can to justify their behavior," she said. "It just seems that people outside the Muslim faith just tend to buy that rationalization as true."

There also has been speculation - by the head of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Woman, among others - that the Hassan case involved honor killing, in which a person is slain by a relative who believes the victim has brought shame to the family.

Aasiya Hassan was killed six days after her husband was served with divorce papers and a protective order. Mo Hassan is a native of Pakistan; acquaintances said he was not overtly religious, and his lawyer has said neither religion nor culture played a role in what happened.

Marsha Freeman, director of the International Women's Rights Action Watch at the University of Minnesota, said honor killing is a cultural and not religious phenomenon. She said it's practiced in some Muslim countries but not others and is present in nations with people of other religions.

"I wouldn't go running around talking about honor killings without knowing more," Freeman said.

On Web sites and e-mail lists, many Muslims are rejecting the term.

"Calling it an honor killing, it sort of takes it out of the mainstream conversation and makes it a conversation about those people from over there from those backwards countries," said Abugideri, of the Peaceful Families Project. "In fact, in this country and in mainstream society there are many cases where domestic violence escalates to the point where a woman is killed."
In her posting, Raven made the following observation, which is being overlooked in the mainstream coverage of brutal murder of Aasiya Hassan:
...[T]he religion practiced by the biggest factor in their culture.
I wonder, did Hassan scream "Allahu akbar!" when he was murdering his wife?

Note: I've reproduced the entire AP article because such information has a way of disappearing.

Labels: , ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/22/2009 08:04:00 AM  


Saturday, February 21, 2009

Another Of BHO's Appointees: Otis Moss, Jr.

It seems that BHO is not moving too far away from Jeremiah Wright after all, at least in his theological views.

Earlier this month, he appointed Otis Moss, Jr., to the President's Advisory Council, part of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

This article in the Weekly Standard notes some interesting facts about Otis Moss, Jr:

...Otis Moss Jr. and Wright shared a mentor in Samuel DeWitt Proctor, who helped give rise to black liberation theology. In fact, it was the radical Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference that sponsored Wright's now-infamous National Press Club appearance in late April 2008--which led to Obama's break with Trinity and Wright. Less noted was the fact that the symposium's guest preacher that day was Reverend Otis Moss Jr. Moss has publicly defended Wright and compared his preaching to that of Amos, Micah, Malachi, and John the Baptist.
Moss's closeness to Wright is expressed most clearly in the 40-minute tribute sermon he preached from Trinity's pulpit on the occasion of Wright's 36th anniversary at the church in February 2008. Of Wright, Reverend Moss said: "All of us who know him and love him have been blessed by his genius, his creativity, his scholarship, his discipleship, his sensitivity as an artist, his boldness as a prophet, and, I agree, his rhythmic poetry." This homage came long after Wright's hit parade of sound-bites: "God Damn America" .  .  . "America's chickens are coming home to roost" .  .  . "Bill did us like he did Monica Lewinsky."...

...He is a political preacher and has said, "If you are preaching a gospel that has nothing about politics, nothing about economics, nothing about sociology, you are preaching an empty gospel with a cap and shoes but no body to it."...


...[B]y appointing Moss, Obama has given him the imprimatur of the White House and a position from which to help shape public policy. While Moss and other members of the faith-based President's Advisory Council aren't paid, they are entitled to public funds for travel costs, per-diem expenses, and support staff. They can hold hearings and form task forces. And of course, they can guide the work of Obama's faith-based office as it directs public funding to religious and community groups.


By tapping the likes of Moss to help steer his faith-based policies, Obama could be using the White House to "translate the energy" of black churches into "creating lasting institutions" of left-wing political agitation. A look at the other members of the advisory council certainly supports this interpretation. Vashti McKenzie is another proponent of black liberation theology, and another friend and defender of Jeremiah Wright who has preached at Trinity United. Jim Wallis also publicly supported Wright and has even been an inspiration to the reverend. In his National Press Club speech, Wright quoted Wallis as saying "America's sin of racism has never even been confessed, much less repented for." In an earlier life, Wallis once said he hoped "more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes." In recent years he has settled for working through congressional Democrats, helping them make their policies more palatable to people of faith. Wallis has been joined in that task by Rabbi David Saperstein--another prominent liberal and member of the new faith-based advisory council.The council looks like nothing so much as an attempt to build a powerful political grassroots network to advance the liberal causes dear to Obama's heart.

The ironic humor in the whole thing is that back when it was President Bush's White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Moss warned other pastors:
Sometimes the king will call you up even out of your dungeon and ask: "Is there any word from the Lord?" .  .  . If we are tied to the stuff of the king, it is difficult to tell the president--or the king [laughter]--it's difficult. .  .  . It's difficult if you are tied to a "faith-based grant" [more laughter] and your whole sustaining budget is contingent upon the next appropriation. When the question comes up, "Is there any word from the Lord?" you might have to say, "Wait, let me check with the board. Let me check with the budget committee."
Now that he is in a position to shape where those faith-based grants go, one suspects Moss will be singing a different tune.
Is Otis Moss, Jr., a sort of Wright redux?

In any case, Moss now has the ear of BHO. What will this black-liberation theologian whisper into the ear of the President of the United States?


Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/21/2009 05:19:00 AM  


Friday, February 20, 2009

Not The Usual Five Pillars Of Islam

The history lesson is lifted in its entirety from this post by Shiva of Infidel Bloggers Alliance:

The Skull Tower (Serbian: Ћеле Кула, or Ćele Kula) is a monument to 19th century Serbian rebels. It is situated in Niš, on Zoran Đinđić Boulevard, on the old Constantinople road leading to Sofia.

On May 31, 1809 on Čegar Hill a few kilometers northeast of Niš, Serbian insurrectionists suffered their greatest defeat in the First Serbian Uprising against the Ottoman Empire (1804-1813). The insurrectionists' advance towards Niš was stopped here and, when the far stronger Turkish forces attacked, the battle was ended by the Serbian commander Stevan Sinđelić, who sacrificially fired at his gunpowder depot in order to avoid surrendering to the Turks, killing himself, the rest of his men, and the advancing Turks.

After the retreat of the Serbian rebel army, the Turkish commander of Niš, Hurshid Pasha, ordered that the heads of the killed Serbians were to be mounted on a tower to serve as a warning to any other would-be revolutionaries. In all, 952 skulls were included, with the skull of Sindjelić placed at the top. The scalps from the skulls were stuffed with cotton and sent to Constantinople (modern Istanbul) as proof for Sultan Mahmud II.


While looking for information about Ćele Kula or The Skull Tower I came across this interesting snippets from some very old books, which I doubt very few people know about.

These erections are known by the Persians as Kellarh i Minar corresponding exactly to the Arabic name of Burj er Roos, a tower built entirely of skulls.

Pillars of Heads

These snippets say it all

F How horrid these pillars must look with the grim heads all round them U.O. Things much more horrid are to be seen in Persia It has been from very ancient times a practice in that country and on its borders to make pillars and pyramids of human heads the heads of enemies slain in battle Besides old pillars of this description there are some which have been erected within these few years Near one of the gates of Bagdad H That is in Turkey U.O. Yes on each side of the road there are two low round pillars inlaid with the heads of two hundred Arab robbers who had been killed in an engagement or taken prisoners and afterwards killed by the troops of the governor I have seen still worse than this On a plain near Mount Sevelund in the northernmost province of Persia there is a small hill on which no less than five
camp So these heads were pickled and sent to him and he had these pillars built to receive them considering them as so many monuments of his glory H What monuments U.O. Aye indeed It is impossible to imagine a more horrid spectacle than that which these barbarous trophies present All war however is full of such horrors if we could but see them The Persians make a parade of those revolting things which we draw a veil over
Extracted from
Uncle Oliver's travels, Persia [by J. Kitto]. By John Kitto, Oliver:

Detail from Pillars of Heads

They put a whole new meaning to the Five Pillars of Islam
under the eyes of Europeans A Russian officer taken at the commencement of the war had turned Musselman and obtained the appellation of Abdoollah Khan Many attempts had been made to induce some of those we saw to do the same but they had not been successful We breakfasted with Secunder Khan the governor of the city and province of Ardebeelsians which had been sent to the Royal camp they had been all pickled and were placed round the pillars in rows A more disgusting sight can hardly be imagined into the mouth of one of the heads a pipe had been insultingly stuck The price of Russian heads at this time was five tomauns The custom of making a pyramid of the heads of e
Extracted from
Travels from India to England by James Edward Alexander:


jwjjJl J Burj er Roos which as its name implies is a tower entirely constructed of human skulls reposing in regular rows on in "tervening layers of the bones of the appertaining bodies This curious tower stands close to the sea at a little distance from the Fort or Burj es Sook and is at present twenty feet in height and at its base ten feet in diameter but tapering to its summit Witli these data knowing what space is occupied by a skull a calculation might easily be made of the number of men which were required to build it though there appears no doubt that it was formerly as the natives assert much wider and higher No tradition is preserved of its origin except that the skulls are those of Christians I think it probable that they are the remnants of the Spanish soldiers who under the command of the Duke of Alva having landed at Jerbeh during high water were attacked and defeated by the Moors and obliged to fall back upon their boats
them but whilst floundering in the mud and weeds were shot or speared by their exasperated and more lightly accoutred enemies who it is probable erected with the dead bodies this tower in commemoration of their victory and deliverance from foreign invasion To preserve it it is occasionally covered with a coat of mortar but when I saw it a great part of this had fallen down and exposed to view the ghastly grinning skulls This tower I believe is quite unique of its kind though certainly the Persian monarchs were wont according to that entertaining writer and correct delineator of eastern scenery and customs Mr Morier to erect after a grande battue similar monuments but the component materials were not the same as these for the heads of the animals killed in the chase and not those of men were used These erections are called

Extracted from
Excursions in the Mediterranean Algiers and Tunis By Grenville Temple:

The above article does not say much about the tower

But here is an account of what really happened

The New York Times February 6 1881

Labels: ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/20/2009 03:00:00 PM  


Thursday, February 19, 2009

AOW Is Off Line...

...due to high winds and bad weather!

Labels: ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by The Merry Widow @ 2/19/2009 05:58:00 PM  


Wednesday, February 18, 2009

One Member Of The House Of Lords Stands Up For Geert Wilders & Freedom Of Speech

(This is a long post)

Via Infidel Bloggers Alliance

From Jihad Watch:

From the UK Parliament: "A Private Notice Question - urgent question to the Government - was asked in the Lords Chamber on 12 February on the Government's justification for denying Dutch MP, Mr Geert Wilders, entry into the UK."

Asked By Lord Taverne

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their justification for denying Mr Geert Wilders entry into the United Kingdom.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given private notice.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, under European law, a member state of the European economic area may refuse entry to a national of another EEA state if they constitute a threat to public policy, public security or public health.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, I am aware that Mr Wilders holds views highly offensive to the Muslim community, but freedom of speech issues often raise awkward questions. Indeed, this ban has united in opposition the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, the Dutch Government—unusual allies—and also a section of the Muslim community which cares about freedom of expression. Does the Home Office agree that causing offence, even deep offence, to particular religious groups is no reason for compromising on the principle of freedom of expression? Why else did we repeal the laws on blasphemy? Since this is a ban on an EU citizen and Member of Parliament who has been convicted of no offence, and who has been invited to a private showing of a film in this House—not a rally in Trafalgar Square—does it not set a deeply disturbing precedent for the vital question of freedom of expression?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the Government and I are great believers in freedom of expression. Indeed, I am constantly getting into trouble because I am too free with my expressions at times. But the decision was not based purely on the film “Fitna”, but also on a range of factors, including prosecution in the Netherlands for incitement and discrimination, and other statements. The Home Secretary has to make a decision, as was said, on anyone coming in if they are a threat to public policy or public security in particular. We are constantly looking at this and are very robust about it with all sorts of extremists, from whichever corner they come. I regularly, across my desk, have to give advice to the Home Secretary about stopping people coming into this country, because I do not think it is appropriate that they should be here. I think it is good that we are being robust about this, and absolutely appropriate that the Home Secretary should have made this decision.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, there seems to be a bit of a lottery as to who is admitted and who is not. Are there any criteria by which the Home Secretary works, even if advised by the noble Lord, to justify who is refused admittance and who is not?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, there is effectively a list of things the Home Secretary will check through when she is making a decision about whether someone should be allowed into this country. Of course, as the House will well know, quite often we will say that someone should not come into this country, but they then appeal and, through our judicial system, it is decided that they should be allowed to do so. One of the great strengths and joys of this country is that there is a very robust approach to these things. Sometimes, it surprises many of us that that person is allowed to come in and continue to say things—that seems very strange, whatever persuasion they come from. There is a list, and it is checked through. As I said, the Home Secretary thought long and hard about this. The decision was based on a whole raft of things, not just on this film. I believe that it was the correct decision.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for asking this Question. I suggest to the Minister—perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong—that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty. I only have one question, because I know that we do not want to spend long on this. Does the noble Lord think that this situation would have occurred if Mr Wilders had said, “Ban the Bible”? If it would not have occurred, why not? Surely, the violence and the disturbance that may arise from showing this film in this country is not caused by the film, which merely attempts to show how the violent Islamist uses the Koran to perpetrate his terrible acts, but by the jihadist, the violent Islamist. In doing what the Government have done, surely they are therefore guilty of appeasement.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I certainly do not think that we are guilty of appeasement in any way whatever. I do not want to go down the route of discussing a hypothetical case about what if he had talked about this or that. I am afraid that I am rather constrained about exactly what I can say about him. He is under prosecution in the Netherlands for incitement and discrimination. Clearly, anything that I say in this House could become involved in that, and I would not wish that to happen. It would be wrong if that was the case. Also, he can appeal against the Home Secretary’s decision, and anything that I say could be used there.

As I said, we are very robust across the board. We take no sides on this. We treat people whom we believe are a threat to the security and safety of this nation in exactly the same way, from whatever cloth they come; that is extremely important. I believe that this was the right decision.

Lord Trimble: My Lords, the Minister has talked about incitement, and reference has been made to the possibility of counterprotests. These are public order matters. The criterion that the Minister should be operating under is public security, which is a different thing.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, again, I really cannot go too far down this route. These things will be looked at in the Court of Appeal and in the court of another nation. I do not wish to go down this route; I think that it would be wrong for me to do so.

Lord Peston: My Lords, will the Minister comment on one matter, which might enable us to make up our minds? Who brought this matter to the attention of the Home Secretary? Since this man is an EU citizen, he does not have to apply specially to come to our country. How did this become a matter of public policy?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give my noble friend an answer to that question, because I am not quite sure how it came to the attention of the Home Secretary. I was first aware of this about a week ago. I do not know the answer. Perhaps I can write to my noble friend when I can discover the answer.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords—

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords—

Meanwhile, this story from the Telegraph indicates that Geert Wilders might have a law suit in mind:
Dutch MP Geert Wilders is "seriously considering" taking steps to sue Jacqui Smith over her decision to ban the controversial film-maker from the UK

The legal action would have the backing of the Dutch Government, in a move which could aggravate the diplomatic row over the ban between London and Amsterdam.

Mr Wilders said he was looking to take legal action against the Home Secretary for "blatant discrimination" in the High Court or International Court in the Hague.


Mr Wilders is being encouraged to sue the Government by Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch foreign minister who is still furious with the Home Office's decision.

He said he would back Wilders in a possible decision to bring a case against the British Government's "disgraceful decision".

Mr Verhagen said: "Everybody, but especially a Parliamentarian from an European Union member country, has the right to freedom of speech."...
Please take a few minutes to read the speech Geert Wilders would have given before the House of Lords, had he been allowed to:
London, Feb. 12, 2009

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.

Thank you for inviting me. Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for showing Fitna, and for your gracious invitation. While others look away, you, seem to understand the true tradition of your country, and a flag that still stands for freedom.

This is no ordinary place. This is not just one of England’s tourist attractions. This is a sacred place. This is the mother of all Parliaments, and I am deeply humbled to speak before you.

The Houses of Parliament is where Winston Churchill stood firm, and warned – all throughout the 1930’s – for the dangers looming. Most of the time he stood alone.

In 1982 President Reagan came to the House of Commons, where he did a speech very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.

What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.

Communism was indeed left on the ash heap of history, just as Reagan predicted in his speech in the House of Commons. He lived to see the Berlin Wall coming down, just as Churchill witnessed the implosion of national-socialism.

Today, I come before you to warn of another great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, the end of democracy. It is not a religion, it is a political ideology. It demands your respect, but has no respect for you.

There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is build on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never go away. First, there is Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect.

Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. The question is whether the British people, with its glorious past, is longing for that submission.

We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible speed. The United Kingdom has seen a rapid growth of the number of Muslims. Over the last ten years, the Muslim population has grown ten times as fast as the rest of society. This has put an enormous pressure on society. Thanks to British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill, the English now have taken the path of least resistance. They give up. They give in.

Thank you very much for letting me into the country. I received a letter from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, kindly disinviting me. I would threaten community relations, and therefore public security in the UK, the letter stated. For a moment I feared that I would be refused entrance. But I was confident the British government would never sacrifice free speech because of fear of Islam. Britannia rules the waves, and Islam will never rule Britain, so I was confident the Border Agency would let me through. And after all, you have invited stranger creatures than me. Two years ago the House of Commons welcomed Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh, linked to Al Qaeda. He was invited to Westminster by Lord Ahmed, who met him at Regent’s Park mosque three weeks before. Mr. Rideh, suspected of being a money man for terror groups, was given a SECURITY sticker for his Parliamentary visit.

Well, if you let in this man, than an elected politician from a fellow EU country surely is welcome here too. By letting me speak today you show that Mr Churchill’s spirit is still very much alive. And you prove that the European Union truly is working; the free movement of persons is still one of the pillars of the European project.

But there is still much work to be done. Britain seems to have become a country ruled by fear. A country where civil servants cancel Christmas celebrations to please Muslims. A country where Sharia Courts are part of the legal system. A country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust. A country where a primary school cancels a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with an Islamic festival. A country where a school removes the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar so as not to offend Muslims. A country where a teacher punishes two students for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their religious education class. A country where elected members of a town council are told not to eat during daylight hours in town hall meetings during the Ramadan. A country that excels in its hatred of Israel, still the only democracy in the Middle-East. A country whose capitol is becoming ‘Londonistan’.

I would not qualify myself as a free man. Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. I am under guard permanently, courtesy to those who prefer violence to debate. But for the leftist fan club of islam, that is not enough. They started a legal procedure against me. Three weeks ago the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered my criminal prosecution for making ‘Fitna’ and for my views on Islam. I committed what George Orwell called a ‘thought crime’.

You might have seen my name on Fitna’s credit role, but I am not really responsible for that movie. It was made for me. It was actually produced by Muslim extremists, the Quran and Islam itself. If Fitna is considered ‘hate speech’, then how would the Court qualify the Quran, with all it’s calls for violence, and hatred against women and Jews? Mr. Churchill himself compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Well, I did exactly the same, and that is what they are prosecuting me for.

I wonder if the UK ever put Mr. Churchill on trial.

The Court’s decision and the letter I received form the Secretary of State for the Home Department are two major victories for all those who detest freedom of speech. They are doing Islam’s dirty work. Sharia by proxy. The differences between Saudi-Arabia and Jordan on one hand and Holland and Britain are blurring. Europe is now on the fast track of becoming Eurabia. That is apparently the price we have to pay for the project of mass immigration, and the multicultural project.

Ladies and gentlemen, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack. In Europe, freedom of speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural component of our existence is now something we again have to fight for. That is what is at stake. Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue. The question is: Will free speech be put behind bars?

We have to defend freedom of speech.

For the generation of my parents the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my country men listened to it, illegally. The words ‘This Is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon. If only the British and Canadian and American soldiers were here.

What will be transmitted forty years from now? Will it still be ‘This Is London’? Or will it be ‘this is Londonistan’? Will it bring us hope, or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery?

The choice is ours.

Ladies and gentlemen,

We will never apologize for being free. We will never give in. We will never surrender.

Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.

Thank you very much.

Geert Wilders MP
Chairman, Party for Freedom (PVV)
The Netherlands
All those ideals of freedom Mr. Wilders so praised in the speech never given — where have they gone? HERE is the Telegraph's answer to that question.

Labels: ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/18/2009 10:00:00 AM  


CBS Covers The Beheading In Buffalo

I hadn't even finished my first cup of coffee this morning when a discussion of this story came onto the television screen, courtesy of CBS Morning News.

One person interviewed - I believe that she was a supporter of women's rights - stated that using the defense of "cultural differences" will backfire because America doesn't any ideology promoting such violence against women.

A crack in the media's whitewash of Islam? Maybe.

Of course, the story was truncated and didn't address the concerns it should have.

The story of last week's beheading in Buffalo was also covered last night on the NBC Nightly News, though not coming nearly as close to condemning the misogyn of shari'a law and its Islamic origins.

Labels: , ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/18/2009 08:14:00 AM  


Weekly Blog Talk Radio: February 20 — Joe Kaufman, Yid With Lid, & Blue Heeler (aka Gravelrash)

Listen to The Gathering Storm Radio Show, which WC and I cohost. The show broadcasts live every Friday beginning at noon, Pacific Time.

The call-in number is (646) 915-9870.

Callers welcome!

Our guests this week are investigative reporter Joe Kaufman, Yid With Lid, and Australia's Blue Heeler (aka Gravelrash).

Listen to the February 20, 2009 edition of The Gathering Storm Radio Show, live or later, by CLICKING HERE.

February 27: Chaim and Elisabeth of Austria
March 6: Mohammed Abdul and Sabir
March 13: Elmer's Brother
March 20: Dr. Paul L. Williams

Labels: , ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/18/2009 01:00:00 AM  


Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Yet Another Change: Rejection Of Winston Churchill

With thanks to Michael for emailing me the following story from the Telegraph:

Barack Obama sends bust of Winston Churchill on its way back to Britain

A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.

The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure.

But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks."...
Another of BHO's efforts to reach out to the Islamic world? After all, Sir Winston Churchill was quite outspoken about Islam, as evidenced by this citation from The River War: An Account of the Reconquest of Sudan, published in 1899:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
More from Winston Churchill here, at Islam Watch.

Labels: , ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/17/2009 07:33:00 AM  


Monday, February 16, 2009

The Reality Of The Stimulus Bill

(With a hat tip to Common Cents for the video in this posting)

Please pause the PlayList on the right sidebar before watching:

Some reading is below the fold.

Just as with the Titanic, our leadership is proceeding with full steam ahead toward diasaster.

From this article in the Washington Times:
President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing....
Nevertheless, our leadership of the moment is claiming victory and calling the bill "a major milestone on our road to recovery."

What else are President Barack Hussein Obama and his adherents planning? Even more of the same, apparently:
"This historic step won't be the end of what we do to turn our economy around, but rather the beginning. The problems that led us into this crisis are deep and widespread, and our response must be equal to the task."
Read the entire article.

More icebergs ahead! And those at the helm are proclaiming "Victory!" even as they are ignoring the realities and the warnings.

Labels: , , ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/16/2009 05:00:00 AM  


Sunday, February 15, 2009

Your Sunday Funny

With a hat tip to Brooke:

But shouldn't his nose be longer?

Labels: , , ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/15/2009 04:00:00 AM  


Quiz: Could You Survive Another Great Depression?

The quiz is HERE (hat tip to Raven).

My results below the fold.

You Are 61% Likely to Survive Another Great Depression

Even though you may not be expecting the worst, you're the type of person who prepares for the worst.

You live a relatively modest life. You don't overspend, and you aren't very materialistic.

You are also quite self sufficient and independent. You have many useful skills.

You can take care of yourself and those you love... which is crucial to surviving another Great Depression.

Labels: ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/15/2009 01:00:00 AM  


Saturday, February 14, 2009

Happy Valentine's Day!

More dangerous than AIDS, Ebola, and cholera!

No roses allowed!

But only if you're a Moslem. If not, enjoy today and strengthen the bonds of love.

1 Corinthians 13
(New International Version)

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.


And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Labels: , ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/14/2009 06:57:00 AM  


Friday, February 13, 2009

Buffalo, New York: Beheading

Where is the broadcast media's frenzy over this story?

From the Northeast Intelligence Network:

Beheading in Buffalo - at Muslim TV Station

By Douglas J. Hagmann

13 February 2009: Muzzammil “Mo” HASSAN, the founder and chief executive officer of Bridges TV, a Buffalo, NY based Islamic television Network he helped pioneer in 2004 amid hopes that it would help portray Muslims in a more positive light, reportedly admitted to police that he beheaded his wife at the television station yesterday afternoon.The victim was identified as Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37, who just last month, filed for and received an order of protection against her husband.

According to police, HASSAN walked into the Orchard Park police station shortly after 6:00 PM yesterday and admitted that he murdered his wife earlier in the afternoon. While Erie County, NY District Frank A. Sedita III stated about the murder that “”…this is the worst form of domestic violence possible,” it is more pertinent to understand that the act of beheading in Islam is frequently and closely associated with “honor killings.”

The intentional mainstream media obfuscation of honor killings and the act of beheading as both relate to Islamic fundamentalist practices & beliefs is anticipated, especially in this case. (For a good primer about Islam and honor killings, please read this 2008 article written by Robert Spencer).

HASSAN and Bridges TV of Buffalo has been a focus of investigation by the Northeast Intelligence Network in the past. The Northeast Intelligence Network made several inquiries to HASSAN and Bridges TV about their relationship with al Manar television - inquiries that HASSAN and his station refused to answer.

Meanwhile, HASSAN was charged with second-degree murder and has been arraigned by Orchard Park, NY Village Justice Deborah Chimes. He is currently in custody at the Erie County Holding Center.
According to the Buffalo News:
...Authorities say Aasiya Hassan recently had filed for divorce from her husband.

"She had an order of protection that had him out of the home as of Friday the 6th [of February]," [Orchard Park Police Chief Andrew] Benz said.
Read more about Muzzammil Hassan, who came here to the United States from Pakistan twenty-five years ago, HERE, in an article dated 2004.

Labels: , ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/13/2009 05:07:00 PM  


Investigative Reporter Joe Kaufman Targeted For Silencing

I occasionally get email notifications of donations needed from the David Horowitz Freedom Center. One such email arrived to me yesterday. Rather than posting an excerpt, here is the whole thing:

Radical Muslims Target Investigative Reporter!

An urgent message from David Horowitz

Dear Friend,

Radical Muslims are using our court system to try to silence those who expose their terrorist connections. They've done it in Europe and Canada - and now they're trying it here in America.

In the case of investigative reporter Joe Kaufman, so far they've been successful.

Seven Muslim groups claim that Joe is a threat. They convinced a court that Joe "intends to threaten to take unlawful action...cause bodily injury...or threaten Plaintiffs or their members with immediate bodily injury."

On those grounds the court imposed a restraining order on him. And they are suing Joe for defamation to stop him from writing about Muslims in the future and to close down his web sites [here].

Joe reports and writes for my web site FrontPageMagazine [index to Joe's articles here] and for his own web sites. He has never threatened a Muslim in his life. But he has exposed facts they want to hide.

If Joe Kaufman loses, radical Muslims will know they can stop anyone from investigating and writing about any Muslim groups and individuals.

This is why I am urgently asking you to help the Freedom Center pay for Joe's defense.

The reason Joe Kaufman is being targeted by these Muslim groups is that he monitors web sites run by Muslim charitable organizations, and he has identified money trails leading from some of these groups to terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

He discovered that funds from a group called the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) were going to Hamas, and he wrote about this on FrontPageMagazine. He also wrote that this group was sponsoring "Muslim Family Fun Day" at Six Flags Over Texas.

And he announced that he was going to hold a peaceful demonstration outside Six Flags on that day to expose this terrorist financing to the public.

Joe went ahead with his protest. It was peaceful and he broke no laws. He carried a sign which read, "Six Flags Over Terrorists," and he gave a speech to a small group of fellow demonstrators.

Within minutes of arriving at the park Joe was served with a restraining order, the result of a lawsuit brought by seven mosques and Muslim organizations in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

ICNA - the group he was protesting - was not even one of the groups. These seven organizations claim that they were defamed by Kaufman's reports simply because their members are Muslim. Their lawsuit alleges that by reporting ICNA's financial activities and its links to terrorism, Kaufman harmed their reputations and the reputations of their members.

That was a year-and-a-half ago. But the court refused to throw out the lawsuit, so the case continues. Joe is being represented by a team of lawyers who are generously donating their time. But the other legal costs are considerable.

My Freedom Center has provided almost $20,000 towards these costs already. But now Joe's lawyers are trying to end the case in the appellate court. We need to raise an additional $25,000 for the immediate upcoming costs of Joe's defense. Please help us fight this case by clicking here to give.

Joe Kaufman has no money to spend on his defense. He has made a career of investigative journalism focusing on terrorism - something the mainstream media doesn't want to touch with a 10-foot pole, and therefore not a high-paying profession.
He needs our help.

And there are other good reasons to support Joe's legal defense: all the other people working to fight Islamic terrorism - including me and my colleagues, other writers at FrontPageMagazine, and many other people who are doing this out of their passion for freedom and their desire to help protect America from the Islamo-Fascist threat.

A victory by the Muslim groups would be the first step in silencing all of us. This is a free speech issue and nothing more: Joe has not lied about, threatened, or touched any of the Muslims who are suing him, or any other Muslims for that matter. He simply reported the truth, and for that these groups are doing their best to silence him - and to intimidate the rest of us.

The lawsuit against Joe Kaufman is part of a strategy by these Muslim groups to bully us into silence. That's why we cannot let them win.

I am asking you to make a contribution of $25, $50, $100 or even more if you can, to help us raise the $25,000 we need right away to pay for Joe Kaufman's defense. Any amount you can send will help. Just click here to give. It's urgent!

Thanks in advance for your help.


David Horowitz
President and Founder

P.S. The outcome of this case is by no means predictable. Too many judges have shown themselves to care more about not offending Muslims than about free speech. We must raise the money to fight this case to the end!
So, you see, the threat to freedom of speech doesn't apply only to Geert Wilders, about whom many of us are blogging with a frenzy. The threat is right here in America, and Joe, with whom I am registered to co-blog, is on the front lines of this battle. Here. In the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Never mind the First Amendment to our Constitution.

This posting isn't a plea for donations, though contributing to Joe's defense fund is a good and important action to take.

What I want to point out is this....Right now, it is Geert Wilders who is being muzzled. Tomorrow, or another day not far in the future, the muzzle will be fastened upon us. Who will contribute to our defense funds?

Labels: , ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/13/2009 06:33:00 AM  


Thursday, February 12, 2009

Lexicon Check: "First 100 Days"

From this essay entitled "Runaway Stimulus" by George F. Will:
...[W]e should remember that it was not FDR's initial burst of activity in 1933 that put the phrase "100 days" into the Western lexicon. It was Napoleon's frenetic trajectory in 1815 that began with his escape from Elba and ended near the Belgian village of Waterloo....

Kathleen Parker, the day before Will's column appeared, wrote a scathing evaluation of Barack Hussein Obama's first weeks as President of the United States in her essay "So Far, Amateur Hour." Excerpt:
...Many suspected that Obama wasn't quite ready, but kept their fingers crossed. Optimistic disappointment is the new holding pattern.

What's missing from Obama's performance...[is] the experience they tried to pretend didn't really matter....

Absent is maturity -- that grown-up quality of leadership that is palpable when the real deal enters a room. There's a reason why elders are respected. They have something the rest of us don't have -- yet -- because we haven't lived long enough. We haven't made the really tough decisions, the ones that are often unpopular.


Obama wants too much to be liked. This isn't a character flaw. In fact his winning personality and likability have served him well through the years. Growing up in multiple cultures -- black and white, American and Indonesian -- he had to learn how to get along. By all accounts, he became easy company.

But there's a price one pays in becoming president. Giving up being liked is the ultimate public sacrifice....


In Elkhart, the president seemed locked in campaign mode, still wooing the crowd and seeking approval. At his news conference, the overriding impression was of a man not fully in control of his message or his material....
At this time in America's history, we cannot afford an amateur at our nation's helm. But such an amateur is exactly what the electorate swept into office on November 4.

It remains to be seen exactly how much long-term damage BHO, more concerned with garnering adulation than governing responsibly, can do. It also remains to be seen how much longer BHO can remain "The One," even in the eyes of those who so recently adored and worshiped him.

Have BHO and his followers ever read Percy Bysshe Shelley's poem "Ozymandias" and understood the lesson contained therein?
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
(Crossposted to THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS, Infidel Bloggers Alliance, and The Tedland Daily)

Labels: ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/12/2009 11:00:00 PM  


Geert Wilders Arrested At Heathrow Airport

What a tragic day for freedom of speech as the West plunges further into dhimmitude!

Read the story at Dinah Lord's web site.

HERE is Geert Wilders's English language web site.

Labels: , , ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/12/2009 06:09:00 PM  


Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Weekly Blog Talk Radio: February 13 — Yoni Tidi, Ilana Freedman, & Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Listen to The Gathering Storm Radio Show, which WC and I cohost. The show broadcasts live every Friday beginning at noon, Pacific Time.

The call-in number is (646) 915-9870.

Callers welcome!

Our guests for the first half hour are Yoni Tidi, who will discuss with us for a few minutes the recent results in the Israeli election, and, for the remainder of that half hour, Ilana Freedman, CEO of Gerard Group International. Read her recent article "5 Minutes to Midnight - Dangerous Times" HERE.

Our guest for the second half hour is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of The Caged Virgin and Infidel, and one of the founders of The Foundation for Freedom of Expression. You can read more about Ayaan Hirsi Ali HERE and HERE.

Listen to the February 13, 2009 edition of The Gathering Storm Radio Show, live or later, by CLICKING HERE.

February 20: Yid With Lid, and Blue Heeler (aka Gravelrash)
February 27: Chaim and Elisabeth of Austria
March 6: Mohammed Abdul and Sabir
March 13: Elmer's Brother
March 20: Dr. Paul L. Williams

Labels: , ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/11/2009 11:00:00 PM  


Is This Guy For Real?

The fellow with the cap, I mean.

Video footage below the fold.

Pause the PlayList on the right sidebar before watching the video:

(Hat tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance)

Labels: ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/11/2009 06:17:00 PM  


Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Barney Frank Advocates Limiting ALL Executives' Salaries

(With a hat tip to Pastorius at THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS)

In Barney Frank's own words, we have the left brazenly declaring the intention of looking to pry open Americans' pocketbooks, as quoted in Investment News:
Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that currently apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.

Mr. Frank said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies....
As Pastorius noted in his posting:
We've been warning you that the Leftist reflex is towards Communism. Of course, when we say it, we sound like paranoid "far-right extremists".
Read the entire article in Investment News, and don't overlook the following:
The committee [working on the bill in consultation with the Obama administration] hopes to have a general outline of the legislation by early April...
Remember how, before the November 2008 election, some of us tried to warn the American voter as to what could happen under a leftist administration? How were our warnings received and heeded? I was ridiculed and told that I was paranoid.

And, by the way, if this Congress and administration get their way, don't expect the limits on Americans' salaries to stop at $500,000. The definition of "wealthy" is relative, after all. For many of us, a six-digit income as low as the bottom threshhold of those digits constitutes "wealthy." In fact, this household sees $50,000 as a cream-of-the-crop figure.

Wealth redistribution — the push is on for it. Good luck not getting caught in the squeeze, one way or the other.

A reminder from a previous post here at Always On Watch (Pause the PlayList before playing the YouTube selection):

In case you can't access the above, what Obama said is below the fold.

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

Hat tip to Epa for the graphic below:

Labels: , , , ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/10/2009 11:50:00 PM  


Saturday, February 07, 2009

Obamavision Alienates The Television Networks

From this article in the February 6, 2009 Washington Post:

Obama's Preemptive Strike

Broadcasters are bracing themselves for the likelihood of three prime-time interruptions in three weeks, totaling at least three hours of prime time -- and ad breaks -- yanked.

"His economic stimulus package apparently does not extend to the TV networks," President Obama's desire to talk -- and talk, and talk -- to the American public could cost broadcast networks millions, and millions, and millions of prime-time TV dollars," one network exec noted.

Obama's reps have alerted broadcasters that the president will hold a news conference Monday, according to network execs. It's expected to eat up the first hour of prime time; that alone could cost broadcasters more than $9 million in lost ad revenue....


Of course, Obama has picked one of the biggest viewership nights of the week for his appearances...

[... ]

[Besides] the economic hit, broadcasters are worried that this kind of shock-and-awe approach to prime-time preempting might be part of an Obama strategy to charm his way to a new economic-rescue plan. "As we're meeting this guy, from a network perspective, it's like, 'Is this part of the plan for him?'" the network exec said. "Is this what it's going to be: Is he going to take to the airwaves every time he has something to say?"

Such a strategy, of course, could backfire.


Said the TV suit: "He could lose a lot of goodwill doing this."
At this rate, BHO is going to alienate his base. Can't happen too soon.

Meanwhile, we are approaching George Orwell's 1984 - the network television version of Big Brother:

Labels: ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/07/2009 12:59:00 PM  


$20.3 Million for the Resettlement of Radical Muslims (with addendum & bumped)

Paul L. Williams, Bos Smith, and
Michael Travis

By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in migration assistance to the Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.

The "presidential determination" which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States was signed on January 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on February 4.

President Obama's decision, according to the Register, was necessitated by "the urgent refugee and migration needs" of the "victims."

Few on Capital Hill took note that the order provides a free ticket replete with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006.

The charter for Hamas calls for the replacement of the nation of Israel with a Palestinian Islamic state.

Since its formation in 1994, Hamas has been responsible for hundreds of terrorist attacks, including the 2002 Passover suicide bombing. The leaders of the movement signed the World Islamic Statement of 1998 - - a document, penned by Osama bin Laden, which declared war on America and Israel.

President Obama's executive order is expected to bring hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, many with ties to radical Islam, to our shores, furthering a process that was inaugurated in 1995 by Senator Ted Kennedy and the Cedar-Hart bill.


In 1965, Allah in His mercy raised up Senators Ted Kennedy and Edward Celler to initiate changes in the immigration law that made it possible for millions of Muslims to make their way to the New World - - as the Christian Europeans had done in the early years of the 20th Century. The Cedar-Hart bill, which was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on October 3, 1965, abolished the national-origin quotas that had been in effect since 1924. In the spirit of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it barred discrimination on the basis of race, creed, religion, or national origin. America, by fiat of liberal secular humanists, was to be become a multicultural country - - a country severed from its Judeo-Christian roots.

Remaining cognizant of the common roots as the American people, our legislative had enacted stringent laws pertaining to immigration and naturalization. The Naturalization Act of 1790 stipulated that "any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States" The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prohibited Chinese families from immigrating to the United States. The Immigration Act of 1907 reorganized the states bordering Mexico (Arizona, New Mexico and a large part of Texas) into Mexican Border District to stem the flow of immigrants into the U.S.

The Immigration Act of 1924 further limited the number of new immigrants by the establishment of a stringent quota system. The number of newcomers was now limited to 2 percent of each nationality who lived in the country not in 1924 but in 1890. The reliance of this legislation on the ethnic composition of the country before the turn of the century guaranteed that the majority of new arrivals would be from Northern Europe. Since few Italians and Eastern Europeans lived in the U. S. in 1890, the quotas for these nationalities became fixed at marginal rates and the number of new immigrants from "undesirable" regions greatly reduced. The following chart shows the effects of this legislation:

Immigration Statistics, 1920-1926 — Year Total — (Entering U.S. Country of Origin)

1920 — 430,001 — 38,471 (Great Britain) — 3,913 (Eastern Europe) — 95,145 (Italy)

1921 — 805,228 — 51,142 (Great Britain) — 32,793 (Eastern Europe) — 222,260 (Italy)

1922 — 309,556 — 25,153 (Great Britain) — 12,244 (Eastern Europe) — 40,319 (Italy)

1923 — 522,919 — 45,759 (Great Britain) — 16,082 (Eastern Europe) — 46,674 (Italy)

1924 — 706,896 — 59,490 (Great Britain) — 13,173 (Eastern Europe) — 56,246 (Italy)

1925 — 294,314 — 27,172 (Great Britain) — 1,566 (Eastern Europe) — 6,203 (Italy)

1926 — 304,488 — 25,528 (Great Britain) — 1,596 (Eastern Europe) — 8,253 (Italy)

It is hard to conceive of an act of Congress that could be more culturally biased than the Immigration Act of 1954 and yet it received nearly unchallenged bipartisan support. Yet The New York Times editorialized: "The country has a right to say who shall and who shall not come in. . . . The basis of restriction must be chosen with a view not to the interest of any group or groups in this country . . . but rather with a view to the country's best interests as a whole." (1)

In 1952, The McCarran Walter Immigration Act affirmed the national-origins quota system of 1924 and limited total annual immigration to one-sixth of one percent of the population of the continental United States in 1920, or 175,455. The act exempted spouses and children of U.S. citizens and people born in the Western Hemisphere from the quota.


But, in 1965, Kennedy and company viewed such legislation as pig-headed and prejudicial. Few elected officials, Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina - - being one of the exceptions, dared to disagree with them. Championing the Celler-Hart bill, which called for the abolished all quotas, Kennedy, being far from prescient, said: "Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any other country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. . . The charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligation of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage." (2)

Forty years after Senator Kennedy made this pledge, Dean Steven Gillon of the Honors College at Oklahoma University assessed the results of the 1965 Immigration Act by noting: "The U. S. added at least 40 million immigrants after 1965. Before 1965, 95 percent of the new immigrants had come from Europe. After 1965, 95 percent came from the Third World. The 1965 act has transformed American society and had consequences exactly the opposite of what we were promised." (3)

In his speech before Congress, Senator Kennedy had said; "Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually." The level of immigration, he swore, would remain substantially same as it was in 1965 - -156,700. This, too, proved to be woefully incorrect. The present immigrant rate exceeds 1.5 million annually. Noting this, Pat Buchanan writes:
The 1965 Cedar-Hart bill was the greatest bait-and-switch in history. Americans were promised one result, and got the opposite result that they had been promised would never happen. They were misled. They were deceived. They were swindled. They were told immigration levels would remain roughly the same and the ethnic composition of their country would not change. What they got was a Third World invasion that is converting America into another country. (4)
From 1965 to the present, more than half of all the immigrants to America from the Middle East and Asia have been Muslim with radical ideologies. (5) Malcolm is surely smiling in his grave, for he had written:
As the Christian Crusade once went East, now the Islamic Crusade is going West. With the East - - Asia - - closed to Christianity, with Africa rapidly becoming converted to Islam, with Europe rapidly becoming un-Christian, generally today it is accepted that the 'Christian' civilization of America - - which is propping up the white race around the world - - is Christianity's remaining strongest bastion.

Well, if this is so - - if the so called 'Christianity' now being practiced in America displays the best that the world Christianity has to offer - - no one in his right mind should need any much greater proof that very close at hand is the end of Christianity.

Are you aware that some Protestant theologians, in their writings, are using the phrase "post-Christian" era - - and they mean now?

1. New York Times editorial cited in Otis J. Graham, Unguarded Gates: A History of America's Immigration Crisis (Lanham, Maryland: Rowan & Littlefield, 2004), p. 50.

2. Senator Edward Kennedy, quoted in Patrick J. Buchanan's State of Emergency (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2006), pp. 238-239.

3. Steven Gillon quoted in Georgie Anne Geyer's "Immigration: The Elephant in America's Room," Universal Press Syndicate, October 2005,

4. Patrick J. Buchanan, p. 239.

5. Jane I. Smith, "Patterns of Muslim Immigration," International Information Program, U. S. Department of State, 2002.

6. The Autobiography of Malcolm X, pp. 376-377.


Addendum: Proof of this executive order, about which the media are remaining silent.

Labels: , ,

Turn the page ....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/07/2009 12:43:00 PM