'cookieChoices = {};'

The Right of the People to be Secure in their Persons, Houses, Papers, and Effects,
Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures,
Shall Not Be Violated


Saturday, April 25, 2009

A Candian-Caused Disaster


Friday, April 24, 2009

Canadian-caused Disaster  

[Mark Steyn]

Having re-classified terrorism as "man-caused disaster," and insisted that illegally crossing the border is "not a crime," Janet Napolitano then declared that all those terrorists — er, man-caused-type-incident specialists — who caused the man-caused disaster on 9/11 entered the country via Canada.

They didn't, and Canadians are understandably miffed at being slandered by the Secretary of Hopeychangey Security. In The Globe & MailLawrence Martin has a, er, novel line of approach:

What is Bush throwback Janet Napolitano doing in Barack Obama's cabinet?

Oh, dear. By contrast, the CBC's Rex Murphy gets to the heart of the matter:

What is Barack Obama doing appointing someone to head Homeland Security, who, eight years after the attacks, does not even now know where the hijackers came from and how they got into their country? Here, it’s not her ignorance about Canada which should be troubling. It’s her ignorance of the most publicized event in modern American history. How can anyone be head of Homeland Security and not know the history of the 19 men who killed nearly 3,000 Americans?

Just so. The mass murderers of Secretary Napolitano's compatriots never set foot in Canada. Under the State Department's Visa Express program for young Saudi males, they filled out joke perfunctory U.S. government paperwork, and even then barely troubled to observe the niceties: "Address while in the United States: HOTEL AMERICA," etc. No octogenarian Toronto snowbird who's been wintering in Florida every year since 1947 would try to get away with answers like that.

A person too incurious to have picked that up over the last eight years is now in charge of Homeland Security.

04/24 09:16 AMShare


Friday, April 24, 2009

Maybe it's an Arizona thing...  

 [Mark Steyn]

Okay, in a spirit of bipartisanship:

Just days after Janet Napolitano, the U.S. homeland security secretary, sparked a diplomatic kerfuffle by suggesting the terrorists took a Canadian route to the U.S. eight years ago, McCain defended her by saying that, in fact, the former Arizona governor was correct.

"Well, some of the 9-11 hijackers did come through Canada, as you know," McCain, last year's Republican presidential candidate, said on Fox News on Friday.

In its way, this is worse than Secretary Napolitano. The war on terror is supposed to be McCain's area of expertise.

As readers well know, I'm all for taking the slightest opportunity to blame Canada, but this is pathetic: The 9/11 killers filled in joke paperwork issued by the US State Department and were waived through US immigration by US officials: No Canadians were involved, only the government of the United States. Three thousand Americans died as a result of the federal bureaucracy's Saudi Visa Express service, but the nation's most senior politicians can't be bothered apprising themselves of this basic fact.

This is what happens when you take what are meant to be "citizen-legislators" and bulk them up with a retinue larger than the average Gulf emir. Half these guys are hopeless when they're off the cue cards, but, even by those standards, this is embarrassing: We're talking about a basic fact about the defining event of the last decade - and McCain can't even be bothered getting that right.

[UPDATE: After innumerable e-mails to the contrary, let me make it clear:

On 9/11, 19 mostly Saudi terrorists killed 3,000 people. Not one of those terrorists ever set foot in Canada or crossed the Canadian/US border. The Napolitano/McCain statements are, yes, insulting to Canadians (and I would be in favor of the Canadian Government expelling the US Ambassador just to make the point), but they are far more deeply insulting to Americans, and especially to the dead of 9/11.]

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 4 Comments

Moors want Spain to apologise after 400 years

Let's see, neither George Bush or Barack Obama dare use the word Genocide for what the Turks did to the Armenians less than 100 years ago (when they killed 1 million people), and yet, the Muslims want Europeans to apologize for killing a few hundred Muslims over 400 years ago?!?!?!?

Fat fucking chance, motherfuckers.

From the London Times:

It was the start of one of the earliest and most brutal episodes of ethnic cleansing in Europe, so Spain is, understandably perhaps, a little reluctant to mark the occasion.

Four hundred years ago today King Philip III signed an order to expel 300,000 Moriscos - or part-Muslims - who had converted from Islam to Christianity.

Over the next five years hundreds of the exiles died as they were forced from their homes in Spain to North Africa at the height of the Spanish Inquisition.

All hail Phillip, Ferdinand, and Isabella.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 5 Comments

You Do Not Have The Right To Remain Silent? You Do Not Have The Right To Have An Attorney Present During Questioning?

If anyone thinks Epaminondas' post, from earlier today, was over the top in it's question of whether we may need to have an armed revolution in this country ...

From Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

Apologies to Glenn Reynolds, but they said if I voted for a Republican in 2008, I’d wind up with an autocratic administration determined to wipe out civil rights — and they were right!  The Obama administration has argued for the end of the Michigan v Jackson ruling that requires police to provide an attorney for a suspect once one has been requested.  They argue that the benefits are “meagre,” as the Telegraph puts it:

The effort to sweep aside the 23-year-old Michigan vs Jackson ruling is one of several moves by the new government to have dismayed civil rights groups. …

The Michigan vs Jackson ruling in 1986 established that, if a defendants have a lawyer or have asked for one to be present, police may not interview them until the lawyer is present.

Any such questioning cannot be used in court even if the suspect agrees to waive his right to a lawyer because he would have made that decision without legal counsel, said the Supreme Court.

However, in a current case that seeks to change the law, the US Justice Department argues that the existing rule is unnecessary and outdated.

The sixth amendment of the US constitution protects the right of criminal suspects to be “represented by counsel”, but the Obama regime argues that this merely means to “protect the adversary process” in a criminal trial.

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, said the 1986 decision “serves no real purpose” and offers only “meagre benefits”.

Can you imagine what the outcry over this would have been had President John McCain, or for that matter President George W. Bush, had tried this? Newspapers around the nation would have decried his assault on civil liberties. PFAW and the ACLU would have staged rallies in every American city, and they would have called Bush, McCain, or any other Republican a fascist for denying legal counsel to people under police questioning. We’d have an endless line of appearances on television news programs from people who got coerced into false confessions after having been denied counsel.

Instead, with Obama in office, we have to discover this from a British newspaper. The only other coverage seen on this side of the pond has been from SCOTUS Blog (neutral analysis) and the HuffPo’s reprint of an AP report.

Rolling back Michigan v Jackson would be a mistake. People who ask for an attorney should get one without further questioning. Americans have the right to counsel at all stages of the process, not just in court, as Obama argues. The adversarial process begins with arrest and interrogation, not when people first face a judge. While Miranda has been turned into a fetish, Michigan actually does the work Miranda promises — to get people counsel when they most need it. That does serve a real purpose, despite what Obama argues.

Wasn’t Barack Obama supposed to be a Constitutional scholar? Was that in the How To Dismantle school of thought?
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 5 Comments

Nancy Is out of Control

Bookmark and Share
posted by shiva at permanent link# 11 Comments

A Guns of Nihilism Postscript

Guest Commentary by Edward Cline:

When I began composing brief answers to some reader comments on my “The Guns of Nihilism” post, I decided to elaborate just to cover some ground I could not cover in the original post, and also to clear up some issues in my own mind.

One commentator asked:

What I don’t understand about these nihilist pacifist leftists is: Don’t they understand that by undermining America they are putting their own lives in danger? Also, if they weaken America’s military strength they open up the possibility that America will fall. But this would destroy their power and all leftists lust for power. What it is so hard for me to understand is the phenomenon of power lusting leftist/fascists who are nevertheless suicidal….
What is hard for any rational, life-loving person to understand is the death premise of such nihilists. But, it’s that very premise which you must grasp and take seriously. Then you won’t be so puzzled by their words and actions. If America fell, nothing would please them more, even if that fall entailed their own deaths. That is why they are nihilists, worshippers of nothing, champions of nothing, advocates of non-existence. Rand dramatized it perfectly in the character of James Taggart in Atlas Shrugged, and Galt explicated the phenomenon in his speech.

It’s obvious in Obama’s words and actions, and also in the rhetoric and actions of environmentalists. Environmentalism has moved from being a pseudo-science to being a virulent anti-science religion, attracting all sorts of people searching for a mystical sanction that will allow them to coexist alongside but with apologies to plants, animals and rocks. Nihilists are secular Buddhists, hankering for a means to exist and not exist at the same time, but preferring their own non-existence if they can take the lovers of life they depend on with them into it. (The actual Buddhists at least keep to themselves.) If they can’t kill or have the lovers of life killed by some means, then they want to make their lives as painful and joyless and burdensome as possible.

Thus Taggart’s confession that he wants to hear Galt scream as Galt is being tortured on the “Ferris Persuader.” Thus the whole “green” movement, which philosophically clueless automakers and “renewable energy” technocrats and all sorts of bizarre, rudderless people are submitting to. Thus the militancy of political, economic, and cultural egalitarians. From top to bottom and across the board, the nihilists’ motivating premise is death, or pain, or destruction, or all three. Concede any of their arguments at your own peril -- and concession to their arguments is what our policymakers have made, guaranteeing the economic decline of this country, not to mention its inability to defend itself from global predators.

For example, environmentalists object strenuously to the Navy’s use of sonar in the oceans, because it allegedly “disorients” whales. They place no value on this country being able to defend itself, which they would benefit from, and ostensibly some mystical value on the uninterrupted freedom of whales, from which they derive no conceivable or measurable benefit. This is altruism, or the application of that code to the relationship between man and nature. Since environmentalists treat man and nature as coequals, or nature as intrinsically superior to man, if nature is in any way imperiled, man is expected to do “the right thing” (à la Kant), and erase himself from existence. Altruism and nihilism are natural partners.

The Dadaists and the avant garde of abstract art and atonal composers in the early 20th century posed as “artists” and professed a passion for art. But their primary motivation was to destroy art which they couldn’t begin to match and which their “souls“ nevertheless would not permit them to emulate; their “passion“ was actually a hatred of it. They were as value-impoverished as Obama is. They had no values to preserve or betray. The art historian who tells you that a urinal with a Barbie doll sitting in it is just as great a work of art and an instance of a profound esthetic appreciation or statement on the meaning of life as Michelangelo’s David or Daniel French’s The Minute Man, is a nihilist seeking to sabotage your mind, your values, and art as such. (I include French’s statue here because it is a special symbol of what Obama and his nihilist cohorts wish to obliterate in Americans’ minds, the necessity and willingness of men to fight for freedom.)

The critic who tells you that someone like Willie Nelson or Ice-Cube or John Cage is just as great an artist and composer as Rachmaninoff and that there is no difference in spirit or talent between them, is such a nihilist. And for years whole schools of nihilists were busy in the literary and academic realms as constructionists, deconstructionists, and post-deconstructionists, actively destroying the value of great literature in the minds of college students. That carnage, wrought over decades of that kind of “education,” is responsible for the arid, colorless, and windless landscape of modern literature.

Toohey’s speech to Peter Keating near the end of The Fountainhead about his means and ends to power is but an introduction to that part of Galt’s speech which deals with the means and ends of the nihilists, of the murderers of man’s spirit.

As for the Department of Defense’s brass-shredding program, regardless of the caliber of ammo, it is just the start. The anti-gun advocates and legislators won’t stop there, as the commentator pointed out about the move to ban lead in private-sector ammunition. It’s their way of weaseling around the accusation that they are against Americans protecting themselves, just as their ilk in another venue duck the charge of censorship by rationalizing the establishment of “speech codes” or “fairness doctrines” that won’t hurt anyone’s “feelings” or “self-esteem” or to assure anyone of his “right” to speak on someone else’s time, dime or property.

Finally, some further remarks are in order on the Department of Homeland Security’s Assessment, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” I have read the entire document, and it is noteworthy that while it focuses on “rightwing paranoia” as a potential catalyst for violence, it is itself written from a state of left-wing paranoia. It dwells almost exclusively on the alleged nemesis of a supposedly rival ideology, on any group purportedly governed by “rightwing” thinking, from white supremacists to returning “disgruntled” veterans to antigovernment militias, and just about anyone or any group that questions the wisdom, rightness, and efficacy of government interventionist and extra-Constitutional policies. That Assessment is one of the crudest instances of political “package-dealing” I have ever read.

As I read this document, I could not help but suspect that it is an expression of the left’s worst nightmares. Remember that the DHS was created with Republican President George W. Bush’s encouragement and blessing, and is the child of the “right” intended to detect and combat Islamic terrorism. Predictably, an agency vested with extra-legal powers such as those possessed by the DHS must sooner or later regard itself as the end-all and be-all of national policy, see itself as a permanent adjunct to any political party that assumed the reins of power, and turn against the population it was intended to safeguard. The April 7th Assessment assumes the possibility of a general “rightwing” uprising against the federal government, or at least general civil disobedience in revolt against a federal government encroaching upon and obviating freedom, to which the government would have no answer and only two options open to it: to “back off” or to impose martial law, including censorship.

The DHS, in cooperation with the FBI, monitored the Tea Parties of April 15th and presumably recorded the faces and identities of thousands of Americans who took part in the “antigovernment” events. Doubtless all that information has gone into the DHS database.

The Assessment is also noteworthy in regards to its omissions. If the DHS is concerned about the potential for violence and “rightwing” terrorism, there is not a single mention in the memo of the terrorism the agency was originally created to detect and combat, Islamic jihad. But it does cite instances of “rightwing” violence, such as the “shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on 4 April 2009.”

The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled ‘one world government.’
Of course, the DHS can argue that Islamic jihadists are hardly “rightwing extremists,” and so were not the subject of the memo, but it cannot deny that Islamic “extremists” also subscribe to conspiracy theories, train for urban warfare on private compounds in this country, are anti-Semitic in principle, seek to convert this country to Islam and replace the Constitution with Sharia law, and dream of a “one world government,” as well, in the form of a global caliphate. Why discriminate between them and Aryan race skinheads or white supremacist militias? I found it interesting that while the Assessment memo cited the Pittsburgh killings, it did not cite the recent killings of the three Oakland, California police officers by a Muslim, nor any of the numerous attacks on non-Muslims by Muslims in this country since 9/11.

One can only suppose that the DHS considers some “extremist” violence, even if it has not occurred, more equal than other “extremist” violence, even though that violence is a matter of record. And the “extremism” of the current administration, which is hard left-wing cloaked in populist rhetoric, receives a free pass from the DHS.

“Rightwing extremism,” according to the DHS mindset (and that of the Obama administration and of left-wingers everywhere), is synonymous with fascism. But fascism, which is government control of nominally private businesses, industries and property, is simply the “right wing” of the left. The only element that distinguishes the two political and ideological phenomena is the role of religion. They are otherwise one and the same. Had he been elected, there is no reason to believe that Senator John McCain, based on his political record, would have acted any differently from Obama over the subprime mortgage crisis, except that we would have heard more about God and patriotism as he was busy proposing bailouts, firing company executives, and holding CEOs accountable to the government. McCain and Obama are in the same fascist/socialist camp. McCain would have moved only a little more slowly in the direction of fascism. Obama and his fellow felons are in a hurry to establish a fascist/socialist state before any credible opposition to it can rally its forces and point out to Americans the false spectrum of “left-wing vs. right-wing.”

We can only hope that we can persuade Americans of the deception of that yardstick, and show that the only political alternative beyond it is laissez-faire capitalism and freedom.

Crossposted at The Dougout
Bookmark and Share
posted by Grant Jones at permanent link# 9 Comments

Obama, Turkey and the "G" word

Up til today, the news headlines on Obama's visit to Turkey and the issue regarding the Armenian killings, have read like this:

Obama Avoids Calling Amenian Killings "genocide"

Obama Softens Tone On Armenian Deaths

POLITCAL LANDSCAPE:Obama Stops Short In Turkey

Obama Follows The ADL Line On The Armenian Genocide

But today, we have this:

Turkey Says Obama's Comments On 1915 Incidents "unacceptable"

ANKARA, April 25 (Xinhua) -- Turkey on Saturday defined U.S. President Barack Obama's comments on the incidents of 1915 related to Armenia as "unacceptable".

"We consider some expressions in that statement and the perception of history it contains concerning the events of 1915 as unacceptable," a statement issued by Turkey's Foreign Ministry said, referring to Obama's speech on the "Armenian remembrance day" on Friday.

The statement said that nobody should forget that several hundreds of thousands of Turks also lost their lives in those days.

Armenians claim that more than 1.5 million Armenians were killed in a systematic genocide in the hands of the Ottomans during World War I before modern Turkey was born in 1923.

But Turkey insists the Armenians were victims of widespread chaos and governmental breakdown as the 600-year-old empire collapsed in the years before 1923.

"History can be construed and evaluated only on the basis of undisputed evidence and documentation," the statement said.

It said that common history of the Turkish and Armenian nations had to be assessed solely through impartial and scientific data, and historians must base their evaluations only on such material.

"It is with such an understanding that we support the historical dimension of the Turkish-Armenian dialogue," it said.

During his visit to Turkey on April 6, U.S. President Barack Obama said he was encouraged by the dialogues between Turkey and Armenia aimed at improving ties, promising Washington will be as constructive as possible on the improvement of their ties.

He said as Turkey and Armenia are having serious negotiations that could bear fruit quickly, "I will be as encouraging as possible," adding the world should also encourage them.

Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 in support of Azerbaijan during its conflict with Armenia over the Upper Karabakh region.

So, what exactly did he say?



U.S. President Barack Obama used the expression "Meds Yeghern", meaning "big disaster" in Armenian, instead of "genocide" in his speech on the Armenian claims regarding the incident of 1915.

The executives of the Turkish Embassy in
Washington D.C. said that Obama's speech was as it was expected but it contained some heavy expressions like "Meds Yeghern". They said that they would draw Washington's attention to those expressions. Retired ambassador Yalim Eralp said, "this definition is genocide." The Armenians are defining the incidents of 1915 as "big disaster." This expression was also used in the petition of some Turkish intellectuals who apologized to the Armenians.

Now, let's take a look at what happened back then:

When World War I broke out in 1914, leaders of the Young Turk regime sided with the Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary). The outbreak of war would provide the perfect opportunity to solve the "Armenian question" once and for all. The world's attention became fixed upon the battlegrounds of France and Belgium where the young men of Europe were soon falling dead by the hundreds of thousands. The Eastern Front eventually included the border between Turkey and Russia. With war at hand, unusual measures involving the civilian population would not seem too out of the ordinary.

As a prelude to the coming action, Turks disarmed the entire Armenian population under the pretext that the people were naturally sympathetic toward Christian Russia. Every last rifle and pistol was forcibly seized, with severe penalties for anyone who failed to turn in a weapon. Quite a few Armenian men actually purchased a weapon from local Turks or Kurds (nomadic Muslim tribesmen) at very high prices so they would have something to turn in.

At this time, about forty thousand Armenian men were serving in the Turkish Army. In the fall and winter of 1914, all of their weapons were confiscated and they were put into slave labor battalions building roads or were used as human pack animals. Under the brutal work conditions they suffered a very high death rate. Those who survived would soon be shot outright. For the time had come to move against the Armenians.

The decision to annihilate the entire population came directly from the ruling triumvirate of ultra-nationalist Young Turks.

The actual extermination orders were transmitted in coded telegrams to all provincial governors throughout Turkey.

Armed roundups began on the evening of April 24, 1915, as 300 Armenian political leaders, educators, writers, clergy and dignitaries in Constantinople (present day Istanbul) were taken from their homes, briefly jailed and tortured, then hanged or shot.

Next, there were mass arrests of Armenian men throughout the country by Turkish soldiers, police agents and bands of Turkish volunteers. The men were tied together with ropes in small groups then taken to the outskirts of their town and shot dead or bayoneted by death squads. Local Turks and Kurds armed with knives and sticks often joined in on the killing.

Then it was the turn of Armenian women, children, and the elderly. On very short notice, they were ordered to pack a few belongings and be ready to leave home, under the pretext that they were being relocated to a non-military zone for their own safety. They were actually being taken on death marches heading south toward the Syrian desert.

Most of the homes and villages left behind by the rousted Armenians were quickly occupied by Muslim Turks who assumed instant ownership of everything. In many cases, young Armenian children were spared from deportation by local Turks who took them from their families. The children were coerced into denouncing Christianity and becoming Muslims, and were then given new Turkish names. For Armenian boys the forced conversion meant they each had to endure painful circumcision as required by Islamic custom.

Individual caravans consisting of thousands of deported Armenians were escorted by Turkish gendarmes. These guards allowed roving government units of hardened criminals known as the "Special Organization" to attack the defenseless people, killing anyone they pleased. They also encouraged Kurdish bandits to raid the caravans and steal anything they wanted. In addition, an extraordinary amount of sexual abuse and rape of girls and young women occurred at the hands of the Special Organization and Kurdish bandits. Most of the attractive young females were kidnapped for a life of involuntary servitude.

The death marches, involving over a million Armenians, covered hundreds of miles and lasted months. Indirect routes through mountains and wilderness areas were deliberately chosen in order to prolong the ordeal and to keep the caravans away from Turkish villages.

Food supplies being carried by the people quickly ran out and they were usually denied further food or water.

Stopping to rest or lagging behind the caravan was mercilessly beaten until they rejoined the march. If they couldn't continue they were shot. A common practice was to force all of the people in the caravan to remove every stitch of clothing and have them resume the march in the nude under the scorching sun until they dropped dead by the roadside from exhaustion and dehydration.

An estimated 75 percent of the Armenians on these marches perished, especially children and the elderly. Those who survived the ordeal were herded into the desert without a drop of water. Others were killed by being thrown off cliffs, burned alive, or drowned in rivers.

The Turkish countryside became littered with decomposing corpses. At one point, Mehmed Talaat responded to the problem by sending a coded message to all provincial leaders: "I have been advised that in certain areas unburied corpses are still to be seen. I ask you to issue the strictest instructions so that the corpses and their debris in your vilayet are buried."

But his instructions were generally ignored. Those involved in the mass murder showed little interest in stopping to dig graves. The roadside corpses and emaciated deportees were a shocking sight to foreigners working in Turkey.

Eyewitnesses included German government liaisons, American missionaries, and U.S. diplomats stationed in the country.

The Christian missionaries were often threatened with death themselves and were unable to help the people. Diplomats from the still neutral United States communicated their blunt assessments of the ongoing government actions. U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Henry Morgenthau, reported to Washington: "When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race..."

The Allied Powers (Great Britain, France, Russia) responded to news of the massacres by issuing a warning to Turkey:

"...the Allied governments announce publicly...that they will hold all the members of the Ottoman Government, as well as such of their agents as are implicated, personally responsible for such matters."

The warning had no effect. Newspapers in the West including the New York Times published reports of the continuing deportations with the headlines:

Armenians Are Sent to Perish in the Desert - Turks Accused of Plan to Exterminate
Whole Population (August 18, 1915) - Million Armenians Killed or in Exile - American Committee on Relief Says Victims of Turks Are Steadily Increasing - Policy of Extermination (December 15, 1915).

Temporary relief for some Armenians came as Russian troops attacked along the Eastern Front and made their way into central Turkey. But the troops withdrew in 1917 upon the Russian Revolution. Armenian survivors withdrew along with them and settled in among fellow Armenians already living in provinces of the former Russian Empire. There were in total about 500,000 Armenians gathered in this region.

In May 1918, Turkish armies attacked the area to achieve the goal of expanding Turkey eastward into the Caucasus and also to resume the annihilation of the Armenians. As many as 100,000 Armenians may have fallen victim to the advancing Turkish troops.

However, the Armenians managed to acquire weapons and they fought back, finally repelling the Turkish invasion at the battle of Sadarabad, thus saving the remaining population from total extermination with no help from the outside world.

Following that victory, Armenian leaders declared the establishment of the independent Republic of Armenia.

World War I ended in November 1918 with a defeat for Germany and the Central Powers including Turkey. Shortly before the war had ended, the Young Turk triumvirate; Talaat, Enver and Djemal, abruptly resigned their government posts and fled to Germany where they had been offered asylum.

In the months that followed, repeated requests were made by Turkey's new moderate government and the Allies asking Germany to send the Young Turks back home to stand trial. However all such requests were turned down. As a result, Armenian activists took matters into their own hands, located the Young Turks and assassinated them along with two other instigators of the mass murder.

Meanwhile, representatives from the fledgling Republic of Armenia attended the Paris Peace Conference in the hope that the victorious Allies would give them back their historic lands seized by Turkey. The European Allies responded to their request by asked the United States to assume guardianship of the new Republic. However, President Woodrow Wilson's attempt to make Armenia an official U.S. protectorate was rejected by the U.S. Congress in May 1920.

But Wilson did not give up on Armenia. As a result of his efforts, the Treaty of Sevres was signed on August 10, 1920, by the Allied Powers, the Republic of Armenia and the new moderate leaders of Turkey. The treaty recognized an independent Armenian state in an area comprising much of the former historic homeland.

However, Turkish nationalism once again reared its head. The moderate Turkish leaders who signed the treaty were ousted in favor of a new nationalist leader, Mustafa Kemal, who simply refused to accept the treaty and even re-occupied the very lands in question then expelled any surviving Armenians, including thousands of orphans.

No Allied power came to the aid of the Armenian Republic and it collapsed. Only a tiny portion of the easternmost area of historic Armenia survived by being becoming part of the Soviet Union.

After the successful obliteration of the people of historic Armenia, the Turks demolished any remnants of Armenian cultural heritage including priceless masterpieces of ancient architecture, old libraries and archives. The Turks even leveled entire cities such as the once thriving Kharpert, Van and the ancient capital at Ani, to remove all traces of the three thousand year old civilization.

The half-hearted reaction of the world's great powers to the plight of the Armenians was duly noted by the young German politician Adolf Hitler. After achieving total power in Germany, Hitler decided to conquer Poland in 1939 and told his generals: "Thus for the time being I have sent to the East only my 'Death's Head Units' with the orders to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish race or language. Only in such a way will we win the vital space that we need. Who still talks nowadays about the Armenians?

Is this not genocide?


the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

And lest we not forget what the Young Turks were. Julia Duin at the Washington Times asks,

Is Islam able to apologize?

What would contrition for the genocide look like from a secular state based on a religious tradition - Islam - that does not practice corporate repentance?

Muslim scholars tell me the holy month of Ramadan takes care of the sins of the individual, but not those of a nation.
There's no concept of national sin, which may be why the Shi'ite Iranians have never apologized for their sacking of the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

The concept of national repentance started with Jewish prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures. Christians then ran with the idea, with modern examples including President Lincoln's 1863 call to a day of national repentance and fasting. His idea lives on in the National Day of Prayer on the first Thursday of each May.
Plus, Christians ranging from the late Pope John Paul II to bands of evangelical Protestant missionaries have apologized for the excesses of the Crusades. But what Islamic entity has apologized for the 300 years of conquest that provoked the Crusades?

"The idea of being sorry for what's happened in the past is a Western way of expressing things," Mr. Haddad says.

"Nations elsewhere in the world do not do this."

However, he added that his wife, Georgetown University professor Yvonne Haddad, lost two Armenian Orthodox ancestors during the genocide.

"Individual Muslims can express regret or repentance, but I don't know what the appropriate institution would be to express Islamic regret," Georgetown University Islamic history professor John Voll told me. Christianity has corporate bodies representing its various divisions, he added, but "in Islam, there is no corporate structure that represents the umma [world Muslim community].

Corporate repentance requires an acceptance of corporate guilt, an idea that dates back to original sin.

"Islamic theological tradition does not involve a concept of original sin," he said.

"Muslims think Adam and Eve disobeyed
God and were expelled from the garden, but God did not curse them."

If the majority religion of Turkey does not have a concept of common guilt, can Turks apologize for their past?

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Christine at permanent link# 6 Comments

The Unutterable is Uttered ,,, READ AND THINK

For some time now I have been pondering the direction this administration has taken with regard to those it clearly considers domestic ENEMIES. The flip flop actions over the water boarding, and imminent release of photos will create firestorm of stupidity which will increase the incline on our slope from the Gracchi, to Drusus, to Saturninus, which ended with Sulla and Caesar. What began over Robert Bork is a straight line thru Lewis Libby and that this process will lead now to trials of those whose actions saved many lives in LA is unconscionable. I have said this before...what do these people imagine was going on, on Guadalcanal, Peleliu, Tarawa, Okinawa? What would have been the reaction if FDR and his people had faced ex post facto war crimes trials over the Japanese Internment policies? Policies opposed by his OWN AG, Robert Jackson who went on to become a highly respected Supreme Court Justice. Suppose Dwight Eisenhower was in such a mind in order to demonize his political opposition for domestic political purposes?

Harry Truman who COULD HAVE BEEN looked at as the war criminal murderer of 250,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and was at LEAST as unpopular as Bush the day he left DC, is instead ..


Precisely because among his other qualities, he stood first for those actions which saved his countryman's lives. UNASHAMEDLY

Today, though, one of the possibilities is that the dedicated leftists can brook no domestic opposition AT ALL. Are so enamored with their idea of social and economic justice that opposition can only be evil.

All this can only lead, as I have said with regret repeatedly, to several really undesirable outcomes. Obama simply cannot be this stupid. He and his supporters are forcing these issues. If the republicans gain control after some national tragedy, what then ... trials of former Obama admin personnel for TREASON?

We cannot go on this way. They cannot make us enemies without factionalism DESTROYING THE NATION, PRECISELY as Madison warned.

From HERE:

You want me on this wall

By J.J. Jackson
web posted April 6, 2009

Jack Nicholson in A Few Good MenThis article is directed at those in the conservative movement who find my existence grotesque. You know who you are. You are the people that do not know how to get from point A to point B without being led around by the nose. You are the people who might be able to recite Jefferson, Madison, Washington and other founding fathers but cannot understand what you are quoting and the meaning of those words. You are the people that want to stop one step short, take options off the table and who think that when push comes to shove, there is still always more talking that can be done. These words I am about to write come forth because of an email exchange I had with a friend of mine who is a retired Marine and also made necessary because of wishy washy comments I have heard coming as of late from some on the right who think that I am far too radical, being too realistic, too rational in reviewing historic facts and in the process offending their sensibilities which have been generated by false beliefs.

Last week my Marine Corps. buddy and I were discussing the current state of America and the exchange eventually led into what the options for the nation were moving forward. He, like myself, has become very concerned about the direction this great nation is heading and he foresees America as quickly becoming far too weak to correct its course. He asked me straight, "What do you think needs to be done?" I responded, without even a second thought, that I thought there were three options that faced us

1) convert the hearts of Americans to embrace liberty through proselytizing on its virtues and retake our government through peaceful means, 

2) acquiesce to the current majority and join them in socialist misery 

or, lastly and ultimately, 

3) have an armed revolution that would either allow those of us that believe in liberty to part ways and divide the nation or that would retake the entire nation

I added that I did not believe that those who are currently destroying America would let us leave willingly and without a fight making that last option inevitable should they not be converted and considering that many Americans would never chose to join them willingly and would need to forcibly defend their right to cease being part of yet another failed socialist non-utopia utopia.

He then responded with what was obvious surprise, but relieved surprise, that I even mentioned that last course as an option. I made sure that he understood that it was not my favored option and that I certainly believed that we had not come to such a point in this nation yet even if I did fervently believe that we were rapidly approaching it. 

But he was still none-the-less very happy to hear someone else say what he told me he was also thinking might be a necessary path to walk. Talking about this further it became clear that he had been scorned by some of his other friends, so-called conservatives, for bringing up such an option when he and they had a similar conversation last month. They had scolded him for even mentioning such a thing. Revolution? Violence? How utterly droll! The problem was that they misconstrued his statement of such as a possibility as his endorsement of such an option even, according to him, after he made it clear that he certainly did not want it to come to that.

I can relate to all this because I get the same sort of response when I tell people that an armed revolution in America may be coming our way. Whether we want it or not is a moot point. If we do not correct ourselves and right this sinking ship it may become the only tenable option left to those that seek liberty for themselves and their fellow man. A few weeks ago I wrote an article titled, "This Power Keg Has Long Sought A Spark," in which I discussed how America just needs a single event to set us off into what was not at all a thinly veiled reference to civil war where citizens would no longer take governmental abuses of power and begin to fight back violently. Most of you that read my weekly articles cannot imagine the amount of visceral hate mail that I received from so-called conservatives for even broaching the topic.

I was called everything from a, "dangerous radical," to a, "trigger happy lunatic whose blood lust for innocent life was insatiable." And that was just for putting forth a lesson on how Americans have long looked the other way as the federal government has overstepped its bounds and trampled the rights of citizens in exceedingly violent manners. Shattering urban legends and popular myths about what actually happened leading up to and during events like the raid on the Branch Davidians in Waco to Ruby Ridge was also not taken at all well by those with their blinders on. And remember, these were the responses from people that called themselves conservatives! You can imagine what the responses were from the lefties that stumbled blindly upon my article with their guard down.

So believe me, I can relate to my retired Marine Corps. friend. When I shared with him some of this, his next sentence to me in the conversation was a reworking of some lines from the movie, "A Few Good Men." It was something that I had not thought of. He said, "Believe it or not, and not to sound cliché, they don't want the truth because deep down in places they don't talk about at parties, those people that claim to be conservative and who attack you don’t know what to do when liberty is under attack and they want you guarding the wall. They need you on that wall. They need you rattling the cages, sounding the horn and standing that post with a pistol on your hip and a rifle within reach reminding the tyrant class that if they push too far there are patriots who will rise up against them using more than just words."

At first I cringed at being compared to the maniacal Colonel Jessep who in the movie used much of his speech about walls and the need for them to be guarded to justify in his own mind how he had not been complicit in the murder of a young Marine and then the conspiracy and cover-up of such an act. But I quickly realized that this part of the speech is right even if the whole of it was meant to be self-serving. Those that react so viscerally to the truth seem to forget that from time to time, as Jefferson once said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." They either have no idea what must at times occur for their own rights to continue on or are simply unwilling to accept such costs.

Any talk of taking to the streets and any warning that blood may be required to be spilled in the defense of liberty causes them to wince and turn up their noses in either pretend or real anger at anyone that even says that such actions may be necessary. Not that they are necessary mind you; just the insinuation that that they may become necessary. Perhaps they agree to allow the people to take to the streets but remove from the table any acceptance of further action and wring their hands at the very thought that some citizens may decide that a line in the sand has been crossed while the wishy washy continue to think more talking is needed. Those that do so in pretend anger do so because they know the truth and that history has shown us this truth over and over again. But they and their circle of friends have chosen to simply ignore it. Those that do so in real anger do so because they think that they are smart enough to never have to resort to such, as they see them, barbaric actions. To do so would cause them to have to break a nail or mess up their finely quaffed hair and offend their metrosexual facade.

But when push comes to shove both of you sorts, I firmly believe, want me on this wall banging the pots and pans and shouting from atop it as the hordes from without are assaulting it with weapons of ever increasing power. For you do love liberty. Yes you do, even if you are not willing to say so and perhaps even do what is necessary to defend it from time to time when your back is against the wall and the hordes are rushing at you with their own weapons drawn. You are like leaches and leaches are often content to let the host do all the work while they draw off their own sustenance from it. They, like you, remain unaware of trouble until the host has been killed and the blood stops flowing. You may not listen to me as you sit around the table at the local tavern sipping your wine and pontificating about how strong the wall is and how it can never be breached. But you do so while ignoring that at the table next to you sits a group of the enemy who have already breached the defenses and who plot your demise openly and loudly. But once those men plotting your demise finish their planning and begin to strike you will cry out for those of us on the wall to come save you without fail.

The thought of blood may be grotesque to you. The mere thought of me speaking of it perhaps at some point being necessary may cause you to wretch and require the fainting couch to be fetched for you to fall upon. But as long as the enemy believes that the option for revolution and a violent defense by the people of their liberties is off the table, they will run roughshod over all who stand in their way. Yes, even you as you try to talk to them and make agreements and capitulations. It is not you that will say when that one spark hits the powder, causes this nation to explode and the citizens to do what is necessary. It is not you that keeps the enemy from complete control and who keep the wall from crumbling entirely. It is not you who will make the hordes think twice about how far and how fast to advance. But it can be you who will make them think that we no longer guard the walls and give them too much comfort, even when we are still guarding vigilantly, and encourage them to make their final move.

And to tell the truth, there may not be enough of us guardians upon the wall any more to stop them. So rest well under the blanket of the very freedom I and others provide by keeping the hordes second guessing whether it is finally safe to begin their final assault. For tonight may be your last night underneath that blanket if you continue to undermine the guards.

Sleep tight. ESR

J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the lead editor contributor to American Conservative Daily and also the founder of SignalCongress.com. He is the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at http://www.libertyreborn.com.

Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 14 Comments

WHO Chief: Swine Flu Outbreak Could Become 'Pandemic'

Like we ain't got enough to worry about these days. . .

Fox News:

WHO Chief: Swine Flu Outbreak Could Become 'Pandemic'
Associated Press

GENEVA — The head of the World Health Organization says the swine flu outbreak in Mexico and the United States could develop into a pandemic.

WHO Director-General Margaret Chan says the outbreak involves "an animal strain of the H1N1 virus, and it has pandemic potential."

Chan says it is too early to say whether a pandemic will actually occur.

The global health body has advised countries around the world to look out for similar outbreaks following the discovery of related strains on both sides of the Mexico-U.S. border.

At least 62 people in Mexico have died from pneumonia after contracting a flu-like virus. WHO says some tested positive for a strain that sickened at least seven in the southwestern U.S.
No deaths have been reported in the U.S.

The World Health Organization called an emergency meeting of experts Saturday to consider declaring an international public health emergency over the flu outbreak, believed to have killed dozens of people in Mexico and sickened at least seven in the U.S.

It is the first time Chan has convened such a crisis panel since the procedure was created almost two years ago, spokesman Gregory Hartl said.

The committee may decide Saturday that the outbreak constitutes a public health emergency, and if so, whether WHO should consider measures including travel advisories, trade restrictions and border closures.

The global body's flu pandemic alert level is now set to phase three — meaning there is no or very limited risk of a new virus spreading from human to human.

The committee "will be asked, 'should we raise the alert level to phase four or phase five,' depending on their appreciation of how far the virus has spread," Hartl said.

An increased alert level was considered likely, as initial evidence from the outbreak in Mexico indicates the virus has spread between people. Hartl said, however, that a decision would not be made Saturday.

Some of those who died are confirmed to have contracted a type of swine flu known as A/H1N1. That particular flu variant has not previously been seen in pigs or humans, though other types of H1N1 have.

"This is a very high concern for us as the world's global health organization," Hartl said.

The current seasonal flu vaccine is not believed to offer any protection against this new swine flu. But anti-viral drug Tamiflu appears to be fully effective against the H1N1 virus, and "Mexico and the United States already have large stocks of Tamiflu," Hartl said.

The virus has caused alarm in Mexico, where more than 1,000 people have been sickened. Authorities there have closed schools, museums, libraries and theaters in a bid to contain the outbreak.

WHO, which has been monitoring the situation since Thursday, said 12 of the Mexican cases have been confirmed as genetically identical to a swine flu virus detected in California.

U.S. authorities said seven people were infected with swine flu in California and Texas, and all recovered.

"We do seem to have found incidents of the same illness, which is swine influenza A/H1N1, on both sides of the border in various locations," Hartl said.

WHO has sent experts to Mexico to monitor the situation there, and asked countries to report any unusual flu outbreaks.

"We are at the beginning of the outbreak here, and there are a lot of things that we still don't know," Hartl said.

"We're not sure exactly of the transmission routes, where the initial infection came from, how efficient it is in transmitting," he said. WHO is also questioning "why no one has died in the United States so far whereas there have been confirmed deaths in Mexico."

WHO chief Chan broke off a visit to Washington, where she was to meet with U.S. officials, to oversee WHO's response to the crisis from its Strategic Health Operation Center in Switzerland.

The virus appears to cause flu-like symptoms that can develop into severe pneumonia, Hartl said, urging anyone to visit a doctor if they had been to affected areas and were feeling symptoms.

"You would want to take the same kind of precautions that you would do with pneumonia and an influenza-like illness," he said.


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 4 Comments

Frequent IBA Contributor Michael Travis Has Video Of Intruder Who Invaded His Home - UPDATED AND BUMPED BY ALWAYS ON WATCH

And the police don't seem to care much.

From Michael Travis, the 21st Century Schizoid Man (self-named):


Have you ever had the feeling that someone had entered your house or apartment while you were out? Have you ever noticed that things were "not quite as you left them" upon returning from work? Little things draw your attention, like chips in a new cookie jar, drawers not closed properly or cupboards slightly ajar. Luggage and musical instrument cases appear tampered with, and your clothing seem to have been moved haphazardly around your closet.

I have experienced all of the above and substantially more, for over a year. I have returned home to discover my door unlocked several times. My mail has been opened with a letter opener, and stuffed under my door. I have found a note left in a guitar case, outside of the closed case, and crumbled on the ground. This is spooky stuff folks.

I could be crazy. I may be a raving, delusional, 21st century schizoid man.

Or perhaps not.

Last week I installed a video surveillance system in my apartment. The system records any intrusion and sends an alert by email and SMS to my desk at work. The system works like a charm. It took no more than a few days to prove me more or less sane.

On April 21, 2009, while hard at work at my Massachusetts office, I was alerted by the security system to an intruder. From miles away I watched as a slimy trespasser slithered into my small apartment, looked around, and quietly left.

I called the cops.

A nice policeman arrived within minutes and I showed him the video.

The nice policeman said I should ask around to see if anyone can ID the intruder. I told the nice policeman (his name and badge number was covered by elastic bands,,,so I shall continue calling him "Nice Policeman") that he was the cop and investigating crime was his job, not mine.

I feel much better now. Really I do.

It may take time, but I will learn to love Post-America.

Here's the video:

I had an incident at my house too; very little was taken, but a few things were moved around. I'm not saying there is a connection, merely noting. Good thing I'm not paranoid. Yet.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 12 Comments

IBA Official Policy: We Agree With Hilary On Pakistan's Abdication Of Swat

Hilary Clinton is absolutely right.

Oh, and how about that news babe at the end of this video clip? Wow. I'll bet she could give a mean ...

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 2 Comments

Up Pompeii Makes A Plea For the BNP To Redefine Itself As An Ideological Party As Opposed to Being An Ethnic Nationalist Party

We need to hear more voices like this, and Nick Griffin and his cronies need to go.

Being British and the BNP, careful now...

I think that the BNP is falling into a trap and it could damage its chances of winning enough votes and being seen as a viable alternative to the corrupt lot that run us at this point and not forgetting the gutless lot that will be in power afterwards.

It is the hit job carried out by the BBC in terms of the painful way that the BNP defined Black Britons and Asian Britons, however the BNP is wrong in calling people black residents of the UK for example.

Here is how I would do it, use English Scottish, Irish and Welsh and the origin of the person to define ethnicity, and then use the term British citizen for anyone who accepts and lives under what we call British values, no matter what their colour or ethnic background.   But it is then key to make being a Citizen mean something, certainly following a certain religion called Islam should be a major negative because it does not have the golden rule, all other religions do.

The issue for the BNP is that people like me cannot vote for a party that refuses to call someone like that man from Sri Lankan who accepted British values as British, nor can I accept that Pte Johnson Beharry who won a VC in Iraq is not British, nor can I accept that the young black man carrying a sign against Islamics in Luton who was at the front of that demo as anything but British, he cared enough to stand up, so care for him too.

Oh, and let us be clear, it should not be incumbent upon anyone with dark skin to march in the streets with a Nationalist organization in order to prove their loyalty to the British ethic (ideology). Instead, the government should do (as all governments ought to do) define Britain as a set of ideas, and codify those ideas, and anyone applying for citizenship ought to be expected to learn those ideas, and pass a test on those ideas, and express their allegiance to those ideas, before they are granted citizenship.

My wife and her family are Filipino. As Filipinos, they were not able to make a run across the border. Instead, they had to enter the United States on Green Cards, and gradually go through the proper channels towards citizenship. They all had to take classes in what it meant to be an American, they had to study the ideas of our Constitution, and they had to pass tests, and swear their allegiance to our Nation.

After that, they are as Free, as any other American is, to express their dissatisfaction with our government in words, or demonstrations, and they are free to vote for any political Party on the ticket. That is their right, as it should be, as it is expressed in our Constitution, our set of ideas, our American ideology ...

... not our Ethnic heritage.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

Older Posts Newer Posts