Obama Must Convert to Islam, Says Somali Warlord

From IOL

Mogadishu, Somalia - A leader of Somalia's Islamist insurgency has threatened to attack America.

Fuad Mohamed “Shongole” Qalaf said in Monday's radio message that US President Barack Obama must convert to Islam or Somalia's al-Shabab militia would seek to launch attacks in the United States.

Al-Shabab has not yet launched an attack outside Africa but Western intelligence has long been worried because the group targeted young Somali-Americans for recruitment. About 20 have travelled to Somalia for training.

The militia launched coordinated suicide attacks in Uganda in July that killed 76 people. It has also announced its allegiance to al-Qaeda and is believed to be harbouring a mastermind of the twin 2008 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224 people. - Sapa-AP

Obama Signs UNDRIP

UNDRIP is real. It's the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and Obama has just signed it.

I wonder will the provisions of UNDRIP apply to "native" Britons and Europeans who struggle to maintain their rights against increasing foreign occupation? This could be one of those declarations that turns on the activists to bite them on the ass, and it's my sincere hope that it will.

From the Washington Times:
H/T Scaramouche!

At the Dec. 16 White House Tribal Nations Conference, President Obama announced that the United States is recognizing the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, also known as UNDRIP. The declaration was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 13, 2007, with just four negative votes, coming from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. Australia and New Zealand later reversed course, and Canada endorsed the declaration in November. America was the lone holdout of the four, until now.

UNDRIP was promulgated by the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, whose vice chairman, Tonya Gonnella Frichner, an Onondaga activist, said she was looking forward to "working with the United States as well as other countries toward full implementation of the Declaration with no reservations" (pun clearly not intended). She complained, "We have been uprooted from our lands, deprived of our natural resources and our cultures denigrated" and also said the declaration "points the way forward" to rectifying the situation. Despite caving by four holdouts, 11 countries, including Russia, abstained, and 34 countries - mainly from Africa but including Israel - skipped the original vote.

The bulk of UNDRIP contains harmless reaffirmations of equality and the kinds of rights that indigenous peoples, who are not defined in the document, already enjoy under the U.S. Constitution. Many of the concerns addressed deal with the right to speak traditional languages, wear traditional dress, practice traditional religions and the like, all of which people already are free to do in this country, whoever they are. The risky part, however, is that every assertion of a right is coupled with a statement that governments shall "take effective measures" to implement that right, which in practice means programs, payouts, regulations, oversight and all the attendant evils of bloated bureaucracy. It's perfectly acceptable for people to try to preserve their disappearing cultures, but it's unacceptable for taxpayers to have to foot the bill.

Some of UNDRIP's articles are so vague that they promise virtually unlimited government largesse, such as Article 21: "States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of [indigenous peoples'] economic and social conditions." Those concerned that UNDRIP is a devious means to justify some form of reparations to American Indians for the sins Mr. Obama has declared the United States guilty of need look no further than Article 11. This proposition explicitly states that the government "shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs."

Articles 26 through 28 are even more alarming. They deal in detail with the issue of the "lands, territories and resources which [indigenous peoples] have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired." UNDRIP compels governments to "establish and implement, in conjunction with [the] indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process" for addressing historic land claims and asserts the "right to redress" for "confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged" lands. Compensation is to take the form of "lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress."

It would be easy to dismiss UNDRIP recognition as the type of symbolic gesture the embattled president has to make to placate his left-wing base. The declaration is not yet legally binding, but it lays the groundwork for the next stage in the process of codifying its mandates as international rights in an international convention or covenant. And even though UNDRIP is not binding, it plays to Mr. Obama's personal sentiments and post-colonial worldview, and his administration is certain to formulate policies that treat the declaration's mandates as compulsory even if they aren't. UNDRIP is the ultimate "evil white man" guilt trip. For those who would wipe clean the past 400 years of "European colonization of North America," this is the next best thing.

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism

From 1999. Well worth watching if you like this sort of thing :)

Feminism Explained

This is very good.



related: Ezra Levant on feminist hypocrisy:

"But Polanski makes movies, and he’s an impeccable liberal. So feminists rush to his rescue, too. Whoopi Goldberg told America “it wasn’t ‘rape-rape’. It was something else.” Got it? A 13-year-old girl who is drugged and repeatedly raped isn’t really raped if it’s a great artist doing the raping.

A philandering president who preys on secretaries and interns isn’t a bully or a sexual harasser, if he’s a liberal."

Book Review: Caliphate by Tom Kratman

**spoiler alert**

I found this in the science-fiction section of my local bookstore - on recommendation from Mark Steyn, who mentions it in his latest book Lights Out - although this really does not do justice to some of the near-prophetic thinking demonstrated by the author.

I'm not going to discuss the plot, which is excellent in itself, but some aspects of the book that some readers may find interesting. There are no spoilers, per se, but a discussion of the side-plots involve revealing their outcomes - although those outcomes will come as no surprise to anyone.

Set in the 22nd Century, Caliphate is set in a very changed world, one where Europe is now an Islamic Caliphate, and America has morphed into a reluctant Empire, forced to give up many of the liberties which makes it what it is today.

Europe is a crumbling remnant of what it once was. Our descendants, those who remain, are faced with a struggle to pay jizyah to their Moslem rulers, with their only other choice to convert to the ruling faith to save themselves from slavery. Daughters are stolen and sold into prostitution, sons taken as janissaries, homosexuals are publicly hanged, and freedom is a distant memory. Fortunately, the weaknesses of Islam remain, the lack of initiative, enterprise, inventiveness, and creativity have rendered Moslem Europe a weak power, balanced by a reverted-to-type traditionalist China, a Tsarist Russia, a resurgent South Africa and other nations dependent on, or allied to, the American Empire.

Interestingly, as in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, Britain lies within the American sphere - as do Australia and Japan.

Within this new world, the adventure takes place, and the plot is interwoven with a series of flashbacks to the years c.2002-2022, when the great-grandmother of one of the central characters lives, in modern day Germany. The connection exists by way of a diary that survives the turmoil of the 21st century, and paints a portrait of Gabi, an all too-recogniseable stereotype of the modern European America-hating liberal.

Gabi is an artist and activist who never wastes an opportunity to take part in Anti-Bush marches and denounce the Great Satan. She meets an Egyptian immigrant named Mahmoud, who turns out to be one of the more likeable characters in the story. Mahmoud is aware that he fled Egypt to escape Islam, and sees Germany as a more liberal, open society within which to live and work. Gabi fails to convince him that Germany is an evil, racist place, and is horrified when Mahmoud expresses a desire to become Christian and even move to the United States.

Mahmoud tells Gabi how Moslems see Europe and Westerners, and even takes her in disguise to a mosque, where democracy and the West are denounced in hateful terms from the pulpit. After overcoming the initial shock, Gabi is still convinced that Islamic intolerance comes from European intolerance and racism, and maintains her blinkered left-wing worldview. Mahmoud is no fool, he knows that one day Islamic intolerance will bring vengeange upon Moslem immigrants - indeed he is beaten one day by neo-Nazis - and so makes his plans to escape to America. A pregnant Gabi refuses to follow him to a country with no statutory holidays, a poor welfare system, and a "fascist" government.

[Following this point in the narrative, disaster unfolds in the United States, leading to the death of Mahmoud and a chain -reaction of other events.]

As Conservative Europeans flee the continent, replaced by more Moslems and liberal Westerners, taxes become intolerable to pay for the welfare system, and concessions to Islam increase to the extent that Moslem communities now have their own police and courts. So, in the 2020s, when Gabi's daughter is abducted and gang-raped by a group of Moslem "youths", they are set free by Moslem judges who, in true Islamic fashion, believe that rape is always the unveiled woman's fault. This, and only this, is the final straw for Gabi, who takes her daughter to Switzerland to apply for a visa to the now-imperial America.

The reaction of the American consular officer is worth typing out in full here. He pulls Gabi's file, showing photographs of her on marches and demonstrations over the past two decades.

"I'm sorry to have to say it this way but ...you're diseased, you see .. politically diseased. You're in the process of losing your own homeland. You brought it on yourselves and it's become irreversible now. So ask yourself: why should we accept into our country people with a history of destroying the country they live in?"

He explains to a shocked Gabi,

"Europe abandoned its future for a short period of comfort in the present and you .. you personally.. encouraged this. [...] Europe let in millions of inassimilable, and therefore inherently hostile, foreigners to do the work which the children you did not have could not do. And thus you have no future .. you sold it .. only a past. Why should we let you take away our future? What do we owe you that we should risk that?"

The official refuses even her daughter, on the grounds that she "probably carries the same political disease". And here in two paragraphs lies a poetic form of justice. When those same liberals who created their "multicultural paradise" in Europe realise that it has become a dystopian nightmare, why should those who resisted such nonsense take them in?

After all, they will never blame themselves; they will still blame conservatives, and nationalists, and all those who warned them of such things, and, if they are allowed to, they will flee to more sensible parts of the world to try to recreate their utopian dreams there. The only response it to force them to live in the mess they created.

But the novel is not without hope. In fact, it illustrates how the most horrific future itself has an inbuilt self-destruct mechanism. It reminds us too that history has never moved in a straight line, despite what "progressives" might think.

A world without liberals may be a wonderful place, after all :)

Quote of the Day: Martin Luther

To all my good friends, a Merry Christmas and a peaceful and prosperous new year. I found this quote recently, and thought it worth sharing. It comes from Martin Luther in the year 1528.

The last sentence should give us all some pause for thought.

Certain persons have been begging me for the past five years to write about war against the Turks, and encourage our people and stir them up to it, and now that the Turk is actually approaching, my friends are compelling me to do this duty, especially since there are some stupid preachers among us Germans (as I am sorry to hear) who are making the people believe that we ought not and must not fight against the Turks. Some are even so crazy as to say that it is not proper for Christians to bear the temporal sword or to be rulers; also because our German people are such a wild and uncivilized folk that there are some who want the Turk to come and rule.

Progressives Preventing from Acting Progressively. WTF?

thanks to BCF for this brilliant expose of so-called "Progressive" academia.

How can the most leftist institution in Canada be accused of curtailing the efforts of progressives to fight against “structural racism”? This is exactly the point: the preponderance of progressives in the faculties of arts across Canada is the very ground sustaining and encouraging these outlandish claims. In case we need to be reminded again, “studies in both nations [Canada and the United states] confirm that the humanities and social sciences are dominated by scholars with left-wing opinions and values” (as Christine Overall, cross-appointed with the department of philosophy and women's studies at Queen’s, had acknowledged in an article, “Lefty Profs,” published two years ago in University Affairs).

And:

This influence of progressives over our universities may explain why few of the specialists cite any solid evidence to substantiate their claims. Working within an audience of true believers, they have grown accustomed to soft-ball questions and easy endorsements. Pretty much all the "evidence" cited is anecdotal, based on "feelings", and in no way the foundation for making a "systemic racism" allegation.

In other words, there's nobody to blame for all this horrendous "structural racism" but themselves!

As BCF says, let the show trials begin!

Shoe Boycott in Montreal

courtesy, BCF

Muslim Attempts To Turn Montreal Into Nazi Shithole

Amir Khadir must be missing whatever cesspit of a nation he came from.

Oh cripes he's a Jew Baiting 9/11 Troofer from Iran.

Support Le Marcheur Shoe Store in Montreal

Muslim Britain - blast from the past

This article dates from January 2008 but I thought it worth posting anyway, because it ties in with a few conversations I've had lately and demonstrates that allies are to be found within British Islam in the fight against Islamism and Islamofascism.

It strikes me that Bishop Nazir-Ali would make a far better Archbishop of Canterbury than the useless and cowardly Rowan Williams.

*****

On a related note, this is new from Salim Mansur, another opponent of Islamism:

"This struggle between political Islam and the West will stay with us well into the next decade and, perhaps, beyond. It will end only when Islamists are effectively defeated and political Islam expunged similar to the defeat of German Nazis and Japanese militarists."

*****

Muslim Britain is becoming one big no-go area

A bishop caused uproar last week by exposing ghettos of Islamist extremism. But Muslims everywhere are cutting themselves off from society in other, equally dangerous ways

Shiraz Maher

Perhaps it had to be someone like Michael Nazir-Ali, the first Asian bishop in the Church of England, who would break with convention and finally point out the elephant in the room.

His comments last week about the growing stranglehold of Muslim extremists in some communities revived debate about the future of multiculturalism and provoked a flurry of condemnation. Members of all three political parties immediately clamoured to dismiss him. “I don’t recognise the description that he’s talked about – no-go areas and people feeling intimidated,” said Hazel Blears, the communities secretary.

A quick call to her Labour colleague John Reid, the former home secretary, would almost certainly have helped her to identify at least one of those places. Just over a year ago Reid was heckled by the Muslim extremist Abu Izzadeen in Leytonstone, east London, during a speech on extremism, appropriately. “How dare you come to a Muslim area,” Izzadeen screamed.

That picture is mirrored outside London. One of our country’s biggest and most deprived Muslim areas is Small Heath, in Birmingham, where Dr Tahir Abbas, director of the Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and Culture, was raised. With a dominant Asian monoculture, low social achievement and high unemployment, Small Heath is precisely the kind of insular and disengaged urban ghetto Nazir-Ali was talking about.

Reflecting on his experiences there, Abbas is critical of his peers who don’t stray beyond their area. “They haven’t seen rural Devon, a stately home or Windsor Castle,” he says. That refusal to engage with anything beyond the community is suffocating young Muslims by divorcing them almost entirely from Britain’s cultural heritage and mainstream life.

And their feelings of separation have been further reinforced by the advent of digital broadcasting, which has swelled the number of foreign language television stations in Britain, creating digital ghettos. Islamist movements such as Hizb ut-Tahrir (of which I was once a senior member) have been quick to spot the opportunities this affords them. In 2004 the group launched a campaign aimed at undermining President Pervez Mush-arraf by broadcasting adverts on Asian satellite channels, calling on the Pakistani community in Britain to “stop Busharraf”.

Manzoor Moghal, chairman of the Leicester-based Muslim Forum, is unequivocal about the dangers such Islamification poses. “We have a cultural and social apartheid which fun-damentalists thrive off,” he says.

The point was underscored last summer when Kafeel Ahmed, whom I once knew, was arrested after a Jeep laden with explosives crashed into Glasgow airport. I think Ahmed was first radicalised in Cambridge, where I saw his views become increasingly intolerant, even though the city has a negligible Muslim population. After being exposed to the Islamist culture of separation and confrontation there, he didn’t need to be living in an actual ghetto. He was already sectioning himself off, by giving up his nonMuslim friends and eventually socialising only with those who shared his world-view.

It raises a compelling point that Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats have largely tried to ignore: while the moral ambiguity of multiculturalism means Britain no longer knows what it stands for, our enemies are not just growing ever surer of themselves but are also winning the debate.

For almost three decades now, the witless promotion of cultural relativ-ism under successive governments means that our national identity can simply be reduced to the theme of a courtroom sketch from Monty Python’s Flying Circus – anything goes. Measuring the extent to which this ambiguity has affected perceptions within Britain’s already insular Muslim communities, Abbas told me he surveyed schoolchildren in Small Heath by asking them how many Muslims they thought lived in Britain.

“We had answers around 30m to 50m,” he says, with more than a hint of despondency in his voice (the true figure is 1.6m).

Moghal blames the mosques for this, saying: “They promote a conscious rejection of western values.” He has a point. In many places the prevailing attitude is that sporting a flowing Arab robe symbolises your religiosity while your piety is linked to the length of your beard.

Muslim groups have already reacted with predictable intemperance to the bishop’s comments. “Mr Nazir-Ali is promoting hatred towards Muslims and should resign,” said Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation, while Ajmal Masroor of the Islamic Society of Britain said the church should “take serious action”.

Their anger vindicates him entirely and in many respects demonstrates that Nazir-Ali’s observations not only are valid, but don’t go far enough. The Glasgow bombings proved that the kinds of no-go area extremists are creating don’t always have to be physical locations.

Muslim attitudes are now so hyper-sensitive that anyone who dares to criticise Islam or Muslims has to think twice – and then some more – before doing so. Publishing a simple cartoon is enough to provoke a serious diplomatic crisis, the ransacking of embassies, mass global protest and at least several deaths.

But it’s not just nonMuslims for whom extremists reserve their hatred. After I wrote about the way British Islamists celebrated Benazir Bhutto’s assassination last month, a number of threats quickly appeared on the internet. “If I meet him I’m going to paste him in his face,” wrote Abu Junayd from Slough on a chat forum. Another commentator said I should “suffer severe punishments in this life and the hereafter”.

Their attitude springs from the Takfiri mind-set, which, in its most extreme forms, underwrites Al-Qaeda’s philosophy by suggesting that anyone who disagrees with Islamism (the extreme, politicised form of Islam) is a legitimate target for attack.

As if to emphasise the point, a statement released on a known Al-Qaeda forum last week specifically called for attacks on moderate Muslims in Britain. Citing the opinions of Muham-mad Ibn Alb al-Wahhab, whose followers are known as Wahhabis, it branded moderates as “aides of the crusaders”.

Seven years after the Cantle report first revealed the extent to which Britain’s different communities are living apart together, it’s still impossible to engage politicians seriously about the future of multiculturalism.

After being heckled by Izzadeen in Leytonstone for “daring” to visit a Muslim area, the home secretary told him: “There is no part of this country that any of us is excluded from.” The knee-jerk reaction to the bishop’s comments suggests we’re still a long way from realising that vision.

You Can Say That Again, IPSC!

More fun from Indymedia.ie

IPSC Dublin branch Organising Meeting - Thursday 6th Jan 2011 - Central Hotel

dublin | anti-war | event notice Monday December 13, 2010 19:10 by Conall - IPSC

Would you like to come along to the next Dublin branch meeting of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign?

The next meeting is on Thursday 06/01/2011 at 7.30pm. Held upstairs in the Central Hotel, Exchequer St. Dublin http://www.centralhoteldublin.com/contact.php

Come along to discuss and plan upcoming activities. We have stalls at festivals and city centres, organise demos and speaking tours, film evenings, lobby politicians etc. All ages and nationalities are welcome. You don’t have to know a lot about Middle Eastern politics to get involved.

Please call the office 01 6770253 or Ronan on 086 4082535, or email info@ ipsc.ie for more details.

********

Got that?
Just in case you missed it:

"You don’t have to know a lot about Middle Eastern politics to get involved."

Well, thats the truest thing the IPSC have ever uttered....

Another "Human Rights Advocate" Takes a Swing at Freedom of Speech

Utter hypocrite, even claiming the mantle of Human Rights Activist while blaming Salman Rushdie for "insulting Muslims".

courtest, Scaramouche.

"When Salman Rushdie insulted over one billion Muslims by writing Satanic Verses, every Western government came to his rescue after Khomeini issued his fatwa calling upon Muslims to assassinate him. I do not remember seeing a list of "ten things you don't know about Salman Rushdie". To this day he is portrayed as the darling of free speech. Another example is that of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former member of the House of Representative in the Netherlands. Her screenplay entitled Submission, which the majority of Muslims considered offensive to their religion, led to various death threats. Again this was considered by all Western countries as an attack on freedom of speech (not to mention the various free speech awards she has received). Again we did not see any press coverage about "the ten things you don't know about Ms. Ali". This is despite the fact that she was found to have obtained political asylum by lying to authorities. When this fact became public she was forced to resign from her post. A few months later she immigrated to the U.S. where she was immediately welcomed and hired as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank."

Attempted Israel Boycott at Tesco

Moronic Muslimas Pull anti-Israel Stunt at Tesco. The dialogue with the English lady near the end is interesting. She tells them to p*ss off back to their own country and they call her a "racist". She responds by telling them they're racist against Jewish people - classic!

related: Red Cross bans Christmas, and other tales.

Terrorists Attack Stockholm

BBC News reports on the Stockholm bomb that killed one and injured two today.

NO doubt Europe's liberal elite will be falling over themselves to explain how the terrorists are feeling "alienated" and oppressed, not to mention that old classic, "desperate".

Which is why they chose to attack the militaristic, imperialist, oppressive nation of Sweden?