HULA HOOPS: SOME OVERANALYSIS

Remember when hula hoops were just plain fun and also offered the benefit of exercise?

Now hula hoops are so much more.

An example of New Age thinking:

...At the end, instructor Noelle Powers puts on Mozart and teaches them to stretch with their hoops.

Powers tells her students that hooping is a meditative exercise, a workout for the body and mind. The hoop creates a sacred circle around them, she said, and can be a metaphor for life.

"You're in the middle of this circle, and you're the center, and whatever you decide to do and how you decide to act inside of that will either keep things up, or perhaps the hoop will fall," Powers said. "Then it's up to you to just pick it back up and start moving again."

"It might sound silly," added Martine "Hoopzilla" Koissy, 31, of North Bethesda, "but I feel like the hoop is spinning away the negativity that I have inside."...

Are we no longer capable of having some fun, without overanalyzing and imposing ideology?

You're right, Martine "Hoopzilla" Koissy. It does sound silly. And it is silly, too.

Just go out and have some fun!

OBAMA ON OPPOSING THE SURGE: "IT'S POLITICS, STUPID!"

POWER LINE:

Barack Obama told ABC News that, knowing what we know now--that the surge in Iraq has been a success, that it has drastically reduced violence and given Iraq a shot at a bright future--he would still oppose it:



This was, I think, a moment of candor. To explain his seemingly-shocking response, Obama immediately referred to political considerations. Opposing the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, even if that opposition turned out to be wrong, was a necessary ingredient in Obama's securing the Democratic Presidential nomination.

• OBAMA MIGHT HAVE OPPOSED THE WAR FROM THE START AND STILL SUPPORTED THE SURGE (AS OUR LAST BEST SHOT AT "MAKING THINGS RIGHT"), BUT HE DID NOT.

• HE FAVORED RETREAT AND DEFEAT NOW AS HE DID THEN - AND, LIKE THE NYTIMES, SAID EXPLICITLY AT THE TIME THAT EVEN PREVENTING GENOCIDE WAS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON TO STAY AND FIGHT.

• NOW, BY ADMITTING DOMESTIC POLITICS DROVE THE DECISION, HE HAS FURTHER PROVEN WHY HE IS UNFIT FOR COMMAND.

• HE IS NOT ONLY UNFIT TO LEAD THIS NATION BUT UNFIT TO LEAD THE FREE WORLD.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

OBAMA ONCE AGAIN PROVES HE UNFIT TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF: CREDITS SUNNIS AND SHIAS BUT NOT US ARMED FORCES

GATEWAY AND HOT AIR ARE ALL OVER IT: Obama refuses give the US armed forces any credit the enormous progress in Iraq.

• IS THIS A STRATEGICALLY OR TACTICALLY SOUND THING FOR A MAN WHO THINKS HE GONG TO BE THE NEXT COMMANDER IN CHIEF TO DO!?
• DOESN'T IT MAKE THE CARROT AND STICK APPROACH LESS EFFECTIVE IF YOU DENIGRATE THE STICK!?
• IT MAKES NO SENSE.
• THE ONLY EXPLANATION IS THAT OBAMA'S EGO IS TOO BIG FOR HIM TO ADMIT A MISTAKE.
• OBAMA WAS WRONG ON THE SURGE AND HE'S UNABLE TO ADMIT IT.

NO WONDER HE'S WEARING SUNGLASSES:




HE'S AFRAID TO LOOK PETRAEUS IN THE EYE!

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

General Obama calls for shifting troops to Afghanistan

Headline in today's Wall Street Journal: "Obama calls for shifting troops to Afghanistan."

On the first stop of his weeklong foreign tour, Sen. Barack Obama Sunday called for shifting U.S. military forces from Iraq to Afghanistan, which he called "the central front on our battle against terrorism."

One tiny problem: that announcement was made without consulting General Petraeus, seeing the situation in Iraq, listening to any of Iraq's leaders or consulting with other experts. But no one should be surprised: Obama has a long history of botched predictions made in a complete absence of information.

Last week Charles Krauthammer observed:

[What would Iraq] look like if what Obama had proposed at the beginning of '07 had occurred. He would have had all our troops out four months ago, which means we would have al-Queda in control of large elements of Iraq with a strong base... It means that Iran would have the control that it had before the central government kicked Iran and its cohorts, allies, and clients out of the southern areas of Iraq. It would have tremendous influence over Iraq.

And probably the central government would have a collapsed, and it would be in the middle of a civil war and possibly genocide.

The best argument against Obama, the best antiwar argument to use against him, is to say that if we had listened to him we'd be in a position where we would be looking at a strategic calamity on our hands, as I described, also, a humanitarian one, which would impel us to have a third Iraqi war.

Which could, of course, have also touched off a world war.

As Jimmy Carter reminds us daily, the price of presidential stupidity is high. Vote accordingly in 2008.

Update: Exhibiting all the courage of Carter: "after talking for two years about timetables to remove troops from Iraq, Barack Obama goes to Baghdad and wimps out... He didn't even bring it up with the Iraqi Prime Minister!"

DOES OBAMA HAVE THE INTEGRITY TO STICK TO ANYTHING? AND WHY THAT EFFECT THE ISRAELI-US ALLAINCE

Obama threw his grandma, Wright, Pfleger, Farrakhan, and so much else UNDER THE BUS.

Heck, he threw Wright under the bush just weeks after swearing he'd never do that.

So much for Obama's integrity. He has none.

He wanted to throw Iraq under the bus - and specifically said he didn't care of it led to genocide (agreeing with the NYTIMES!).

Despite his tough talk about Afghanistan, given the chance he will certainly throw Afghanistan under the bus, too.

MORE IMPORTANTLY: I predict that if he is elected - (GOD PLEASE FORBID!) - Obama will throw Israel under the bus - as soon as they attack Iran.

And make no mistake about it: Israel will do it.

And the UN will condemn them.

And only a USA veto will stop it.

WHO DO YOU TRUST WITH THAT VETO, MCCAIN OR OBAMA?

I don't trust Obama.

There's nothing in his record to suggest he will stand by anything or anyone - certainly not Israel, given the fact that he's had decades long friendships with people sworn to destroy Israel - like Ed Said and Rashid Khalidi.

If you hate Israel, then vote for Obama.

Russia May Begin Regular Bomber Flights To Cuba

Cuban Missile Crisis redux, just in time for President McCain ... or, will that be Obama:

The Russian military is considering deploying long- range bombers to Cuba to
counter the perceived threat of the US missile defence shield planned to be
based in the Czech Republic and Poland, according to Russian media reports
Monday.

'At the moment, there are just thoughts - but that doesn't mean
there isn't something concrete behind it,' an unidentified officer was quoted
Monday as telling Izvestiya newspaper.

Vote accordingly.

WHY MCCAIN AND OBAMA SHOULD EACH SUBMIT THREE POTENTIAL VEEP NAMES TO THE CONVENTION

THERE'S NEWS/RUMORS THAT MCCAIN HAS ZEROED IN IN HIS VEEP PICK.

Maybe the candidate shouldn't make the pick by himself?

I think the nominees should each submit three veep names to the convention.

And let the convention delegates decide who the veep will be.

IT WILL CERTAINLY BOOST RATINGS.

McCain could submit Mitt and Rudy and Pawlenty or Ridge.

And then, their speeches to the convention - all about why McCain is the best candidate and why the GOP is better for the USA - will be a try-out.

Obama could submit Hillary, Richardson and... Sharpton - HA!! ONLY KIDDING.

But you get the idea.

What do you think?

Should the sole power of picking the next veep rest with the candidate for POTUS?

Should he submit four names - two speaking each of the first two nights?

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

BUSH'S "DISAPPEARING" ENERGY POLICY: MORE PROOF THAT TOM FREIDMAN IS AN IDIOT - OR A LIAR

WHO PROVES TOM FRIEDMAN IS AN IDIOT?

TOM FRIEDMAN DOES. HERE:

After 9/11, Mr. Bush had the chance to summon the country to a great nation-building project focused on breaking our addiction to oil.

Instead, he told us to go shopping. After gasoline prices hit $4.11 last week, he had the chance to summon the country to a great nation-building project focused on clean energy. Instead, he told us to go drilling.

Neither shopping nor drilling is the solution to our problems.

THAT IS EITHER AWESOMELY DUMB OR A FLAGRANT LIE.

HERE'S THE PLAIN TRUTH:

• BUSH PROPOSED SWEEPING CHANGES TO OUR NATIONS ENERGY POLICY IN 2001.
• IN MAY ------- BEFORE 9/11!
  

• AND ALL THE LEFT DID ABOUT IT WAS ACCUSE HIM OF BEING IN THE POCKETS OF THE ENERGY INDUSTRY,
  
• SUBPOENA CHENEY - TAKING IT TO THE SUPREME COURT, TO TRY TO GET MINUTES OF HIS PRIVATE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ONLY TRUE ENERGY EXPERTS: THE FOLKS IN THE ENERGY INDUSTRY;
  
• AND THEN... THEY VOTED IT DOWN IN 2003.

WE BLOGGED ALL ABOUT THIS WEEKS AGO HERE - JUNE 30TH, A POST CALLED "HOW WE GOT HERE".

WE POSTED ABOUT IT AGAIN - A WEEK LATER - IN THIS ARTICLE WE ATTACKED THE NYTIMES FOR NOT MENTIONING THE BUSH ENERGY PLAN IN A 4000 WORD ARTICLE ON THE CURRETN CRISIS.

• TOM FRIEDMAN - AND HIS COMRADES AT THE NYTIMES - HAVE CONVENIENTLY FORGOTTEN THIS EPISODE.

• JUST AS HE - AND THE REST OF THE LEFT - SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

• THEY HAVE AIRBRUSHED THE BUSH ENERGY PLAN OUT OF THEIR HISTORY BOOKS - THE WAY THEIR HERO STALIN USED TO WITH FORMER COMRADES!

• OF COURSE, FRIEDMAN HASN'T REALLY FORGOTTEN THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND. LEFTIES LIKE HIM OFTEN PULL IT OUT WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT, LIKE WHEN THEY HARANGUE US ABOUT "PEAK OIL".

• ER UM... TOMMY BABY: "PEAK OIL: IS BASED ON IRREVERSIBLY DECLINING OIL SUPPLIES.

• SO WHEN BUSH PROPOSES WE INCREASE SUPPLIES HE'S DOING THE SANE THING.
• WE KNOW WHERE THE OIL IS.
• ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS LET THE ENERGY COMPANIES DRILL FOR IT - AT THEIR EXPENSE.

SHEESH.

• THE THING IS TOMMY, BABY... "PEAK OIL" IS BS - JUST LIKE AGW - THERE IS PLENTY OF OIL IN THE WORLD - THEY JUST DISCOVERED BILLIONS OF BARRELS MORE OFF THE COAST OF SOUTH AMERICA.

• AND WE GOT BILLIONS MORE HERE AT HOME - OFF OF OUR COASTS AND IN ALASKA.

BUT PHONY SC*MB*GS LIKE YOU WON'T LET US DRILL FOR IT.

YOU'D RATHER BLAME BUSH AND PAY HIGH PRICES.

IDIOT.

I'M GONNA MAKE THIS SO SIMPLE EVEN A LEFT-WING IDIOT LIKE TOM FRIEDMAN CAN GET IT:

• BUSH PROPOSED EXPANDING ENERGY PRODUCTION AND OIL EXPLORATION BEFORE 9/11.
• HE PROPOSED INCREASING SUPPLIES, AND THIS IS WHAT REDUCES PRICES.

• SO THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF TOM FRIEDMAN'S COLUMN IS FALSE.

HEY TOMMY BOY: EITHER ADMIT YOU'RE AN IDIOT, OR ADMIT YOU'RE A LYING SACK OF LEFTIST SH*T MORE INTERESTED IN HELPING THE DEMOCRATS THAN THE NATION.

WELL, IS THERE GOING TO BE A DECISION?

State attorney Moshe Lador says there will be decision made "very soon" on whether to indict Ehud Olmert. This clip says it'll be in two weeks.

What I want to know is, why are they taking their time? And what if they decide not to indict? Simply put, I have no idea if to trust them on this, and a decision will only be if one is made.

Update: while we're on the subject though, Olmert has called Tzipi Livni a "backstabbing liar". I guess the honeymoon's over, eh?

ONLY SYMBOLIC FOR NOW, BUT...

The Israeli government lost 3 of 5 no-confidence motions:

The government lost three out of five no-confidence votes in the Knesset on Monday, as Shas MKs shunned the plenum in protest of coalition actions.

The blow to the coalition was a symbolic one only, as the opposition did not achieve a majority of 61 MKs needed to bring down the government.

Shas abstained from the vote due to the coalition's approval of Labor MK Avishai Braverman's appointment to chair of the Knesset's Finance Committee, a move it opposed.

You can see here that the government's survival does depend in part upon Shas's willingness to support it, so they should be paid attention to. The question thus still remains if they are going to act responsibly and make a departure from a government that isn't worth their time to begin with.

OBAMA'S POLL SLIDE CONTINUES

From Rasmussen Reports:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Barack Obama attracting 42% of the vote while John McCain earns 41%. That’s the lowest level of support measured for Obama since he clinched the Democratic Presidential nomination on June 3. Obama’s support peaked at 48% with data released on June 8, 9, and 10. During that same time frame, McCain’s support has remained steady in the 40% to 42% range (he’s had just one day a point below that range and two days a point above it).

When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 46% and McCain 45%. With leaners, Obama reached 50% support in mid-June and was at 48% or 49% every day from June 13 until July 10. Since then, he has reached the 48% level just once while polling consistently at 46% or 47% (see recent daily results). Tracking Polls are released at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day.

McCain is viewed favorably by 57% of voters, Obama by 53%. McCain is currently supported by 86% of Republicans and holds a modest--four percentage point—lead among unaffiliated voters. Obama earns the vote from 77% of Democrats (see other recent demographic highlights).

A growing percentage of voters also believe that most reporters are trying to help Obama win the election. Forty-nine percent (49%) hold that view while only 14% believe reporters are trying to help McCain.

Curious are the numbers which show us that McCain is viewed favorably by a significantly higher percentage of voters than is Obama. Indeed, voters are also well aware the media is attempting to make Obama look better than he is.

And yet, it is clear, a sizable portion of these voters, who know they are being manipulated by the media, and who clearly trust Obama more, would still vote for Obama, if the election were held today.

Such are the allegiances of the two-party system.

However, such allegiances will not go so far, when pulling the lever means the difference between four years with a man one feels he can trust, and four years with a candidate who may just be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

As they say, the gallows doth wonderfully concentrate the mind.

Is Obama A Muslim?

The rather clever post below is recycled from Discriminations. See the original for links. I am rather surprised, though, by his failure to mention Obama's declared liking for the shahada (Muslim declaration of faith): "Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."". See also here

One of the reasons the New Yorker cover showing fist-bumping Obamas in Muslim garb caused such a ruckus is that its appearance coincided with the release of a Pew Research Center report showing that 12% of Americans (interestingly, 12% of both Democrats and Republicans) still believe Obama is in fact a Muslim. As Eleanor Clift laments, typically, in Newsweek,

A survey released this week conducted by the Pew Research Center finds the notion Obama is a Muslim "bipartisan and enduring." Equal percentages of Republicans and Democrats (12 percent in each party), believe he is a Muslim, with Democrats who hold the belief significantly less likely to vote for Obama.

Jonathan Alter, also in Newsweek, also laments that "the New Yorker cover, now being displayed endlessly on cable TV, speaks louder than any efforts by Obama supporters to stop the smears," and then he indulges in a little smearing, or at least exposing, himself:

For a while, I thought only rightwingers and other Obama haters bought into the lies being spread about him. Then I got a call from Ross Perot, who was trying to plant some dirt about John McCain leaving live POWs behind in Vietnam (untrue, by the way). In the course of the conversation, it became clear that Perot thought Obama was a Muslim. When I informed him that Obama was actually a Christian, Perot was relieved.... In this, alas, Ross Perot has plenty of company, and among people with a much less conspiratorial bent....

Given Obama's prominent association with Rev. Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ and his extended discussions of his journey of religious discovery in his two autobiographies (does anyone else get the idea that Obama is Obama's favorite subject?), not to mention the passions that are aroused by even the mildest questioning of Obama's religious identity, it is probably a mistake to suggest that there is any reasonable basis whatsover for any informed person to suggest that there may be at least one sense in which Obama is a Muslim.

Since I don't need the wrath such a suggestion would invite, I don't intend to suggest it. But it does seem worth pointing out (more in the nature of a reminder than an original observation, since others have made this point) that, in addition to the 12% of dumb, misinformed, probably bitter Americans, millions of people around the world are firmly convinced that Obama is a Muslim. Why do they think so? Because a strong, perhaps dominant, interpretation of Muslim Sharia law tells them so.

As the well-known military and foreign affairs analyst Edward Luttwak wrote in a New York Times OpEd just two months ago, but well before the New Yorker implosion,

As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother's Christian background is irrelevant.

Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.

His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is "irtidad" or "ridda," usually translated from the Arabic as "apostasy," but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim's family may choose to forgive).

An identical argument was made about the same time by Shireen K. Burki in a Christian Science Monitor OpEd:

Osama bin Laden must be chuckling in his safe house. After all, the 2008 campaign could very well give Al Qaeda the ultimate propaganda tool: President Barack Hussein Obama, Muslim apostate.

The fact that Senator Obama - the son of a Muslim father - insists he was never a Muslim before becoming Christian is irrelevant to bin Laden. In bin Laden's eyes, Obama is a murtad fitri, the worst type of apostate, because he was blessed by Allah to be born into the true faith of Islam....

Acording to Islamic jurisprudence, children of a Muslim father - even an apparently nonpracticing one, such as Obama's father, and irrespective of the mother's faith - are automatically Muslims. Most Muslims around the world agree: A child of a Muslim father is a Muslim. Period.

Now, everyone who is in favor of arrogant, isolationist America deferring to world opinion on all important matters, just as you did here, please stand up.

Fortunately, the United States is not governed by Sharia law. Individuals, even candidates for president, are free to choose their own religion, and their choices deserve a certain measure of respect - though not absolute respect, lest we be inhibited from offering the robust criticism that Rev. Wright, Minister Farrakhan, and those who follow them so richly deserve. So, is there any sense in which Obama is a Muslim? I suppose the answer depends, at least in part, on what the meaning of "is" is.

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH

Poll finds that blacks are still resentful

Excerpt:

They are constantly told by the Left that their lesser success is due to "racism" so why wouldn't they be?

The results of the poll, conducted against the backdrop of a campaign in which race has been a constant if not always overt issue, suggested that Mr. Obama's candidacy, while generating high levels of enthusiasm among black voters, is not seen by them as evidence of significant improvement in race relations.

After years of growing political polarization, much of the divide in American politics is partisan. But Americans' perceptions of the fall presidential election between Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, also underlined the racial discord that the poll found. More than 80 percent of black voters said they had a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama; about 30 percent of white voters said they had a favorable opinion of him.

Nearly 60 percent of black respondents said race relations were generally bad, compared with 34 percent of whites. Four in 10 blacks say that there has been no progress in recent years in eliminating racial discrimination; fewer than 2 in 10 whites say the same thing. And about one-quarter of white respondents said they thought that too much had been made of racial barriers facing black people, while one-half of black respondents said not enough had been made of racial impediments faced by blacks.

The survey suggests that even as the nation crosses a racial threshold when it comes to politics - Mr. Obama, a Democrat, is the son of a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas - many of the racial patterns in society remain unchanged in recent years. Indeed, the poll showed markedly little change in the racial components of people's daily lives since 2000, when The Times examined race relations in an extensive series of articles called "How Race Is Lived in America."

As it was eight years ago, few Americans have regular contact with people of other races, and few say their own workplaces or their own neighborhoods are integrated. In this latest poll, over 40 percent of blacks said they believed they had been stopped by the police because of their race, the same figure as eight years ago; 7 percent of whites said the same thing.

Nearly 70 percent of blacks said they had encountered a specific instance of discrimination based on their race, compared with 62 percent in 2000; 26 percent of whites said they had been the victim of racial discrimination. (Over 50 percent of Hispanics said they had been the victim of racial discrimination.) And when asked whether blacks or whites had a better chance of getting ahead in today's society, 64 percent of black respondents said that whites did. That figure was slightly higher even than the 57 percent of blacks who said so in a 2000 poll by The Times. And the number of blacks who described racial conditions as generally bad in this survey was almost identical to poll responses in 2000 and 1990...

White perceptions, by contrast, improved markedly from 1990 to 2000, but have remained steady since. This month's poll found that 55 percent of whites said race relations were good, almost double the figure for blacks.

Source

Dick McDonald comments on the above:

The NYT poll shows that blacks believe they are still discriminated against - whites feel differently. A sharp divide in perceptions would lead one to believe that both sides will be barking up the wrong tree (can you visualize that - barking up the wrong tree?) in November.

Seriously this entire poll would show different results if Republicans would just get off their mindless mantra that "trickle down" has been enough - that blacks can go to school, work hard and experience the American Dream. What a joke. Republicans know that entitlements cream 15.3% off the top of the wages of the poor and middle-class and with inflation and the controlled rise in prices those folks will never see the American Dream. It is tragic there is no Republican "Obama".

Some day American blacks and under-class whites will wake up to the fact that socialism doesn't work. Entitlements just entitle them to perpetual poverty. However, they are never going to find out until the "Republican Obama" explains it to them. The Democrats can never elevate the underclass because they would lose their entire voting base. So it is up to Republicans to deliver the American Dream.

(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, DISSECTING LEFTISM, GREENIE WATCH, OBAMA WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and EYE ON BRITAIN. See also AUSTRALIAN CARTOONS by "Zeg". My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

Islam in Europe Weekly Overview

Two Dutch studies have been published this week, about the eating and vacationing habits of immigrants.


Radicalism and Terrorism

* Danish school inspectors will be visiting Muslim private schools. 

* A court in Copenhagen decided the Tunisian terror suspects will remain in custody.

* French Algerians have been reported in Gaza.  The Dutch military intelligence is studying radicalism in the Balkans.

* The British government is concerned about the people behind the Islam Expo.

* Morocco announced it will be sending imams to Europe to combat the local radical imams.  One such imam in the Netherlands is threatening Wilders with a lawsuit.



Mosques

Bulgaria is renovating the Ottoman mosque in Stara Zagora.  In Switzerland the minaret ban referendum has hit the news again, while in Milan prayers were moved to a city stadium.  Right wingers and neighborhood residents protested the move (EN)


Muslim Veil

Europe's fashion designers are going for the Middle-Ages look.  Following up on the burqa/citizenship debate in France, a Muslim minister made world headlines when she said there's no difference between the headscarf and the burqa.


Sharia

* Sharia courts in Britain don't deal just with civil and divorce issues.  Police have agreed to let the Somali community deal with stabbing cases on its own.

* The sole Afghan female Olympic player is asking for political asylum in Europe.


Love and Marriage

* Amid stories of polygamous marriages in Italy, a Belgian constitutional court had opened up such a possibility in Belgium as well.

* Sweden is dealing with the demand for virginity-restoration operations.

* A Norwegian newspaper advertised the story of a woman who's been cooerced to marry in Pakistan.  In Spain, an imam is suspected of encouraging parents to take their young daughters out of school in order to get married.

* In the Netherlands, a Muslim researcher calls upon the Muslim community to deal with the preponderance of pimps and loverboys among Turks and Moroccans.

* An Amsterdam court has ruled that it is illegal to force people of certain countries to undergo tests abroad before undergoing family reunification.


Discrimination

* Muslims protested lack of attention from the Nice mayor following the Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolly birth.

* In Sweden a judge was found to have expressed anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiments.


Miscellaneous

* The Louvre laid the cornerstone for a new Islamic Art gallery.

* A Belgian Muslim writes about identity vs. integration in Brussels.

* Swedish authorities don't like girls named Elvis, but they have no problems with Abdel.

* Doctors suspect a link between lack of vitamin D and autism, which affects the Somali community in Sweden.

* Catalonia's largest slaughterhouse supplies both Spanish and French halal demand.

* Kadhafi's son was arrested for violence in Geneva.

* Police in Brussels are putting special effort into inspecting buses heading for Morocco.


-----

This article was cross-posted to Islam in Europe and to THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS.

"PRESIDENT OBAMA" IS AS LIKELY AS "SENATOR LAMONT" WAS

LIEBERMAN DEFEATED LAMONT.


MCCAIN WILL DEFEAT OBAMA.


THE USA IS NOT MORE LIBERAL THAN CONNECTICUT.


OBAMA WILL LOSE EVEN IF HE CARRIES THOSE EXTRA SEVEN STATES!

Obama flunks History, offends Germans

*to add to what Reliapundit has already posted...

No sooner did the Obama campaign announce that he was going to move his speech in Germany away from the Brandenburg Gate--after receiving intense criticism from here and elsewhere in the media for having the audacity to schedule a political rally in a foreign country, at a historic site where REAL Presidents have made consequential speeches--than Obama now is offending Germans and other Europeans with the alternative site he chose after backing down from the Brandenburg Gate idea.

Ed Morrissey comments (emphasis mine):

After receiving a hailstorm of criticism for considering Brandenburg Gate for a public speech, as well as official German dissuasion, Barack Obama moved the venue to the Siegessäule monument. Obama will speak about “historic” US-German relations, but once again, Obama’s own grasp of history has been proven deficient. Not only does the site contain a monument to Prussian victories over other American allies in Europe, its placement was decided by Adolf Hitler — in order to impress crowds in his idealized version of Berlin called Germania:

Still, even as the issue of his speech’s location has now been settled, a number of politicians in Berlin are still dissatisfied with the site. The Siegessäule — or Victory Column — was erected in memory of Prussia’s victories over Denmark (1864), Austria (1866) and France (1870/71). The column originally stood in front of the Reichstag, Germany’s parliament building, but was moved by Adolf Hitler to its current location in 1939 to make way for his planned transformation of Berlin into the Nazi capital “Germania.”

“The Siegessäule in Berlin was moved to where it is now by Adolf Hitler. He saw it as a symbol of German superiority and of the victorious wars against Denmark, Austria and France,” the deputy leader of the Free Democrats, Rainer Brüderle, told Bild am Sonntag. He raised the question as to “whether Barack Obama was advised correctly in his choice of the Siegessäule as the site to hold a speech on his vision for a more cooperative world.”

Andreas Schockenhoff of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats said, “the Siegessäule in Berlin is dedicated to a victory over neighbors who are today our European friends and allies. It is a problematic symbol.”

Hitler didn’t just move the monument to its more central location. He had a taller column built for it as well, to emphasize its message of German military domination over Europe. He saw it as a message to Germans of their destiny — as well as to other Europeans as their destiny as well. It was never meant as a symbol of peaceful, multicultural co-existence.

Team Obama has outdone themselves on symbolism with this choice. They’ve managed to make their hosts uncomfortable for a second time with their choice of rallying point, and perhaps more so this time. If one wanted to talk peace, what worse location could one choose than Adolf Hitler’s favorite monument to militaristic domination? One has to wonder how France, Denmark, and Austria will feel about Obama rallying German masses under the Siegessäule. Deja vu?

Obama could be excused for his gaffe, except for two reasons. His team certainly understood the historical weight that the Brandenburg Gate would have lent his event, so why didn’t they bother to ask the Germans about the Siegessäule? Quite obviously, the Germans understand the meaning and subtext of the monument, and most of them wonder why Obama does not. Maybe this is a better example of clueless Americans traveling abroad than those who can only say Merci, beaucoup.

The more basic question is why Obama feels the need to conduct a campaign event among Germans. Meeting with foreign leaders makes sense for a man with no foreign policy experience whatsoever, but that doesn’t require massive rallies among people who aren’t voting in this election. In his rush to look impressive for no one’s purposes but his own, Obama has made himself look ignorant and arrogant all over again.

Or maybe he secretly sees Hitler as a "role model" for what he wants to do here in America. Maybe this is Obama's own version of Triumph of the Will. I cynically commented the other day that the only thing missing from Obama's German "rally" was Albert Speer; now I'm not so sure I wasn't actually on to something...

TIME FOR AMERICAN JEWS TO WAKE UP: DEMOCRATS ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS, REPUBLICANS ARE

RASMUSSEN: VIA HOT AIR:

Most Republicans say the U.S. should help Israel while most Democrats and unaffiliated voters say the U.S. should do nothing.

REPEAT:

Most Republicans say the U.S. should help Israel while most Democrats and unaffiliated voters say the U.S. should do nothing.

REPEAT:

Most Republicans say the U.S. should help Israel while most Democrats and unaffiliated voters say the U.S. should do nothing.

GOT THAT?!?!? MORE:

Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say that if Israel launches an attack against Iran, the United States should help Israel. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 46% believe the United States should do nothing while just 1% believe the U.S. should help Iran.

ANY JEW WHO LOVES ISRAEL AND VOTES FOR OBAMA IS AN ASS.

OBAMA IN DEUTSCHLAND

NYTIMES:

According to the Obama campaign’s announcement, the senator will “give a major speech on the historic U.S.-German partnership, and the need to strengthen Transatlantic relations to meet 21st century challenges.”

ER, UM... SOMEBODY TELL OBAMA THAT SCHROEDER IS NO LONGER PM OF GERMANY, THAT MERKEL IS - AND SHE'S A CONSERVATIVE WHO SUPPORTS BUSH.

IOW: RELATIONS BETWEEN GERMANY AND THE USA ARE FINE.

OBAMA: STFU.

BTW: HE'S SPEAKING AT A PRUSSIA MEMORIAL TO MILITARISM - ONE REDESIGNED BY HITLER.

IHT:

The decision by Senator Barack Obama to speak at a landmark monument in Berlin this Thursday has opened up yet another controversy, with conservative and opposition politicians saying the site recalls Germany's Nazi past and Prussia's militaristic tradition.

Obama is planning to address what organizers expect will be huge crowds at the Siegessäule, or Victory Column, which is located in the center of a long and busy intersection that straddles the lush, public Tiergarten gardens and stretches up to the Brandenburg Gate.

O O O O O O OH: HOW SMART OBAMA IS!

BTW (2): THE NYTIMES CHOSE NOT TO RUN THE IHT ARTICLE/ANGLE. GEE: I WONDER WHY?

ATLAS HAS THE SMOKING GUN: OBAMA'S C.O.L.B. WAS FORGED

LONG, DETAILED, JPEG-LOADED, FACT-FILLED POST HERE.

EXIT QUESTION:

WHY DID THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN HAVE THEIR OFFICIAL SPOKESMAN SAY IT WAS REAL?

OBAMA IN AFGHANISTAN: HE DOESN'T LOOK EVEN SLIGHTLY PRESIDENTIAL

HERE'S A RECENT PHOTO OF OBAMA LOOKING DECIDEDLY UN-PRESIDENTIAL:HANDS IN POCKETS, OUT FOR A STROLL WITH KARZAI...

HE'S SITTING CROSS-LEGGED WITH KARZAI -
HE LOOKS LIKE HE THINKS HE'S IN HIS DEN...

WHERE DOES HE THINK HE IS,
IN HIS OWN OFFICE TALKING (ILLEGALLY) TO HIS CHIEF CAMPAIGN ADVISOR?

DOES HE THINK ITS JUST A SILLY PHOTO-OP?

IS HE PRETENDING TO BE A COMMANDER IN CHIEF
THE WAY HE PRETENDED TO BE A NURSE WHO CARES?

BOTTOM-LINE: SO FAR - AS HE PRETENDS TO BE "PRESIDENTISH"
OBAMA LOOKS OUT OF PLACE
AND IN OVER HIS HEAD.

HERE, HE LOOKS AT HOME:



DJIBOUTI 2006


KUWAIT 2008

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

CLICK HERE AND SEE HOW OBAMA'S VISIT WITH OUR TROOPS COMPARES TO DUBYA'S!

Even more at Jim's.

WHAT CHURCHILL'S LOSS IN 1945 MIGHT TELL US ABOUT 2008 IN THE USA

BBC - JULY 26, 1945, (ALMOST EXACTLY 63 YEARS AGO):

Clement Attlee has been elected Britain's new prime minister after Labour won a sweeping victory in the general election.


The outgoing prime minister and great wartime leader Winston Churchill tendered his resignation immediately.


The landslide victory comes as a major shock to the Conservatives following Mr Churchill's hugely successful term as Britain's war-time coalition leader, during which he mobilised and inspired courage in an entire nation.

People voted for Attlee, in spite of admiring Churchilll as a hero

... Mr Attlee, 62, was welcomed by the King shortly afterwards and asked to form a new Government.

Throughout the election campaign Mr Churchill had appealed to the country to give his new National Government - formed after the dissolution of the Coalition government in May - a good majority.

But the appeal was rejected by the people of Britain, largely, it is thought, because they believed Labour's promises to implement the Beveridge Report and its plans for creating a welfare state.

Tired of war, the British people thought they could atke a holiday from history - again, just as they had after WW1.

Just as we did after the collapse of the USSR.

And the people who want Obama to become POTUS and CiC are animated by the same misguided, irrational and anti-historical impulses.

And the desire to have the government do for them what they should do for themselves.

The British Welfare State - like ours and like welfare states everywhere - was a failure. It diminished Great Britain and led to increased suffering. It took 30 years and Thatcher to undo it's stranglehold and save Britain from collapse.

The USA and Great Britain don't need to replay the mistakes of the past and elect Attlees or Carters or Clintons.

We don't need to take another holiday from history - not with Iran and al Qaeda still threatening the free world.

We don't need to expand the welfare state. That would just drag down the entire economy, if not the world's economy.

We don't need another Clement Attlee.

We need Reagans and Thatchers.

The closest we'll come this election is McCain - who is more like Churchill than Attlee.

CLEMENT ATTLEE OBAMA -
a dove who wants to reinvigorate the welfare state

Forgotten Iraqi Christians

Below are excerpts from an article by a minister in the present Australian government. The previous government had similar concerns

"Even casual observers of the international situation would be aware of the conflict between Sunni and Shiite communities in Iraq. But what has achieved less prominence in the national and international media is the fate of other Iraqi minorities: Assyrians, Chaldeans and Mandaeans.

Mandaeans, followers of John the Baptist, have non-violence as one of the tenets of their religion. Any form of violence, even in self-defence, is forbidden. They have thus been particularly vulnerable to attack. The much more numerous Assyrians and Chaldeans have also suffered significantly. This group are descendants of the ancient Assyrian empire, but no longer have a nation state to call their own. They predominantly live in Iraq's north and are Christians.

It is hard to pinpoint the numbers of these minorities in Iraq. However, credible estimates put Assyrians and Chaldeans as 4 per cent of the population of Iraq, while they have constituted 40 per cent of the refugees leaving Iraq. Jordan and Syria have 2 million Iraqi refugees living within their borders, and they are not allowed to work. They live, by and large, in squalor, and they often rely on their children to bring in a little income. Thousands of children are being turned to crime to support their family.

It is estimated that there were 1.5 million Assyrians and Chaldeans in Iraq before the war; 600,000 are left, at most. Two thousand Assyrians and Chaldeans are still leaving Iraq every day. Churches have been bombed, priests and bishops kidnapped and murdered. Hundreds of thousands of Assyrian and Chaldean refugees live in desperate circumstances in Syria and Jordan. It is simply too dangerous for them to return.

There are of course, many millions of people from different groups around the world who face diabolical human rights and humanitarian catastrophes, all of whom deserve greater attention. However, in all the public debate about Iraq over recent years the Assyrian and Chaldean minorities have received scant attention from both governments and the media. Their plight is one of the untold stories of the narrative of post-Saddam Iraq. Their situation as minorities in Iraq has substantially worsened since the war.

As others have pointed out, the exodus of refugees from Iraq has been greater than that after the Vietnam War. But because the exodus has occurred quietly and to other Middle Eastern countries, as opposed to by boat, the crisis has become largely invisible. There is no monopoly of suffering in Iraq. But the suffering of these minorities has received scant international attention.

Of course, as a relatively small country on the other side of the world we are limited in what we can do to help. However, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, has recently met two delegations of Assyrians and Chaldeans to discuss what more can be done, and he raised the issue with the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq on his visit last month.

More here

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH