'Muslim Black Slavery - Islam Slave History of Black Africa'

This video was censored on YouTube, apparently under pressure from those who can't handle the truth, dontcha know. Via Baldilocks:

'They've Got Decap on Speed-Dial Down There'

Man, I missed this last month, but Dennis Miller really unloads with a politically incorrect power-punch here on The Factor. Via Blazing Cat Fur:

Who Is Behind the Islamic School Being Planned For West Edmonton?

Blazing Cat Fur's been looking into the Muslim Brotherhood's initiative to open an Islamic school in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. It turns out that the leadership of Muslim Association of Canada's Edmonton chapter is preparing lawsuits against "a handful of 'people exhibiting Islamophobia'." And there's more at Point de Bascule, "Who Is Behind the Islamic School Being Planned For West Edmonton?":

Many citizens living in the Lessard district of West Edmonton have expressed their concerns regarding the opening of an Islamic school in their community by the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC), the local branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna. Itsmotto is: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our constitution. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope".

Shortly after some citizens expressed concerns in the West End News about the background of the promoters of this K-9 school, CTV and the Edmonton Sun reported that the Edmonton chapter of the MAC threatened the local paper with a civil suit. Instead of trying to defuse the concerns of the citizens by explaining how their goals and objectives were compatible with individual freedom, the MAC's leaders in Edmonton are trying to silence their critics.

Point de Bascule (Tipping Point) has been set up to expose the subtle ways used by Islamists to promote their agenda. The text that follows focuses on identifying the objectives pursued by the Muslim Brotherhood and it provides many links towards various statements made by its leaders in the past. Another text will follow in the coming days that will deal more specifically with the tactic of legal warfare frequently used by the Islamists to prevent any discussion about their agenda.

The concerns expressed by the citizens of Lessard are not only justified, they should be taken into consideration by the authorities. Up to now, the government has been silent on the issue. The citizens have no other choice but to challenge the Islamists willing to abuse the legal system in order to shut down responsible inquiry.

That sounds familiar.

Read all about it here.

Natalie Portman Rule 5

A little late getting to this, but American Perspective put up a tribute to Natalie Portman, so why not? The phenomenal club scene in "Closer" is mindblowing:

New York Times Slams Mosque Opponents in Report on 'Tangible Progress at World Trade Center'

It's obviously something worth cheering enthusiastically. After years of delays and political infighting, dramatic progress is being reached on construction and rebuilding at the site of the World Trade Center. I can only imagine how New Yorkers must feel, but as an American who's paid close attention to the city's post-9/11 developments, it makes me happy to see great strides in restoring the WTC complex — and I'm especially excited that the National September 11 Memorial & Museum is expected to be completed in time for the 10th anniversary of the attacks. I'm less pleased that the New York Times decided to use its major story in today's edition to hammer critics of the proposed Victory Mosque at Ground Zero. Indeed, the Times basically argues that it's time to bury the hallowed terminology of "Ground Zero" altogether. I guess that's just so much Bush-era jingoism in the new age of fealty to Islamist jihad. See, "World Trade Center Complex Is Rising Rapidly" (with bold italics added):

THIS article about the new World Trade Center is already out of date.

The pace of construction is so swift that any status report these days gets overtaken rapidly by the arrival of new beams and columns, rebar and concrete, pipes and conduit ....

Two years ago, it was difficult to imagine how the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the site of the trade center and is building most of it, could ever finish the eight-acre memorial in time for the 10th anniversary of the attack, on Sept. 11, 2011. Today, it is difficult to imagine what would stop them (though, given the site’s tortured history, the possibility shouldn’t be completely dismissed).

The great square voids in the plaza marking where the twin towers stood are fully formed and almost entirely clad in charcoal-gray granite. Enormous pumps are standing by to send thousands of gallons of water cascading into the voids, creating what memorial officials say will be the largest human-engineered waterfalls in the United States. A metal fabricator in New Jersey is incising bronze panels with the names of all 2,982 victims of 9/11 and of the trade center bombing in 1993. And last weekend, 16 swamp white oaks began to take root on the plaza. Four hundred more will follow.

But in the public’s mind, it is still “ground zero” — as in, “When are they ever going to build something at ground zero?” Or as in, “ground zero mosque,” the shorthand reference for the Islamic community center planned two blocks to the north. While much of the nation has been debating who should be allowed to build what on that site, a former Burlington Coat Factory store, little attention has been paid to the fact that things really are being built on the spot where something actually happened.

A recent editorial cartoon in The San Diego Union-Tribune depicted the Islamic center as a giant salt shaker on the “wound” of ground zero, drawn as an empty expanse of earth. Apart from the issue of the Islamic center, the cartoon stoked frustration among those working at the site. Just at the moment they have something to show for nine years’ effort — 300,000 square feet of underground space, the shell of New York’s third-largest train station and two skyscrapers on the rise — the image has been resurrected of a barren, silent pit.

There was some truth to that image as recently as 2008. The trade center site was a dust bowl in summer and mud pit in winter. The only visible sign of progress was the silvery 7 World Trade Center tower across Vesey Street ...

No doubt we can all applaud the progress and development at the WTC complex. But knowing how the editors thought it appropriate --- just a couple of days ago --- to dismiss the large majority of New Yorkers who oppose the mosque as intolerant ("playing to people’s worst instincts"), it's no surprise now to see that slams on opponents have made it into the front-matter copy.

Curiously, ABC News didn't seem to have druthers on describing the location as "Ground Zero" as recently as last June. That's when the NYC Medical Examiner released a report on the remains of 72 human body fragments recovered from recent excavations and the subsequent sifting operations at Fresh Kill Landfills in Staten Island. See, "More 9/11 Human Remains Found At Ground Zero: Search Yields 72 More Fragments; Remains Of About 1,000 World Trade Center Victims Are Stil Unidentified." This reminds me of the left's constant harping about how Cordoba was "blocks" away, i.e., it's "not even at Ground Zero." The logical follow-up was to ask how far away would the mosque have to be for folks to accept it? It's the same thing here: How much time has to pass before we can stop calling it "hallowed ground"? The New York Times has already decided. Unless you've got some "barren, silent pit" you just can't continue to revere the area as a one-time war zone. You just can't consecrate it emotionally as a final resting place for grief.

What's so especially troubling to me is that the Old Gray Lady is supposed to be our "unofficial newspaper of record." The editors clearly have a different historical record in mind than the great majority of Americans holding out for a bit of sensitivity. Thank God we haven't been hit again since September 11, 2001 (and thank the Bush administration as well). I don't know if folks could very well handle the idea that we'd "overreacted to 9/11." I certainly don't think we've been chasing phantoms for 9 years, although I'm troubled by the hollowing out of our national consensus on what constitutes the national security. We've been lucky that folks like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab have failed. But luck only holds out for so long, and it's gonna be a real bitch when America hits a losing streak in the not-so-completed war on terror.

Eliminationist Anti-Semitism, Right Here at Home: Al Quds Rally, DuPont Circle, Washington, D.C., September 3, 2010

Via Bare Naked Islam, "While Netanyahu and Abbas meet in Washington to humor the clueless American foreign policy decider-in-chief ... Muslim radicals and their diehard leftie supporters (i.e., Code Pinko) gather in Washington to call for the elimination of the Jewish State of Israel":

And at the Investigative Project on Terrorism, "Another Islamist Rally for Hate in D.C." Here's this from the YouTube description:

As Palestinian and Israeli leaders meet in peace negotiations just a few miles away, the speakers called for a rejectionist line on Israel.

"The time has come that we must stir up our 'religious leaders' in this country to speak the truth about Israel," said Kaukab Siddiqi. "They must put their hands on the Quran and say that they do not recognize Israel as a legitimate entity. If they cannot do that, they must be branded as kaffirs [infidels]. It's as simple as that. Because the Quran says -- drive them out from where they drove you out."
As was the case at last year's demonstration, speakers spewed hate speech to a crowd dotted with Hizballah flags. Among the speakers was retired ambassador Edward Peck, and Mauri Saalakhan,

Salaakhan peddled copies of his book, The Palestinians' Holocaust, at the 2009 ISNA convention. It's a collection of essays including his claim that Israel was responsible for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and includes a defense of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

And listen carefully to Siddiqi at about 1:20 minutes: "Each one of us is their target and we must stand united to defeat, to destroy, to dismantle Israel if possible by peaceful means." Yeah "peaceful," if possible. Professor Siddiqi is on the faculty at Lincoln University, Baltimore Pike, Pennsylvania. Just the thought of taking a course with this man, and people just like him, makes me sick to my stomach.

Here's the event announcement, "Annual Al-Quds Day Rally for Justice in Palestine and the Oppressed Everywhere." And the roster of speakers:

Medea Benjamin (co-founder of Code Pink and Global Exchange)
Edward Peck (Retired U.S. Diplomat/ survivor from the Gaza flotilla)
Rabbi Yisoroel Dovid Weiss (Neturei Karta International)
Chuck Carlson (founder of We Hold These Truths)
Hajj Mauri Saalakhan (Director of the Peace and Justice Foundation)
Imam Abdul Alim Musa (Masjid al-Islam, DC)
Imam Abolfazl Nahidian (Manassas Mosque, Manassas, VA)
Safiyyah Abdullah (spoken word artist)
Ebrahim Mohseni (spoken word artist)

My Buddy's 1913 American Underslung Traveler Type 56A 7 Passenger Touring

My buddy and colleague Greg Joseph recently won the Charles A. Chayne Trophy at the Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance 2010. Here's a few pics of his car, an American Underslung Traveler, Type 56A 7 Passenger Touring, 1913. My youngest son and I visited Greg Saturday afternoon. He showed us his car, estimated at about $1.3 million, out in his garage in temporary storage. The American Underslung is here at Wikipedia. And there's a beautiful set of photos of Greg's car at Pebble Beach here. Greg's a Democrat, but he was flattered when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger walked up during the competition to congratulate him on the vehicle:

The Democrats Are ______

Via Theo Spark:

RELATED: At NYT, "Democrats Plan Political Triage to Retain House." (Via Memeorandum.) And at Doug Ross, "Zero Hedge: Pelosi, Obama and Reid have helped erase or destroy... 11.2 million jobs since the recession began."

'Beat It' — CCP Version

I HATE THE MEDIA has the commentary, and yes, this is brilliant:

Andrew Ferguson on Peter Beinart at Commentary

This is entertaining:

Peter Beinart is one of those journalists, common in Washington, who is less interesting for what he says than for who he is, or who he wants to be thought to be. He’s an exemplar, and when, this May, he published an essay in the New York Review of Books announcing that “morally, American Zionism is in a downward spiral,” he deserved the considerable notice that the article brought him. As a piece of reasoned argument, or even as an anguished moral plea, “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment” was a mess: a goulash of overstatement, baseless accusation, statistical sleight-of-hand, strategic omission, and wince-making self-regard. As a piece of attention-getting, however, it was a masterstroke, and it’s on those terms, rather than its own, that the article and Beinart are best understood.

Beinart is well known among Washington journalists as a quick-witted polemicist and a gifted stylist. He’s also regarded as one of the most energetic careerists anyone has ever seen. Not that there’s anything wrong with that! Banish careerists from the ranks of Washington journalism and the only people left would be a handful of newsroom librarians and a couple of copy editors from Human Events. What makes Beinart’s campaign of self-promotion conspicuous—week after week, year after year-—is its utter lack of inhibition. There’s a kind of insouciance to it.

More at the link.

The Future of the Internet

At The Economist:

Fifteen years after its first manifestation as a global, unifying network, it has entered its second phase: it appears to be balkanising, torn apart by three separate, but related forces.

First, governments are increasingly reasserting their sovereignty. Recently several countries have demanded that their law-enforcement agencies have access to e-mails sent from BlackBerry smart-phones. This week India, which had threatened to cut off BlackBerry service at the end of August, granted RIM, the device’s maker, an extra two months while authorities consider the firm’s proposal to comply. However, it has also said that it is going after other communication-service providers, notably Google and Skype.

Second, big IT companies are building their own digital territories, where they set the rules and control or limit connections to other parts of the internet. Third, network owners would like to treat different types of traffic differently, in effect creating faster and slower lanes on the internet.

It is still too early to say that the internet has fragmented into “internets”, but there is a danger that it may splinter along geographical and commercial boundaries ... Just as it was not preordained that the internet would become one global network where the same rules applied to everyone, everywhere, it is not certain that it will stay that way, says Kevin Werbach, a professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

To grasp why the internet might unravel, it is necessary to understand how, in the words of Mr Werbach, “it pulled itself together” in the first place. Even today, this seems like something of a miracle. In the physical world, most networks—railways, airlines, telephone systems—are collections of more or less connected islands. Before the internet and the world wide web came along, this balkanised model was also the norm online. For a long time, for instance, AOL and CompuServe would not even exchange e-mails.

Economists point to “network effects” to explain why the internet managed to supplant these proprietary services. Everybody had strong incentives to join: consumers, companies and, most important, the networks themselves (the internet is in fact a “network of networks”). The more the internet grew, the greater the benefits became. And its founding fathers created the basis for this virtuous circle by making it easy for networks to hook up and for individuals to get wired ...

Lots more at the link.

I don't know, but this "Balkanization" sounds fairly realistic, even if it sounds less democratically accessible.

Andrew Breitbart's Epiphanies

At LAT: "Andrew Breitbart, whose posting of video clips got a Department of Agriculture official fired, was a liberal Westside child of privilege whose political epiphany transformed him into a conservative. "

Althouse at the Cool Reflection Café...

Ann's always got something beautiful going on over there. I'm still holding off on a new camera (for obvious financial reasons), but seeing this kind of lovely photography almost makes me want to take a second job:

We Got the Neutron Bomb — We Don't Want It, We Don't Want It ... Don't Blame Me...

I haven't played punk for a bit, so enjoy The Weirdos:

Phenomenal Rule 5

From Theo's.

Click the image to enlarge.

Time's Richard Stengel is 'Sad' That Israel's Security Wall 'Has Actually Worked'

Newsbusters has the full story. And click the image to watch:

So the truth is sad, presumably, because the deaths of innocent Israelis would be a worthwhile price to pay for the progression of Middle East peace talks, by Stengel's account. That is what Stengel is saying: the wall has succeeded, but at the price of impeding the peace talks. He says that fact is sad, meaning no wall, or a less effective wall would be preferable. More Israelis would die from car bombings, but at least the peace talks would move forward.

Solomonia has more:

Was that the reason for the fence? To separate people? Well...kinda. It was to separate blood thirsty murderers from their victims. In that matter, it has been successful. Singularly successful. That's what its proponents always said they wanted, not a sociology experiment on a mass scale. But Stengel can't admit it. He begins noting the obvious good it has wrought, and has to, needs to, twist it into something it's not.

Tony Blair — Radical Islam is World's Greatest Threat

Astute Bloggers breaks the story, once again. But see BBC story (via Memeorandum). This is a feature interview with the former prime minister, on the eve of the publication of his memoirs, where he indicates that:

"There is the most enormous threat from the combination of this radical extreme movement and the fact that, if they could, they would use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."

Blair is consistent, and kudos to him for not kowtowing to the radical left's "war criminal" lies. In fact, Blair wrote one of the most important policy articles while he was still in office, at Foreign Affairs, "A Battle for Global Values." It's even more vital today:

This is not a clash between civilizations; it is a clash about civilization. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace the modern world and those who reject its existence -- between optimism and hope, on the one hand, and pessimism and fear, on the other.

In any struggle, the first challenge is to accurately perceive the nature of what is being fought over, and here we have a long way to go. It is almost incredible to me that so much Western opinion appears to buy the idea that the emergence of this global terrorism is somehow our fault.

For a start, the terror is truly global. It is directed not just at the United States and its allies but also at nations who could not conceivably be said to be partners of the West.

Moreover, the struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan are plainly not about those countries' liberation from U.S. occupation. The extremists' goal is to prevent those countries from becoming democracies -- not "Western-style" democracies but any sort of democracy. It is the extremists, not us, who are slaughtering the innocent and doing it deliberately. They are the only reason for the continuing presence of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is also rubbish to suggest that Islamist terrorism is the product of poverty. Of course, it uses the cause of poverty as a justification for its acts. But its fanatics are hardly champions of economic development.

Furthermore, the terrorists' aim is not to encourage the creation of a Palestine living side by side with Israel but rather to prevent it. They fight not for the coming into being of a Palestinian state but for the going out of being of an Israeli state.

The terrorists base their ideology on religious extremism -- and not just any religious extremism, but a specifically Muslim version. The terrorists do not want Muslim countries to modernize. They hope that the arc of extremism that now stretches across the region will sweep away the fledgling but faltering steps modern Islam wants to take into the future. They want the Muslim world to retreat into governance by a semifeudal religious oligarchy.

Yet despite all of this, which I consider fairly obvious, many in Western countries listen to the propaganda of the extremists and accept it. (And to give credit where it is due, the extremists play our own media with a shrewdness that would be the envy of many a political party.) They look at the bloodshed in Iraq and say it is a reason for leaving. Every act of carnage somehow serves to indicate our responsibility for the disorder rather than the wickedness of those who caused it. Many believe that what was done in Iraq in 2003 was so wrong that they are reluctant to accept what is plainly right now.

Some people believe that terrorist attacks are caused entirely by the West's suppression of Muslims. Some people seriously believe that if we only got out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the attacks would stop. And, in some ways most perniciously, many look at Israel and think we pay too great a price for supporting it and sympathize with those who condemn it.

If we recognized this struggle for what it truly is, we would at least be on the first steps of the path to winning it. But a vast part of Western opinion is not remotely near this point yet.

This ideology has to be taken on -- and taken on everywhere. Islamist terrorism will not be defeated until we confront not just the methods of the extremists but also their ideas. I do not mean just telling them that terrorist activity is wrong. I mean telling them that their attitude toward the United States is absurd, that their concept of governance is prefeudal, that their positions on women and other faiths are reactionary. We must reject not just their barbaric acts but also their false sense of grievance against the West, their attempt to persuade us that it is others and not they themselves who are responsible for their violence.

And what does that kind of moral clarity get you in today's upside-down world? Well, an egg attack, for one thing. See Gateway Pundit, "Radical Leftists Chuck Eggs & Shoes at Tony Blair in Dublin (Video)."

Michaele Salahi Playboy Rumors? — Well Yeah...

Look, the Salahis' entire lives feed off rumors and scandals, and with the way Michaele Salahi looks in that bikini, why not? And she's 44 years-old to boot! But check CNN, "Salahi in Playboy? Just 'Another Rumor'." (Via Daily Caller and Memeorandum.) The story is sourced to TMZ, "White House Crasher Goes Naked for Playboy."

Michaele Salahi is about to crash another party -- the one in your pants -- because TMZ has learned the "Real Housewives of D.C." star is taking it all off for Playboy magazine ... And not just artsy "top half" naked -- we're talking full-frontal, birthday suit naked.

The Salahis are out for fame and profit. And with a figure like that, who's to begrudge Michaele a few more minutes in the spotlight.

Postcards From the Obama Economy

How long can leftists continue to blame Republicans for the epic disaster of Obama's jobless recovery (summer)? Pretty long, it turns out. Of course, you'd have to take a stroll outside of the "reality-based" neighborhood to actually get a grip. Even the Obama-enabling MFM is getting the picture. See, "It Isn't Just Lost Jobs—It's the Lost Jobs Machine," and "On Economy, Democrats Face a Lack of Unity." Still, some of the news is totally WTF. The Democrats are pushing "fiscal austerity" as a campaign issue? Well, not exactly. The White House doesn't seem to be getting the message: "Obama to Link Tax Plan, Hiring."

The Absolution of Barack Obama

Newsweek's Jonathan Alter just doesn't get it. See, "‘The Illustrated Man’." Obama's certainly socialist --- or neo-socialist, as Jonah Goldberg has explained --- and that's to say nothing of "terror-coddling."

Our maddening times demand that the truth be forthrightly stated at the outset, and not just that the president has nothing in common with the führer beyond the possession of a dog. The outlandish stories about Barack Hussein Obama are simply false: he wasn’t born outside the United States (the tabloid “proof” has been debunked as a crude forgery); he has never been a Muslim (he was raised by an atheist and became a practicing Christian in his 20s); his policies are not “socialist” (he explicitly rejected advice to nationalize the banks and wants the government out of General Motors and Chrysler as quickly as possible); he is not a “warmonger” (he promised in 2008 to withdraw from Iraq and escalate in Afghanistan and has done so); he is neither a coddler of terrorists (he has already ordered the killing of more “high value” Qaeda targets in 18 months than his predecessor did in eight years), nor a coddler of Wall Street (his financial-reform package, while watered down, was the most vigorous since the New Deal), nor an enemy of American business (he and the Chamber of Commerce favor tax credits for small business that were stymied by the GOP to deprive him of a victory). And that’s just the short list of lies.

And of course it's not Obama's fault that these perceptions --- right or wrong --- stick like melted marshmallows. It's that like many things, there's another side to it. Language, for one thing. Obama just doesn't have the knack for appearing American, much less resoloute. I mean, he spent the first year touring the globe apologizing for America's allegedly racist, imperialist history. And on foreign policy, every big decision in the war on terror has been worse than removing impacted molars. Minimizing our threats and prolonging tough decisions on troop requests is just the start of it. Forget sympathy for sharia, Obama sympathizes with Iran's frantic efforts to get the bomb. And the bills are coming due. Worse than Jimmy Carter is a pretty accurate dismissal at this point, but we'll know more on November 2. Most voters are probably thinking along more pragmatic lines, like job-creation, and because this administration focused on such non-socialist agenda items like non-socialist nationalized health care over restoring the economy, the Democrats are looking to a defeat of bloodbath proportions. "Obama's Waterloo" is sounding pretty accurate these days, although folks dismissed the idea back in the day.