More Translation Follies?

Oh no, here we go again. More excuses to hire more Muslims in sensitive government agency jobs, while rejecting Jewish applicants who are well-versed in these languages. Why reject Jewish and other linguistic experts? Because the Muslim religious mafia objects, that's why, and what oil-greased Muslim thugs demand, oil-greased Muslim thugs get. Despite the fact that several of these folks have been arrested on charges of espionage, have lobbied for special privileges and set asides at various agencies, and have conducted various other acts of jihad right under the nose of our own homeland security forces, the stealth jihad rolls on. If the Pentagon and CIA obliged them under the Bush administration, how much more so under the current POTUS, who has made it perfectly clear how well he treats his friends and their enemies in the Middle East...

Leon Panetta
Leon Panetta

CIA DIRECTOR Leon Panetta will ask Congress in the coming weeks to fund an "aggressive" five-year plan to enhance the spy agency's language capabilities. In a letter to agency employees Friday, Mr. Panetta said the goal of doubling the number of analysts and collectors proficient in foreign languages is imperative for dealing with developing threats around the world.

"Language skills are the keys to accessing foreign societies, understanding their governments and decoding their secrets," Mr. Panetta said. "This important initiative will require significant new funding. In the coming weeks and months, I will reach out across the intelligence community, to the Office of Management and Budget, and most importantly, to our partners in Congress to find the necessary resources."

The clandestine agency hopes to dramatically transform the way the CIA trains officers in foreign languages. Languages of particular interest are Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Pashto (spoken in Afghanistan), Urdu (used in Pakistan), and Persian.

Obama Appointees Overrule Justice

Another case of the Obama Nation running roughshod over the American ideals exemplified in the US Constitution. We recall actually hearing of this case as it has happening on election day. Fear was rampant, the video evidence backs up eyewitness accounts, and yet, the so-called post-racial Obama administration continues to push its ugly agenda with barely a mention by the media deep in its pocket.

Obama's Justice
Obama's Justice

JUSTICE Department Political Appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.

The incident—which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube—had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.

Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.

The lawyers also had ascertained that one of the three men had gained access to the polling place by securing a credential as a Democratic poll watcher, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Times.

The career Justice lawyers were on the verge of securing sanctions against the men earlier this month when their superiors ordered them to reverse course, according to interviews and documents. The court had already entered a default judgment against the men on April 20.

Is Democracy The Killer Of Liberty

Koran-ak47
Clinging To Guns and Bibles?
The following article by Amil Imani can be found at Islam Watch—Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims. While I think Mr. Imani has written a superb essay on democracy and the threat it faces by Islam, I do have a problem which the language stated in the title. It is not democracy that is killing liberty, but democracy's enemies from within and without that is the quiet assassin of liberty. Imani's essay:

I repeat: Is democracy the killer of liberty? The dictionary defines democracy as the rule of the people. Even at its best, “democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest,” according to Winston Churchill.

Is democracy a very bad form of government? Does it hold the threat of destroying humanity’s most precious right—liberty? Here are a few things to think about.

In the so-called democratic societies, a semblance of democracy hobbles along with fits and starts, always on the verge of complete subversion and collapse. For instance, the Western democracies are representative democracies where the ordinary citizens do not rule. A representative democracy is, in effect, a plutocracy where moneyed people and powerful interest groups rule.

The society’s rulers form a pyramid. At the base of the pyramid, we have the closest thing to democracy. The individual citizen has some sway on the locally elected officials such as the sheriff, the mayor, the city councilman, and the like. As we go up the pyramid, the voice of the individual citizen diminishes while the influence of money and power groups expands.

It is a fact that, without funds, one cannot even run for the city’s dogcatcher. At the very least, the aspiring candidate needs money for posters or some handbills to make himself known to the electorate and argue why they should elect him and not his opponent.

Resist the flourishing of mosques and Islamic schools. Mosques and Islamic schools are not for worshiping a loving God and for enlightening minds. They are incubators of Islamic bigotry and myopia.
Never mind the post of the city’s dogcatcher. How about seeking to be the mayor of New York City? Michael Bloomberg is presently running for election to his third term as the mayor of the city. This man is reportedly the 17th wealthiest person in the world. He spent $73 million of his own money on his first term campaign ad and apparently he is spending at least $18.5 million of his own funds again for a third mayoral term in 2009 campaign.

Is Bloomberg, one of the greatest mavens of business, a fool to spend that kind of money for a post that doesn’t pay even a fraction of what he is spending? No. He is not a fool. In fact, he is probably one of the best people running for a public office. That’s beside the point. The point is that it takes huge amounts of money to become a part of the pyramid. And not everyone is a Michael Bloomberg with a very deep pocket and the willingness to tap it.

Bottom line: If you aspire to become a part of the ruling pyramid, you require funds commensurate with the position you seek. Unless you are a Michael Bloomberg, you need others to pony up with the dough. And people don’t part with their money unless they get something for it in return. It is here that big money and interest groups come forward and deal-making takes place. In the process, the ordinary independent citizen is basically left out. The voter is presented with a choice between two equally purchased candidates or not voting at all. And you can see why so many people refuse to exercise their precious right of voting in elections.

Significant numbers of indigenous Europeans are either fleeing to other lands or are so hopeless regarding their way of life that they refrain from having children. Even in the United States and Canada, the bulging Muslim populations are more and more aggressively pressing for the adoption of Sharia law.
This is bad enough. But, there is more danger in the wings. Equal to the corruptive role of money is block-voting. A combination of money and block-voting is the certain death knell of liberty. In a democracy, when a large number of people, motivated by an ideology or a common goal, marry their wallets with their votes, then liberty can be subverted and eventually completely wiped out. And that’s exactly what Islam is doing in much of the world.

Reinvigorated Islam, flush with trillions of oil money, mostly from the pockets of the oblivious and uncaring “infidel” nations, is extinguishing the flames of liberty as it moves toward imposing the monolithic Islamic Sharia on lands near and far. The stone-age rule of Sharia is not limited to the ranks of the ever-swelling faithful, but encompasses all others.

The very word "Islam" is derived from the root word of “taslim,” which means submission, submission to the will and dictates of Allah as stipulated by Muhammad and elucidated by the medieval Islamic clerics.

Free people withstood the assaults of tyrannies such as fascism and communism and paid dearly in preserving liberty. Now, liberty is once again in mortal danger. This time, it’s from Islam. And democracy is indeed a great potential friend of the enemy.

Hold to account those politicians who sell themselves to the Islamists and promote Islam. These for-hire politicians will do anything they can to keep their position and benefit from the generous financial backing of the Islamists.
As I mentioned earlier, money and powerful interest groups play the critical role in a representative democracy. Islam has them both and is using them both. In the traditionally democratic societies such as those of Europe, Canada, and the United States, wave after wave of Muslim immigrants are forming powerful blocks of voters. With virtually unlimited funds, these immigrant communities are running deep roots in towns and cities of the host countries and influencing the staffing of the governance pyramid.

In a democracy, a politician’s first and foremost priority is to get elected. Once elected, his highest priority is to get reelected. The imperative of getting elected makes, per force, the politician a representative of the forces that bring and keep him in office.

Unfortunately, there are about one and a half billion people deeply entrenched in many democracies, including the United States, who are enemies of democracy and devotees of Ummahism—the Islamic theocracy, theocracy of the kind that rules in places such as Saudi Arabia—a Sunni version—and Iran—a Shi’a’ version. It is a fact that in Islamic societies liberty is dead. The individual is a vessel of the state and the state is the executor of the suffocating Sharia law.

Lest my warning be seen as the unwarranted rants of an alarmist, all one needs is to observe what is already happening in these newly Muslim-invaded lands. Sharia law is already in effect in many places in Europe. Significant numbers of indigenous Europeans are either fleeing to other lands or are so hopeless regarding their way of life that they refrain from having children. Even in the United States and Canada, the bulging Muslim populations are more and more aggressively pressing for the adoption of Sharia law.

Demographic changes in a democracy play a critical role in shaping the society. For example, only a couple of hundred thousand Muslims lived in the U.S. only two decades ago. By 2008, the number has swelled to seven to nine million. Once the numbers are wedded to the deep pockets of the Wahhabi and Shi’a paymaster, the fate of freedom is in serious jeopardy.

Democracy is the guardian of liberty. Imbedded in democracy are provisions that can make it implode from within. Democracy also has its own guardian: A resolutely vigilant, proactive and ethical citizenry.

What can be done? Is there a way of resisting and reversing the imminent coming Islamic assault on our most cherished right of liberty? Here are some suggestions.

  • Become an active worker of liberty, instead of a passive non-caring devil-may-care nihilists. Many Europeans are already paying the price of non-caring complacency as Islam is rapidly gaining greater and greater power and casting its suffocating pall on their lives.
  • Interact with Muslims in your locality and try to wean them away from Islam by pointing out how the Quran and the clergy are enslaving them in a defunct ideology of intolerance, backwardness and death.
  • Use the political process, while it is still responsive to the demands and wishes of freedom-loving people, by supporting laws that guard freedom and reject those that infringe on liberty.
  • Actively support political candidates who are deeply committed to the tenets of freedom.
  • Run for office, any office. Encourage your friends and other liberty advocates to pitch in and help in any way they can.

  • Hold to account those politicians who sell themselves to the Islamists and promote Islam. These for-hire politicians will do anything they can to keep their position and benefit from the generous financial backing of the Islamists.
  • Be an active educator by informing others about the creeping danger of Islamism. Islamism is seriously eroding the very foundation of liberty by a variety of means. Powerful moneyed Islamic organizations threaten anyone who dares to criticize Islam with ruinous lawsuits and even death.
  • Resist the flourishing of mosques and Islamic schools. Mosques and Islamic schools are not for worshiping a loving God and for enlightening minds. They are incubators of Islamic bigotry and myopia.
  • Contribute money, small or large amounts, to causes and individuals who are fighting to preserve liberty. As the old saying goes, freedom is not free.
  • In short, liberty is your most prized possession and democracy is the shield that protects it. Yet, this shield of democracy is vulnerable and needs to be repaired and strengthened on a regular basis. I am calling on you, the individual freedom-loving person, to play your part in the defense of freedom, not only for your own sake, but also for mine and all others who cherish this precious blessing of life.

    Amil Imani is an Iranian born, pro-democracy activist who resides in the United States of America. He is a poet, writer, literary translator, novelist and an essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran.

    Rachel Maddow Nails Obama

    Rachel Maddow
    TODAY -- Pictured: Rachel Maddow appears on NBC News' "Today" show -- (Photo by: Peter Kramer/NBC/NBC NewsWire)

    THIS IS STUNNING NEWS. Election cycle Obama sycophant and MSNBC talking head Rachel Maddow has bolted from the herd in offering her poignant insights—the same poignant insights that many of us on the blogosphere have already declared as early as last August—about what the POTUS is now stealthily slipping into his record of hope and change with all this charming poetry his cult noisily adores. Unfortunately, what Ms. Maddow doesn't quite understand in her zeal to coddle the Guantanamo thugs is that Obama plans to execute this new presidential power against perceived personal enemies, which include lawful gun-owners, common cause right wingers, radicalized centrists, and hesitant liberals. Linking this plan to Guantanamo is pure technique. Bait and switch.

    Maddow, along with her faithful sidekick Keith Obermann, of course, were vicious attack dogs for Barack Obama the candidate, and while I still don't think she sees the big picture—and one doubts she even cares, for her loyalty is to foreign nationals who threaten to strike with jihad against Americans, not loyal Americans—this critical analysis of Obama's latest wink and nod to the future he plans to dominate as the founder of prolonged detention earns Maddow a victory reprieve from me.

    Props to Christopher Logan for this story...

    Watching The River Flow

    mississippi
    Mississippi River

    NOW THAT HUE HISTORY IS MATCHING THE VISCOSITY OF THE FUTURE pound for pound, perhaps we should consider a tale of two British voices. History speaks first. Controversial British politician Enoch Powell throws himself on the pyre of political correctness, and suffers the black and white result we now produce in color and in common all across the world with tragically discouraging results in far too many situations to continue to ignore. Parrhesia is the moral concept of speaking truth to power, never an easy task in the past, hardly the present, nor God help us in the future to be certain. Powell's speech "Rivers of Blood" spoke to the power of his time and ours. The consequences of what happened to Powell and the civilization he sought to preserve are now upon our brow. We can continue to ignore the evidence that is before us, or miserably cling to a broken idea that was mismanaged with great care for several generations unto the present hour.

    But let's start simple. Rabid, unchecked, inflexible multiculturalism is damning the world to a poverty of reason and a gross impersonal terror upon civilization.

    As one commentator put it, "Multiculturalism is cancer, the school system has bred an entire generation of weak and sniveling cowards who are more concerned with being politically correct, bowing to the money of their new masters, than they are in comporting to a rational strategy in maintaining their own most basic interests."

    It's no secret among those who can connect the damned dots without paying homage to that snarling beast of MSM that Great Britain is breaking down rapidly, right along the precise fault lines that Powell predicted, but the folks who have bought heavily into Beatle logic refuse to deal with what their stance has wrought. The left-wing of Britain, enforced with prejudice by the EU, has successfully destroyed the future of the UK, short of all out civil war, it seems. But that is what THEY THE MULTICULTURALIST ELITES had planned all along. The Marxist snarl is a smiling face supported by a toothless but pervasive police power and a lawmaker's holiday. British columnist Melanie Phillips writes:

    This new strategy entails targeting countries with a substantial Muslim presence for 'low-intensity warfare' comprising bombings, kidnappings, the taking of hostages, the use of women and children as human shields, beheadings and other attacks that make normal life impossible.

    So, al Qaeda, according to Phillips, plans to target countries with a substantial Muslim presence for low-intensity terrorist warfare along the lines of the Bombay attack that would make normal life in those countries impossible. Isn't that phrase, "substantial Muslim presence," uh, telling us something? Something connected with the non-discriminatory immigration policies that have brought into existence the substantial Muslim presence in Western countries?

    Phillips writes that Britain is highly vulnerable to the threat of Bombay-type attacks, and she expresses great anxiety about it, but she ends the article without a single mention of a possible course of action. The thought evidently doesn't even cross her mind: "Shouldn't we at least stop further Muslim immigration into Britain? And those 2,000 known terrorists currently under surveillance by the police—shouldn't we just, uh, remove them from our neighborhoods, expel them or neutralize them by any means within the laws already on the books?"

    Note: Britain is busily whitewashing their laws against treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors against the state, so as not to offend those who will soon rule over them.

    While Phillips repeatedly insisted in her 2006 book—Londonistan— that Muslim immigration into Britain had been a "lethal" development, she has never proposed that Muslim immigration be reduced by so much as a single Muslim per year. If Melanie truly fears and loathes the lethal, her own submission to liberalism in power doesn't convince her that she should call for anything to stop this lethal policy.

    Such is the mindset of the modest American liberal and moderate appeasers, also. Better to drown oneself in yesterday's details than imagine the impact of tomorrow's invoices. The drama is excruciatingly loud and proud but is also effectively muffled by the beautiful sway of political incorrectness. Incorrect because it reeks of wrongness and moral insanity not for the idea itself, but for the brutality of its consequences. Incorrect because I refuse to call this upside down political phenomenon politically correct. I slip occasionally, but I am earnestly resisting this disturbing groupthink.

    Here's the second part of the Rivers of Blood video series, and a classic Bob Dylan track to help those, whose fertile minds haven't glazed over in self-righteousness yet, to ease the existential angst served up when having to rethink yesterday's task again today without much thought of what tomorrow's task may require.

    Frivolous Complaints Against Palin

    Palin 709
    Sarah Palin

    SARAH PALIN, strategic winner? With of eight complaints in one ruling, the evidence continues to redeem the the great surge of feeling many of us had when we first heard Gov. Sarah Palin speak to the American people that night at the Republican National Convention in Denver. The governor today welcomed the news that yet another ethics complaint against her has been officially found to lack merit and has been dismissed. Notably, Michael Geraghty, investigator for the State Personnel Board, concluded that there is no need for a hearing on the complaint filed in March by Andree McLeod, who has been a vocal critic of the governor since being denied employment with the state last year.

    This is the 13th ethics complaint against the governor or her staff that has been resolved with no finding of a violation of the executive ethics act. A few more are pending.

    "While the complaint process under the ethics act can be a useful tool for holding state officials accountable, it's obvious that political opponents of the governor have been abusing the system, attempting to turn their resentments into legal issues," said Bill McAllister, the governor's communications director. "We're grateful that the personnel board and its investigators have taken a rational approach to these matters, finding that the vast majority of the complaints did not even warrant the collection of evidence because they failed to assert any violation of the law."

    McLeod's complaint, amended several times since it was first filed, made eight separate allegations against the governor. McLeod said that there were two matters showing an improper connection between the governor's office and her political action committee; that two comments made by McAllister about the governor's travel plans were political in nature; that the governor's trip to Evansville, Indiana, for a right to life event used state resources, and that she improperly accepted gifts there, including chocolate, baked goods and a hockey stick from a youth hockey group; that the governor's daughter, Bristol, used state resources in her efforts on behalf of the Candies Foundation; and that the governor's press release concerning her selection as a vice presidential candidate was improper. Geraghty found all of the allegations to be baseless and not worthy of an investigation.

    Read more here.

    While we're on this topic, let me speak plainly. For all her supposed flaws and refreshing common sense which suffers in short supply these days, I still like this woman. I hope to see her taking aim at a few mooseheads along the campaign trail, circa 2012. Who knows? I might even vote for her again, given the right opportunity. As for those who scorn her and laugh at her precious Jesus of Nazareth, well, we at the Two-Fisted Quorum have regrettably seen it all before.

    Let's see those same yippie yappers cringe at the Mohammed of Medina (who according to the Qu'ran was made victorious by terror) with the same feckless generosity of spirit they reserve for Gov. Palin and her family. Nope. Didn't think so.

    Old School Values That Work

    Retired Lt. Colonel and writer, Ralph Peters of the New York Post is Old School. Yes, DEFINITELY old school. But if we had more men minding the munitions depot today pumped with the same juice as men who led the American fighting forces as recent as a two generations ago, we would not have a worldwide terrorist problem, one keenly suspects. The world hasn't really changed, but the war equation has certainly become more complex.

    ralph_peters
    Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters

    WE MADE one great mistake regarding Guantanamo: No terrorist should have made it that far. All but a handful of those grotesquely romanticized prisoners should have been killed on the battlefield. The few kept alive for their intelligence value should have been interrogated secretly, then executed.

    Terrorists don't have legal rights or human rights. By committing or abetting acts of terror against the innocent, they place themselves outside of humanity's borders. They must be hunted as man-killing animals. And, as a side benefit, dead terrorists don't pose legal quandaries. Captured terrorists, on the other hand, are always a liability. Last week, President Obama revealed his utter failure to comprehend these butchers when he characterized Guantanamo as a terrorist recruiting tool.

    Gitmo wasn't any such thing. Not the real Gitmo. The Guantanamo Obama believes in is a fiction of the global media. With rare, brief exceptions, Gitmo inmates have been treated far better than US citizens in our federal prisons. But the reality of Gitmo was irrelevant—the left needed us to be evil, to "reveal" ourselves as the moral equivalent of the terrorists. So they made up their Gitmo myths.

    Read it all.