(Adapted from an article originally penned by one Dewie Whetsell, an Alaskan fisherman publishing in the Canadian Free Press)
Step up to the plate and take a few high inside and quite interesting facts on two very different ladies. Sarah Palin is a dynamo, a quick study when the time is right. Whether you're a Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, or Republican—the second half of this email should make all of us more than a little sick. The last 45 of my 66 years I’ve spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska. I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics, well, until this last year. Here’s the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it. It's not about persona, style, rhetoric, it’s about doing things. Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I'm about to mention here.
1. Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor’s office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican’s “Corrupt Bastards Club” (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing, "la la la la" (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar.
2. Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called “ACES.” Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them, “don’t let the door hit you in the stern on your way out.” They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich. Of course, the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar.
3. The other thing she did when she walked into the governor’s office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as “pork.” She went through the list, took 85% of them and placed them in the “when-hell-freezes-over” stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we’ll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor’s jet because it was extravagant. Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor’s cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force (never mentioning—I imagine—that she’s packing heat herself). I’m still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.
4. Now, even with her much-ridiculed “gosh and golly” mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn’t impress you, then you’re trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.
5. For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn’t start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started. Then, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won again.
6. President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewable by 2025. We are already at 25%. I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona. Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that’s just a cover-up. I’m still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won’t be holding my breath.
By the way, she was content to return to Alaska after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn’t let her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Shoulda known better.
You have just read the truth about Sarah Palin that sends the media, along with the Democrat party, into a wild uncontrolled frenzy to discredit her. I guess they are only interested in skirt chasers, dishonesty, immoral people, liars, womanizers, murderers, and bitter ex-presidents’ wives.
So “You go, Girl.” I only wish the men in Washington had your guts, determination, honesty, and morals. I rest my case. Only fools who hide behind their own bigotry listen to the biased media. If you’ve read this far, prepare yourself for some glitz and glamour, Hollywood style, paid for your tax dollars at work. First Madame Michelle Obama’s servant list and pay scale will undoubtedly soil your undies. The current First Lady requires more than twenty personal attendants as if she were competing with the most self-delivering queens history has ever known.
$172,200 – Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
$140,000 – Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
$113,000 – Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
$102,000 – Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
$100,000 – Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
$90,000 – Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
$84,000 – Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
$75,000 – Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
$70,000 – Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
$65,000 – Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
$64,000 – Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
$62,000 – Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
$60,000 – Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
$57,500 – Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
$52,500 – Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary to The First Lady)
$50,000 – Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special=2 0Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide to The First Lady)
$45,000 – Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
$43,000 – Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
$40,000 – Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
$36,000 – Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
$35,000 – Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)(This is community organizing at it’s finest.)
Nhere has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady’s social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President’s own pocket. This is first lady fraud and racketeering.
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and “First Hairstylist” Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe .
FRIENDS…..THESE SALARIES ADD UP TO SIX MILLION, THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,364,000) FOR THE 4 YEARS OF OFFICE????? AND WE ARE IN A RECESSION????? WELL….MOST OF US ARE. I GUESS IT’S OK TO SPEND WILDLY WHEN IT’S NOT YOUR OWN MONEY?????
And yet, remember how the liberal media squealed when the Republican Party with their own funds spent a mere $150K on some new clothes for their "backwater" VP candidate? What does this say for the First Lady's need to shine over and above her own natural station, Chicago daughter of middle class schoolteachers? Yes, Yes, I know, The Canadian Free Press has to publish this because the USA media is too scared they might be considered racist. Sorry USA!
David Kupelian is an award-winning journalist, managing editor of WND, editor of Whistleblower magazine, and author of the best-selling book, The Marketing of Evil His newest book, How Evil Works, released to much critical acclaim in the spring of 2010. “Mr. President, on what occasion do you lie?”
That was Barbara Walters during her painfully fawning interview with Barack and Michelle Obama last Dec. 23. For ABC News “20/20′s” “Christmas at the White House” segment, the president and first lady were seated on a couchrelaxed, jovial, holding handstheir West Wing surroundings magnificently decorated for the holidays with dozens of exquisitely adorned Christmas trees and “visions of sugar-plums” everywhere. Walters got the interview rolling with tough questions like (to Obama), “If you were a superhero and you could have one super power, what would it be?” (Answer: “flying.”) And (to the first lady), “If you were to die and come back as a person or a thing, what would you want it to be?” (Answer: “Bo,” the family dog.) And (to both of them), “I’m looking at you. You’re holding hands. That’s very sweet. How many years married?”
“Twenty, next year,” said Obama. “And [you] still hold hands?” rejoined the adoring Walters. “Absolutely,” replied Obama.
Then, against this backdrop of irresistible holiday warmth and good cheer, came the big question:
“Mr. President,” Walters inquired delicately, “on what occasion do you lie?”
“Usually, the only time I lie,” responded Obama, “is very personal interactions with family members, [when] you say, ‘You look great,’ and they don’t. ‘Wonderful dress…’ Uh, not so much.”
Chimed Michelle: “Things where the truth would hurt other people.”
“Right,” echoed Obama, “the things where truth would hurt other people. Not too many big things. I said during the campaign that I’ll always tell you what I think, and I will, always tell you where I stand. I’m not perfect, but you’ll know what I believe.”
There you have it, folks. Welcome to The Matrix – where the elite media specialize in creating virtual reality scenes like this one, which are so pleasant and seem so realexcept that they bear virtually no resemblance to reality. For there, seated in the midst of this elegant, Norman Rockwell-esque Christmas setting, was Barack Obama, the perpetually churning and discontented radical, taking a needed break from his relentless campaign to “fundamentally transform”that means destroythe American way of free enterprise and free people. Barack Obama, the man who lies as easily as breathinga serial deceiver regarding his birth, his childhood, his education, his influences and associations, his religion, his accomplishments, his policies, his true beliefs and his plans for America’s future. Barack Obama, the man whose entire presidency has been a seamless fabric of deception and duplicity, tells Barbara Walters and the American people that the only time he lies is to protect a family member from hurt feelings by occasionally offering reassurance that an unflattering dress is “wonderful.”
Wow. The level of ongoing media dishonesty in covering Barack Obama is, of course, surreal. But let us now focus our attention on the man who is, in all likelihood, the most perfectly dishonest person ever to occupy the Oval Office. After all, the correct answer to Walters’ question is obvious. When does Obama lie? Every single time he speaks to the American people. Indeed, as another long-time ABC News personality, Pulitzer prize-winning columnist George Will, pointed out recently in the Washington Post: “Barack Obama’s intellectual sociopathyhis often breezy and sometimes loutish indifference to truthshould no longer startle.”
“Sociopathy” is a strong word, but used by many to describe Obama – not necessarily as a clinical psychiatric diagnosis, but just because the symptoms fit so darn well, as per this typical description: “Sociopaths are often well-liked because of their charm and high charisma, but they do not usually care about other people. They think mainly of themselves and often blame others for the things that they do. They have a complete disregard for rules and lie constantly. They seldom feel guilt or learn from punishments.” Remind you of anyone?
A vital, creative power
One veteran psychiatrist I know suggested a slightly different diagnosis for Obama, but similar to “sociopathy” in many ways – namely, “malignant narcissistic personality disorder.” The modifier “malignant” signifies the version of “narcissistic personality disorder” that may cross over into criminality, he explained.
He even reviewed with me a list of some of the major symptoms of NPD, comparing them with Obama’s behavior as president. Among the key markers: 1) a grandiose view of one’s achievements (everything with Obama is “historic”), 2) an utter inability to handle criticism (everyone criticizing Obama or his policies is attacked as extremist or racist, his White House even condemning Fox News as “not a real news organization”), and 3) lack of genuine empathy (Obama gave a televised speech on the day of the Fort Hood terror attack in which a Muslim U.S. Army major shot 45 Americans, 13 fatally. With the entire nation reeling in shock and yearning for strong, reassuring words from their commander in chief, Obama instead engaged in small talk and an inane “shout-out” for two full minutes before even mentioning that the worst terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11 had just occurred hours earlier.)
To be sure, many mainstream analysts, including Pulitzer-winning columnist and former psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer, have repeatedly pointed to Obama’s extreme narcissism. Regardless of the “diagnosis,” one thing is certain: We’re talking about a person who absolutely does not consider serial lying to be in any way immoral or problematic.
Far from it. For a super-ambitious and vainglorious person such as Obama, lying is a vital and creative power. Lies open doors that would otherwise remain shut. Thus in a very real sense, for Obama, lies are “magic words,” the invocation of which represents the exercise of real powerpower to impress voters, raise money, demonize critics, win elections, pass legislation and transform a nation. Ordinary people don’t possess this power, as they are constrained from such brazen lying by their conscience and/or the fear of being caught. But a highly narcissistic person like Obama feels he has the freedomindeed, the mandateto reshape America by creatively speaking into existence his preferred version of reality, without regard for any higher standard of truth. In other words, to lie.
Here’s how psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, M.D., explains it in his classic best-seller, “People of the Lie”:
Malignant narcissism is characterized by an unsubmitted will. All adults who are mentally healthy submit themselves one way or another to something higher than themselves, be it God or truth or love or some other ideal. They do what God wants them to do rather than what they would desire. “Thy will, not mine, be done,” the God-submitted person says. They believe in what is true rather than what they would like to be true.
...In summary, to a greater or lesser degree, all mentally healthy individuals submit themselves to the demands of their own conscience. Not so the evil, however. In the conflict between their guilt and their will, it is the guilt that must go and the will that must win.
The reader will be struck by the extraordinary willfulness of evil people. They are men and women of obviously strong will, determined to have their own way. There is a remarkable power in the manner in which they attempt to control others.
As we will now see, Obama has been preparing to “control others” for a long time.
‘I serve as a blank screen’
In his second autobiography “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama makes an audacious admission: “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” While it’s amazing that anyone could openly brag about such a manipulative life-strategy, Obama has long cultivated his appealing yet ambiguous public persona in preparation for a career as political messiah. For instance, he voted “present” no less than 129 times while a member of the Illinois state Senate to avoid taking a position that might alienate one side or the otherincluding on bills he had supported and even sponsored! Taking a position, you see, might have compromised the purity and universality of his “blank screen,” which would one day serve to reflect the aspirations for “hope” and “change” of millions of Americans.
Appearing as all things to all people has been key to Obama’s meteoric rise, requiring constant deception. As one blogger put it recently:
He is Muslim, he is Christian, he is a capitalist, he is a socialist, he is black, he is white, he is a constitutional professor, he is an average collegian who smoked dope and did cocaine, he is a foreigner, he is American-born, he is “EVERYMAN.”
With America now in precipitous decline on his watch, many have tried to explain the enigma of Obama and his prodigious ability to lie so confidently, comfortably and continually:
Some cite the disturbing degree to which Obama manifests full-blown clinical symptoms of narcissism and/or sociopathy, as previously discussed.
Some cite his far-left ideology: Whether you label it liberalism, progressivism, socialism, left-wing radicalism, Marxism, communism, anti-capitalism, European-style social democracy or statism, leftist “true believers” have always justified as moral not just lying, but ruthless suppression of dissent, violence and tyrannyas long as these measures seemed to advance their glorious utopian cause. “Exhibit A” for this point would be the entire 20th century.
Some cite Obama’s childhood, which was awful, and others cite his early influences, which were more awful. A Berkeley, Calif., psychotherapist who writes under the pseudonym Robin of Berkeley weighs in this way:
My gut tells me that Obama was seriously traumatized in childhood. His mother disregarded his basic needs, dragged him all over the place, and ultimately abandoned him.
But I think there may be something even more insidious in his family background. While I can’t prove it, the degree of Obama’s disconnect reminds me of my sexually abused clients.
With serious sexual abuse, the brain chemistry may change. The child dissociatesthat is, disconnects from his beingin order to cope. Many adult survivors still dissociate, from occasional trances to the most extreme cases of multiple personality disorder.
Apparently, young Barry was left in the care of communist Frank Marshall Davis, who admitted to molesting a 13-year-old girl. As a teenager, Obama wrote a disturbing poem, “Pop,” that evoked images of sexual abusefor instance, describing dual amber stains on both his and “Pop’s” shorts.
Would trauma explain Obama’s disconnect? In many ways, yes. A damaged and unattached child may develop a “false self.” To compensate for the enormous deficits in identity and attachment, the child invents his own personality. For Obama, it may have been as a special, gifted person.
Some cite Obama’s religious backgroundhis 20-year affiliation with his “spiritual mentor,” the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who preached raw hatred of America, capitalism and white people, and whose “black liberation theology” gospel amounted to Afro-centric Marxism dressed up with Bible verses. Complicating this picture and suggesting even more questions is the well-documented fact that during his youth in Indonesia, Obama was raised and schooled as a Muslim.
Some cite his background in “Chicago politics” – a euphemism for wall-to-wall corruption and criminality. Indeed, the state of Illinois, where a staggering total of four recent governorsOtto Kerner, Dan Walker, George Ryan and Rod Blagojevichhave gone to prison for corruption, remains a political cesspool to this day, as confirmed by a recent study from the University of Illinois at Chicago’s political science department. Obama is a product of this legendarily corrupt “Chicago machine” and played the game ruthlessly while rising in the ranks there.
Some cite Obama’s education, the most important part of which, by his own admission, came via Saul Alinsky. During the 2008 campaign, Obama said of his years steeped in the Chicago Marxist’s revolutionary “community organizing” methods: “It was that education that was seared into my brain. It was the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School.”
In “Rules for Radicals,” Alinsky counsels wannabe revolutionaries that they must be willing to ignore the dictates of their own conscience to advance the left’s agenda:
In action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of “personal salvation”; he doesn’t care enough for people to be “corrupted” for them.
That, friends, is one of the most twisted things I’ve ever heard. To believe it and act on it is to abandon your greatest gift, your moment-to-moment connection with the Living Godyour conscience. Maybe that’s why Alinsky dedicated “Rules for Radicals” to “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdomLucifer.”
In the final analysis, Obama lies because that’s how he gets his way, and getting his way is all he cares about.
Editor’s note: The preceding is excerpted from a longer piece by David Kupelian in the July issue of Whistleblower magazine, “WHY OBAMA LIES: Exploring what’s behind the president’s glaring and unprecedented dishonesty.” One of Whistleblower’s most popular issues ever, “WHY OBAMA LIES” features groundbreaking analysis of President Obama by multiple psychiatrists who reveal him to be a seriously damaged, fundamentally dishonest and even delusional person, as well as a comprehensive list, running throughout the entire magazine, of Barack Obama’s lies, each followed by PROOF of the statement’s falsehood.
I decided to write this essay after a comment from a journalist, not a Leftist by my country's standards, who dismissed Eurabia as merely a conspiracy theory, one on a par with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I do not disagree with the fact that conspiracy theories exist, nor that they can be dangerous. After all, the Protocols and the Dolchstosslegende, or "stab in the back myth"the idea that Germany didn't lose WW1 but was betrayed by Socialists, intellectuals and Jewshelped pave the way for Adolf Hitler and the Nazis before WW2.
However, what puzzles me is that it is a widely-held belief of many (not just in the Islamic world but in Europe and even in the United States) that the terror attacks that brought down the Twin Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001 were really a controlled demolition staged by the American government and then blamed on Muslims. I have seen this thesis talked about many times in Western media. While it is frequently (though not always) dismissed and mocked, it is least mentioned.
In contrast, Eurabiawhich asserts that the Islamicization of Europe didn't happen merely by accident but with the active participation of European political leadersis hardly ever referred to at all, despite the fact that it is easier to document. Does the notion of Eurabia hit too close to home? Perhaps it doesn't fit with the anti-American disposition of many journalists? Curiously enough, even those left-leaning journalists who are otherwise critical of the European Union because of its free market elements never write about Eurabia.
...explained how French President Charles de Gaulle, disappointed by the loss of the French colonies in Africa and the Middle East as well as with France’s waning influence in the international arena, decided in the 1960′s to create a strategic alliance with the Arab and Muslim world to compete with the dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union.
Because of this, I am going to test whether the Eurabia thesis is correct, or at least plausible. I have called this project The Eurabia Code, alluding to author Dan Brown's massive bestseller The Da Vinci Code. Brown's fictional account "documents" a conspiracy by the Church to cover up the truth about Jesus. I'm not sure my work will become equally popular, but I'm pretty sure it's closer to reality.
The next time Mr. Brown wants to write about massive conspiracies in Europe, he would be well-advised to set his eyes at Brussels rather than Rome. It would be a whole lot more interesting. What follows is a brief outline of the thesis put forward by writer Bat Ye'or in her book "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis." My information is based on her book (which should be read in full). In addition I have drawn from some of her articles and interviews. I republish the information with her blessing, but this summary is completely my own.
In an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Bat Ye'or explained how French President Charles de Gaulle, disappointed by the loss of the French colonies in Africa and the Middle East as well as with France's waning influence in the international arena, decided in the 1960's to create a strategic alliance with the Arab and Muslim world to compete with the dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union.
"This is a matter of a total transformation of Europe, which is the result of an intentional policy," said Bat Ye'or. "We are now heading towards a total change in Europe, which will be more and more Islamicized and will become a political satellite of the Arab and Muslim world. The European leaders have decided on an alliance with the Arab world, through which they have committed to accept the Arab and Muslim approach toward the United States and Israel. This is not only with respect to foreign policy, but also on issues engaging European society from within, such as immigration, the integration of the immigrants and the idea that Islam is part of Europe."
"Europe is under a constant threat of terror. Terror is a way of applying pressure on the European countries to surrender constantly to the Arab representatives' demands. They demand, for example, that Europe always speak out for the Palestinians and against Israel."
Thus, the Eurabian project became an enlarged vision of the anti-American Gaullist policy dependent upon the formation of a Euro-Arab entity hostile to American influence. It facilitated European ambitions to maintain important spheres of influence in the former European colonies, while opening huge markets for European products in the Arab world, especially in oil-producing countries, in order to secure supplies of petroleum and natural gas to Europe. In addition, it would make the Mediterranean a Euro-Arab inland sea by favoring Muslim immigration and promoting "multiculturalism" with a strong Islamic presence in Europe.
This cooperation would also included recognition of the Palestinians as a distinct people and the PLO and its leader Arafat as their representative. Up to 1973 they had been known only as Arab refugees, even by other Arabs. The concept of a Palestinian “nation” simply did not exist.
The use of the term "Eurabia" was first introduced in the mid-1970s, as the title of a journal edited by the President of the Association for Franco-Arab Solidarity, Lucien Bitterlein, and published collaboratively by the Groupe d'Etudes sur le Moyen-Orient (Geneva), France-Pays Arabes (Paris), and the Middle East International (London). Their articles called for common Euro-Arab positions at every level. These concrete proposals were not the musings of isolated theorists; instead they put forth concrete policy decisions conceived in conjunction with, and actualized by, European state leaders and European Parliamentarians.
During a November 27, 1967 press conference, Charles de Gaulle stated openly that French cooperation with the Arab world had become "the fundamental basis of our foreign policy." By January 1969, the Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples, held in Cairo, in its resolution 15, decided "…to form special parliamentary groups, where they did not exist, and to use the parliamentary platform support of the Arab people and the Palestinian resistance." Five years later in Paris, July 1974, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was created, under the Euro-Arab Dialogue rubric.
Bat Ye'or has highlighted this shared Euro-Arab political agenda. The first step was the construction of a common foreign policy. France was the driving force in this unification, which had already been envisaged by General de Gaulle's inner circle and Arab politicians. The Arab states demanded from Europe access to Western science and technology, European political independence from the United States, European pressure on the United States to align with their Arab policy and demonization of Israel as a threat to world peace, as well as measures favorable to Arab immigration and dissemination of Islamic culture in Europe. This cooperation would also included recognition of the Palestinians as a distinct people and the PLO and its leader Arafat as their representative. Up to 1973 they had been known only as Arab refugees, even by other Arabs. The concept of a Palestinian "nation" simply did not exist.
During the 1973 oil crisis, the Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries announced that, due to the ongoing Yom Kippur War between Israel and its Arab neighbors Egypt and Syria, OPEC would no longer ship petroleum to Western nations that supported Israel. The sudden increase in oil prices was had lasting effects. Not only did it create a strong influx of petrodollars to countries such as Saudi Arabia, which permitted the Saudis to fund a worldwide Islamic resurgence, but it also had an impact in the West, especially in Europe.
However, Arab leaders had to sell their oil. Their people are very dependent on European economic and technological aid. The Americans made this point during the oil embargo in 1973. According to Bat Ye'or, although the oil factor certainly helped cement the Euro-Arab Dialogue, it was primarily a pretext to cover up a policy that emerged in France before that crisis occurred. The policy, conceived in the 1960s, had strong antecedents in the French 19th-century dream of governing an Arab empire.
This political agenda has been reinforced by the deliberate cultural transformation of Europe. Euro-Arab Dialogue Symposia conducted in Venice (1977) and Hamburg (1983) included recommendations that have been successfully implemented. These recommendations were accompanied by a deliberate, privileged influx of Arab and other Muslim immigrants into Europe in enormous numbers.
The recommendations included:
1. Coordination of the efforts made by the Arab countries to spread the Arabic language and culture in Europe, 2. Creation of joint Euro-Arab Cultural Centers in European capitals, 3. The necessity of supplying European institutions and universities with Arab teachers specialized in teaching Arabic to Europeans, and 4. The necessity of cooperation between European and Arab specialists in order to present a positive picture of Arab-Islamic civilization and contemporary Arab issues to the educated public in Europe.
These agreements could not be set forth in written documents and treaties due to their politically sensitive and fundamentally undemocratic nature. The European leaders thus carefully chose to call their ideas "dialogue." All meetings, committees and working groups included representatives from European Community nations and the European Council along with members from Arab countries and the Arab League. Proceedings and decisions took place in closed sessions. No official minutes were recorded.
The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) is a political, economic and cultural institution designed to ensure perfect cohesion between Europeans and Arabs. Its structure was set up at conferences in Copenhagen (15 December 1973), and Paris (31 July 1974). The principal agent of this policy is the European Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, founded in 1974. The other principal organs of The Dialogue are the MEDEA Institute and the European Institute of Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation, created in 1995 with the backing of the European Commission.
The goal was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean entity, permitting the free circulation both of men and of goods.
In an interview with Jamie Glazov of Frontpage Magazine, Bat Ye'or explained how "in domestic policy, the EAD established a close cooperation between the Arab and European media television, radio, journalists, publishing houses, academia, cultural centers, school textbooks, student and youth associations, tourism. Church interfaith dialogues were determinant in the development of this policy. Eurabia is therefore this strong Euro-Arab network of associations -- a comprehensive symbiosis with cooperation and partnership on policy, economy, demography and culture."
Eurabia's driving force, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, was created in Paris in 1974. It now has over six hundred membersfrom all major European political partiesactive in their own national parliaments, as well as in the European parliament. France continues to be the key protagonist of this association.
A wide-ranging policy was sketched out. It entailed a symbiosis of Europe with the Muslim Arab countries that would endow Europeand especially France, the project's prime moverwith a weight and a prestige to rival that of the United States. This policy was undertaken quite discreetly, and well outside of official treaties, using the innocent-sounding name of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The organization functioned under the auspices of European government ministers, working in close association with their Arab counterparts, and with the representatives of the European Commission and the Arab League. The goal was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean entity, permitting the free circulation both of men and of goods.
On the cultural front there began a complete re-writing of history, which was first undertaken during the 1970s in European universities. This process was ratified by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in September 1991, at its meeting devoted to "The Contribution of the Islamic Civilisation to European culture." It was reaffirmed by French President Jacques Chirac in his address of April 8, 1996 in Cairo, and reinforced by Romano Prodi, president of the powerful European Commission, the EU's "government," and later Italian Prime Minister, through the creation of a Foundation on the Dialogue of Cultures and Civilizations. This foundation was to control everything said, written and taught about Islam in Europe.
The new European civilization in the making can correctly be termed a civilization of dhimmitude.
Over the past three decades, the EEC and the EU's political and cultural organizations have invented a fantasy Islamic civilization and history. The historical record of violations of basic human rights for all non-Muslims and women under sharia (Islamic Law) is either ignored or dismissed. In this worldview the only dangers come from the United States and Israel. The creators of Eurabia have conducted a successful propaganda campaign against these two countries in the European media. This fabrication was made easier by pre-existing currents of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in parts of Europe, although both sentiments have been greatly inflated by Eurabians and their collaborators.
The growth of the Islamic population is explosive. According to some, one out of three babies born in France is a Muslim. Hundreds of Muslim ghettos already de facto follow sharia, not French law. Some believe France will quietly become a Muslim country, while others are predicting a civil war in the near future.ullquote
On January 31, 2001, with the recrudescence of Palestinian terrorist jihad, European Foreign Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten declared to the European Parliament that Europe's foreign policy should give special attention to its southern flank (the Arab countries, in EU jargon), adding that he was delighted by the general agreement to give greater visibility to the Mediterranean Partnership.
Bat Ye'or thinks that "Our politicians are perfectly informed of Islamic history and current policies by their embassies, agents and specialists. There is no innocence there, but tremendous inflexibility in corruption, cynicism and the perversion of values."
In the preface to her book, she states that "This book describes Europe's evolution from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment secular elements, into a post– Judeo-Christian civilization that is subservient to the ideology of jihad and the Islamic powers."
The new European civilization in the making can correctly be termed a ''civilization of dhimmitude.'' The word dhimmitude comes from the Islamic legal designation ''dhimmi.'' It refers to the subjugated, non-Muslim individuals who accept restrictive and humiliating subordination to Islamic power in order to avoid enslavement or death. The entire Muslim world as we know it today is a product of this 1,300 year-old jihad dynamic, whereby once thriving non-Muslim majority civilizations have been reduced to a state of dysfunction and dhimmitude. The dhimmis are inferior beings who endure humiliation and aggression in silence. This arrangement allows Muslims to enjoy an impunity that increases both their hatred and their feeling of superiority, under the protection of the law.
Eurabia is a novel new entity. It possesses political, economic, religious, cultural, and media components, which are imposed on Europe by powerful governmental lobbies. While Europeans live within Eurabia's constraints, outside of a somewhat confused awareness, few are really conscious of them on a daily basis.
This Eurabian policy, expressed in obscure wording, is conducted at the highest political levels and coordinated over the whole of the European Union. It spreads an anti-American and anti-Semitic Euro-Arab sub-culture into the fiber of every social, media and cultural sector. Dissidents are silenced or boycotted. Sometimes they are fired from their jobs, victims of a totalitarian "correctness" imposed mainly by the academic, media and political sectors.
According to Ye'or, France and the rest of Western Europe can no longer change their policy: "It is a project that was conceived, planned and pursued consistently through immigration policy, propaganda, church support, economic associations and aid, cultural, media and academic collaboration. Generations grew up within this political framework; they were educated and conditioned to support it and go along with it."
Are Bat Ye'or's claims correct, or even possible?
Bernard Lewis has pointed out that, by common consent among historians, "the modern history of the Middle East begins in the year 1798, when the French Revolution arrived in Egypt in the form of a small expeditionary force led by a young general called Napoleon Bonapartewho conquered and then ruled it for a while with appalling ease."
In an unsuccessful effort to gain the support of the Egyptian populace, Napoleon issued proclamations praising Islam. "People of Egypt," he proclaimed upon his entry to Alexandria in 1798, "You will be told that I have come to destroy your religion; do not believe it! Reply that I have come to restore your rights, to punish the usurpers, and that more than the Mamluks, I respect God, his Prophet, and the Qur'an."
According to an eyewitness, Napoleon ended his proclamation with the phrase, "God is great and Muhammad is his prophet." To Muslim ears, this sounded like the shahadathe declaration of belief in the oneness of Allah and in Prophet Muhammad as his last messenger. Recitation of the shahadah, the first of the five pillars of Islam, is considered to mark one's conversion to Islam. Muslims could thus conclude that Napoleon had converted to Islam. In fact, one of his generals, Jacques Ménou, did convert to Islam.
The French were later defeated and forced to leave Egypt by the English admiral Lord Nelson. Although the French expedition to Egypt lasted only three years, it demonstrated that the West was now so superior to the Islamic world that Westerners could enter the Arab heartland, then still a part of the Ottoman Empire, at will. Only another Western power could force them to leave. The shock of this realization triggered the first attempts to reform Islam in the 19th century.
A positive result of Western conquest was the influx of French scientists into Egypt and the foundation of modern Egyptology. Most importantly, it led to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, which was later used by French philologist Jean-Francois Champollion to decipher the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. However, the encounter also left a lasting impact in Europe, and above all in France.
The French invasion of Algeria in 1830 marked another chapter in this tale. Later, the French ruled Tunisia and Morocco. Finally, after the First World War, the French gained mandates over the former Turkish territories of the Ottoman Empire that make up what is now Syria and Lebanon. After the Second World War, French troops gradually left Arab lands, culminating with war and Algerian independence in 1962. However, their long relationship with Arabs resulted in France's belief that she had a special relationship with and an understanding of Arabs and Muslims. Along with French leadership in continental Europe, this would now provide the basis of a new foreign policy. President de Gaulle pushed for a France and a Europe independent of the two superpowers. In a speech, he stated that "Yes, it is Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, it is Europe, it is the whole of Europe, that will decide the destiny of the world." In 1966, he withdrew France from the common NATO military command, but remained within the organization.
Following the Six Days War in 1967, de Gaulle's condemnation of the Israelis for their occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip marked a significant change in French foreign policy. Previously, Franceas well as the rest of Western Europehad been strongly pro-Israel, even going to war together with Israel as late as 1956 against Nasser's Egypt. From 1967 on, however, France embarked on a decidedly pro-Arab course.
The growth of the Islamic population is explosive. According to some, one out of three babies born in France is a Muslim. Hundreds of Muslim ghettos already de facto follow sharia, not French law. Some believe France will quietly become a Muslim country, while others are predicting a civil war in the near future.
It has been said that English foreign policy has remained the same since the 16th century. Its goal was to prevent any country, whether Spain, France, or later Germany, from dominating continental Europe to the extent that it represents a threat to England. On the other hand, one could argue that French foreign policy has also remained the same for several centuries; its goal is to champion French leadership over Europe and the Mediterranean region in order to contain Anglo-Saxon (and later Anglo-American) dominance. This picture was complicated by the unification of Germany in the late 19th century, but its outlines remain to this day.
Napoleon is the great hero of French PM de Villepin. Several prominent French leaders stated quite openly in 2005 that the proposed EU Constitution was basically an enlarged France. Justice Minister Dominique Perben said: "We have finally obtained this 'Europe à la française' that we have awaited for so long. This constitutional treaty is an enlarged France. It is a Europe written in French." From its inception, European integration has been a French-led enterprise. The fact that the French political elite have never renounced the maintenance of their leadership over Europe was amply demonstrated during the Iraq war.
President Chirac famously said in 2003 after Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic backed the US position "They missed a good opportunity to shut up," adding "These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position."
Jean Monnet, French economist never elected to public office, is regarded by many as the architect of European integration. Monnet was a well-connected pragmatist who worked behind the scenes towards the gradual creation of European unity.
Richard North, publisher of the blog EU Referendum and co-author (with Christopher Booker) of The Great Deception: Can The European Union Survive, relates that for yearsat least from the 1920sJean Monnet had dreamed of building a "United States of Europe." Although what Monnet really had in mind was the creation of a European entity with all the attributes of a state, an "anodyne phrasing was deliberately chosen with a view to making it difficult to dilute by converting it into just another intergovernmental body. It was also couched in this fashion so that it would not scare off national governments by emphasising that its purpose was to override their sovereignty."
In their analysis of the EU's history, the authors claim that the EU was not born out of WW2, as many people seem to think. It had been planned at least a generation before that.
The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, widely presented as the beginning of the efforts towards a European Union and commemorated in "Europe Day," contains phrases which state that it is "a first step in the federation of Europe", and that "this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation." However, as critics of the EU have noted, these political objectives are usually omitted when the Declaration is referred to, and most people are unaware of their existence.
A federation is, of course, a State and "yet for decades now the champions of EC/EU integration have been swearing blind that they have no knowledge of any such plans. The EEC/EC/EU has steadily acquired ever more features of a supranational Federation: flag, anthem, Parliament, Supreme Court, currency, laws."
The EU founders "were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it." Booker and North call the European Union "a slow-motion coup d'état: the most spectacular coup d'état in history," designed to gradually and carefully sideline the democratic process and subdue the older nation states of Europe without saying so publicly.
The irony is that France is now held hostage by the very forces she herself set in motion. The Jihad riots by Muslim immigrants in France in 2005 demonstrated that Eurabia is no longer a matter of French foreign policy, it is now French domestic policy. France will burn unless she continues to appease Arabs and agree to their agenda.
The growth of the Islamic population is explosive. According to some, one out of three babies born in France is a Muslim. Hundreds of Muslim ghettos already de facto follow sharia, not French law. Some believe France will quietly become a Muslim country, while others are predicting a civil war in the near future.
Maybe there is some poetic justice in the fact that the country that initiated and has led the formation of Eurabia will now be destroyed by its own Frankenstein monster. However, gloating over France's dilemma won't help. The impending downfall of France is bad news for the rest of the West. What will happen to French financial resources? Above all, who will inherit hundreds of nuclear warheads? Will these weapons fall into the hands of Jihadist Muslims, too?
Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen(born 11 June 1975) is a Norwegian far-right anti-Islamic blogger. Jensen wrote anonymously as Fjordman starting in 2005, until he disclosed his identity in 2011. He has been active in the counterjihad movement, which argues that multiculturalism, particularly Muslim immigration, poses a threat to Western civilization.
Of course Andrew Breitbart, an American patriot extraordinaire, is worthy of all the words, those of favor and those of disgust hurled at him as a political man with drawn digit in the sand, before and after his life ended so suddenly, unexpectedly, mysteriously, tragically, unspectacularly just after midnight last Thursday as he was walking near his home. He collapsed, and at 43, still a young man, he was gone.
We knew him through his untiring investigative journalism, his tough stances against the unhinged Left and against who and what he considered violent, seditious, determined enemies of the the state in many cases, but certainly enemies of the people, the people who still believe in constitutional loyalty, liberty, justice, courage, responsibility, and the American way. Protection from the government and the forces of the mob. But I'll step aside and let his friend, Robert Spencer share his version of Andrew Breitbart...
AMONG THE MANY THINGS that made Andrew Breitbart a great man was that he was not playing defense. So many, many times I have been speaking at anti-jihad events and heard other speakers saying, "We are not racists, we are not bigots, we are not Islamophobes..." We have allowed the jihadists and Islamic supremacists, and their Leftist allies, to put us on the defensive. We're always apologizing, tacitly accepting their narrative and responding to them in the parameters they set up. Even worse, many even among the anti-jihadists eagerly throw their colleagues under the busthose colleagues whom the Left and the Islamic supremacists have started to zero in on. They're the ones we should be standing up for the most resolutely, for they are drawing fire because they are effective.
Instead of bowing and scraping to the Islamic supremacists and feebly protesting that we're not really racists and hatemongers and all the other calumnies and canards they throw at us, we should be taking the fight to them, and standing up and saying, "You are fronting for the most oppressive ideology on the face of the earth. You are fronting for evil. You are carrying water and running interference for the denial of free speech, the denial of the freedom of conscience, the institutionalized oppression of women, the subjugation of non-Muslims, and worse. You're fronting for stonings, amputations, the murder of apostates, the treatment of women as possessions of men, the madness and senseless violence that we see in this furor over the Qur'an-burnings, and more. You shout us down on campuses and do everything you can to make sure we are not heard in the public square. And you call us fascists? You are the quintessence of fascism."
THE CELEBRATION AND GENERAL REPORTAGE of Osama bin Laden is an American moment and an international swatch, because the bin Laden operatives murdered hundreds of Republicans, Democrats, Winsome Wingnuts, various Christians, Jews, Muslims and a conflagration of other travelers and players, all educated and dramatized for the Cause in different flavors and cultural contexts on that fateful dateSeptember 11, 2001.
And it goes without saying that the Media Left's clownish bias is showing up once again with typical hubris and vitriol, while the Right, say WE THE PEOPLE, stays in their spirit-branded patriot's box, giving credit where credit is dueto the flesh and blood military, not the aloof, patently cold-blooded president, who typically fails not to deny himself a lion's share of the "strategery" which finally flushed out, then snuffed out the patriarch of al-Qaeda with a bullet in the head achieved over the body of a servile woman "the illustrious Islamic warrior" had grabbed in the heat of combat for protection.
But there are serious issues with the"official" version of this happy killing, subsequent burial, and speechmaker's spin that reek of typical Obama handling of American moments...
Yep, to have become one is to become one. Some say so many mysteries in the making, the faking, the forsaking of an (fill-in-the-blank) president...carnival barkers need not apply.
Bin Laden buried at sea? Junior needs to pony up with a few unarguable facts. Yes, I know that facts no longer exist, but let's be audacious here for a moment. Is the Donald now not off the front pages? Ah, the famous Clinton wag, it's the latest new dance craze (from the fink and folly think tanks of your nearest wink and wear all too weary political campus...
"My how big your teeth are!" exclaimed Little Red Riding Hood, now retro-fitted and color-matched to one of Henry Ford's shiny new Model-T, oops that's haraam, no crosses in Islam, to a burqa, one size fits all, while DEATH TO THE INFIDEL, belloweth the wolf in sheep's metal...
If accused, I'll just have to admit that despite the consequences of my acts, this is just the initial phase of those nasty thoughts I intuit behind all these latest White House maneuverers.
Hey Martha, where's that aluminum foil you saved from the lasagna last night. I need a greasy new metallic hat 'cos my last one was struck by lightening, leaving me these seven scabs I have now on my head, but I ain't done. Fact is, Martha dear, I'm just getting started.
Dust to dust, Osama is dead. End of poetic justice. Now, let's get down to the nuts and bolts of saving western civilization from dar al-Harb. We can start by abandoning the Middle East, and the Camp of Islam to fend for itself. Returning to America first, we must strengthen ourselves, right and left, right and wrong, hawks and doves for the real war which is churlishly creeping into our lands and our homes...
And I'm an optimist. Peace will follow. But I have a feeling the dark prince of butchery, mankind put into his proper place, once again, will not be neglected. We have all heard the false prophets of peace in the market who all promiseALL IS FINE. Just move along, folks, all is fine.
AS AMERICANS CONTINUE TO FRET the vacuous insanity of current US-Middle East energy policy, I have been among those writing and talking to anyone who can whistle Dixie about the untapped wealth America has packed beneath our feet and below our water tables in the form of shale gas.
The United States is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas, and boasts the four largest fields in the world. The Haynesville field in Louisiana (with production up by 77 per cent in 2009); the Fayetteville field in Arkansas and the Marcellus field in Pennsylvania (both with production up by 50 per cent); and the Barnett field in Texas and Oklahoma (with production up by double-digit increases).
These core centers of potent gas are trapped in shale rock that can be liberated via a process called hydraulic fractioning, more commonly called fracking. Wells are drilled several miles into the earth's crust, greased by a stream of water, sand, and a minor amount of chemicals to fracture the rock and release the gas. All this happens far below the surface and the water tables. Natural gas is relatively clean-burning, is located on-shore, and is American energy wealth writ large.
Behold. Now we get a report from the United Nations, of all places, that asserts America can indeed be on the verge of energy independence and can become one of the world's great exporters of energy because of these shale gas and oil reserves. Natural gas is the one commodity that has been plummeting in price and delivering an economic jolt of its own for consumers more accustomed to higher energy prices.
But why are we not rushing to pump this available gas? That's where the news stops being news, and becomes the same old dog and pony show. In other words, where there's a formidable US energy supply, there's a yellow dog Democrat blocking the way.
Perhaps we should update the reference, and start calling these ridiculous "greenies" the green hornet Democrats, because they can't help themselves but to stir up a lot of wicked buzz and stinging hot air with Speaker Pelosi most assuredly their queen.
RECENTLY A CALLER to the Chris Plante Morning Show on WMAL had me in stitches with a comment he made. Now I notice Plante, not one to miss a clever quip, author of daily wit and candor himself, now uses the quip as part of his station promo.
"If it weren't for terrorists, liberals would [simply] HATE Islam."
No doubt this is true, for the Left wants to destroy the West and capitalism, and is more than willing to accept the concept of four wives per thug, sexual conquest of infidel women and girls as the god-given booty of jihad, and the ruthless prayer routines just to keep the masses in check, under control, and docile to the state until the call to jihad gushes forth and tax-hungry power is extended...