"Time Out London heralds the dawn of the Islamic British utopia"

I'm still trying to figure out of the column is a joke or not. The UK has been slouching towards dhimmitude, so it may not be that far-fetched to think this guy's serious. I happen to think he is. Anywho, from Hot Air:

...you have to read it to believe it. It’s a whitewash for the ages, beginning with a sneering dismissal of right-wing worries about a “society where women are second-class citizens, same sex relationships a crime and Sharia law enforces terrible public disfigurement and death” and segueing into section by section hosannas to the genius of Islamic civilization.

From the prostration during prayers, which keeps the joints supple, to the health benefits of banning alcohol and enforcing halal dietary laws to the “revolutionary effect” it would have on education and self-discipline if schools had a little more of a madrassa vibe to them, we’re in for a golden age, kids.

Through it all, two themes recur: the author’s blithe insistence that any failings in the Islamic world are due to “social factors,” not religion, and the contempt he shows for his own culture, most notably in his description of eating habits and the genuinely astonishing assertion that London on balance will become “a little less cruel” thanks to the compulsory donations to charity. As for the section on inter-faith relations and “the guiding hand of Islam,” the less said, the better.

I do like how he regards concerns about this scenario as being exclusively the province of the right-wing, though. Too true, my friends, too true.

Read this "jawdropper", as LGF describes it:

Race relations
Under Islam all ethnicities are equal. Once you have submitted to Allah you are a Muslim – it doesn’t matter what colour you are. End of story.

Oh. My. Allah. I may have just officially seen it all. "All you have to do is abandon whatever faith, if any, you currently have and submit to Allah. Life's a bowl of cherries henceforth.

Un-freakin'-believable.

Schools' anti-terrorism drills "realistic"?

Yet another sad story in the War and Peace-sized novel being written on the sad state of affairs in the public education system in this country. From New Joisey:

The scenario has played out in real life across America: Gunfire echoes through a school and students are held hostage.

But police, faculty and staff lived out their own make-believe version yesterday of just such a tragedy at Burlington Township High School, complete with Kevlar-clad officers, armed suspects and students portraying the wounded and dead.

The purpose of the drill was to test the reactions of police, faculty and administration.

“You perform as you practice,” Superintendent Chris Manno said prior to the exercise. “We need to practice under conditions as real as possible in order to evaluate our procedures and plans so that they're as effective as possible.”

"Practice under conditions as real as possible"? Makes sense. But if that's the intent, then why this?

Two Burlington Township police detectives portrayed the gunmen. Investigators described them as members of a right-wing fundamentalist group called the “New Crusaders” who don't believe in separation of church and state. The mock gunmen went to the school seeking justice because the daughter of one had been expelled for praying before class.

Wacked-out "Christian" nutbars fomenting terrorism, huh? I thought the aim was to "practice under conditions as real as possible"? We didn't see any self-detonating bandana-wearing camelhumping jihadists shrieking "Allahu Akbar." No, instead we saw the ever-present, always-dangerous, perennially violent...Christians. What a whitewash!

We've seen the same thing before in this country's schools:

"The exercise will simulate an attack by a fictitious radical group called Wackos Against Schools and Education who believe everyone should be homeschooled. Under the scenario, a bomb is placed on the bus and is detonated while the bus is traveling on Durham, causing the bus to land on its side and fill with smoke."

This is not a joke. A taxpayer-funded drill is using public school students to enforce anti-homeschooling bigotry under the guise of preparing for terrorism. Terrorism by whom? By Islamic jihadists who hijack planes and incinerate kids headed to Disneyworld. Islamic terrorists who take hundreds of children hostage in Beslan, force them to drink their own urine and shoot babies in the back. Islamic terrorists who groom toddlers as suicide bombers.

Our enemies are Islamic extremist murderers. Except if you happen to attend the Muskegon County, Mich., schools, where the menacing faces of terrorism belong to parents who make untold sacrifices to give their children the best education they know how by schooling them in the loving environment of their own homes....

I seem to recall the national teacher's unions telling us after 9/11 that we should go to great lengths to let our kids know that no group was responsible for the attacks. You know, so as to avoid any sweeping generalizations that could marginalize Muslims? However, when it comes to ticking off and marginalizing Christians and homeschoolers, knock yourselves out. After all, these linguine-spined educrats are certain that Christians aren't going to violently retaliate. The same cannot be said of the chronically-aggrieved Muslims.

UK to drop Holocaust from history so as not to piss off Muslims

As the UK continues slouching towards dhimmitude, I have to wonder if Ellen Goodman applauds the Euros for reinforcing Muslims' Holocaust denial attitudes. From the Limeys:

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Governmentbacked study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

Hallelujah! Maybe I can use the same approach and get ESPN and CNNSI to stop reporting that Florida won their second straight basketball title last night! You know, I'm so mortified that I am offended and will resort to denial...and thus, it is to be stricken from the news and the record books. (Sidebar: this is NOT an invitation to discuss the game, as I'm trying to make a point here, people!)

Anywho, continuing:

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

In other words, mosques are teaching lies about the Holocaust and the Crusades, and the UK propaganda centers (formerly known as "schools") are going to accommodate said lies. Well, hell, why even have history class then? At least rename it "revisionist history class"! Continuing:

The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history 'as a vehicle for promoting political correctness'.

The study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills, looked into 'emotive and controversial' history teaching in primary and secondary schools.

It found some teachers are dropping courses covering the Holocaust at the earliest opportunity over fears Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic and anti-Israel reactions in class.

I suppose the teachers should be thankful if the Muslim pupils resort to freely spouting what they already think, rather than spouting "Allahu Akhbar!" before self-detonating.

This part is particularly galling:

The report concluded: "In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship."

Don't we usually hear from the P.C. promoters that students who are raised in conservative households need to have their "narrow-minded" horizons broadened in schools? Obviously, favored groups in the P.C. movement are allowed to have their own "narrow-minded" views that are to be left "unbroadened" for fear of offending them.

Fortunately, at least one of the Brits gets it:

Chris McGovern, history education adviser to the former Tory government, said: "History is not a vehicle for promoting political correctness. Children must have access to knowledge of these controversial subjects, whether palatable or unpalatable."

Apparently, sir, children should only have access to that knowledge if they are not on the P.C. Hyper-sensitivity List. Subject kids to "unpalatable" facts? That's just crazy talk! Hell, leftist adults don't need "unpalatable" facts, so why should Muslim kids (or any other kids, for that matter)?

Chocolate Jesus fallout

Many of you may have heard about the whole "Chocolate Jesus" kerfuffle last week, and I didn't blog on it because, quite frankly, I didn't think it was that big of a deal. I mean, I've seen patently and intentionally offensive blasphemy in "art" before, such as "Piss Christ" and the Virgin Mary splattered with elephant dung. This chocolate thing was, in my humble opinion, no big whoop.

However, something I did notice (and apparently others did, too) was that CNN and its brethren in the MSM were more than willing to report and show something that many Christians found to be offensive...yet lacked the same kind of "journalistic integrity" (oxymoron, I know) when it came to those silly Mohammed cartoons that got the weirdbeards of the world in a dander.

Recall when CNN said the following?

"CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam."

"CNN is not showing the negative caricatures of the likeness of Prophet Mohammed because the network believes its role is to cover the events surrounding the publication of the cartoons while not unnecessarily adding fuel to the controversy itself."

How did the others in the MSM explain away their lack of desire to publish the Mohammed cartoons?

"They wouldn't meet our standards for what we publish in the paper," said Leonard Downie, Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post, which ran a front-page story on the issue Friday, but has not published the cartoons. "We have standards about language, religious sensitivity, racial sensitivity and general good taste." ...
At USA Today, deputy foreign editor Jim Michaels offered a similar explanation. "At this point, I'm not sure there would be a point to it," he said about publishing the cartoons. "We have described them, but I am not sure running it would advance the story." Although he acknowledged that the cartoons have news value, he said the offensive nature overshadows that.

The Boston Globe, while acknowledging the right of newspapers to print material that may offend, argues that "newspapers ought to refrain from publishing offensive caricatures of Mohammed in the name of the ultimate Enlightenment value: tolerance."

Apparently, "tolerance" and "respect" are not to be extended to Christianity. Thanks for the clarification, MSM.

German divorce court judge cites Koran in justifying Muslim domestic violence

The Euros are spiraling down a road of dhimmitude that will be nearly impossible from which to return. From Germany:

He beat her and threatened her with murder. But because husband and wife were both from Morocco, a German divorce court judge saw no cause for alarm. It's a religion thing, she argued.

The case seems simply too strange to be true. A 26-year-old mother of two wanted to free herself from what had become a miserable and abusive marriage. The police had even been called to their apartment to separate the two -- both of Moroccan origin -- after her husband got violent in May 2006. The husband was forced to move out, but the terror continued: Even after they separated, the spurned husband threatened to kill his wife.

A quick divorce seemed to be the only solution -- the 26-year-old was unwilling to wait the year between separation and divorce mandated by German law. She hoped that as soon as they were no longer married, her husband would leave her alone. Her lawyer, Barbara Becker-Rojczyk agreed and she filed for immediate divorce with a Frankfurt court last October. They both felt that the domestic violence and death threats easily fulfilled the "hardship" criteria necessary for such an accelerated split.

In January, though, a letter arrived from the judge adjudicating the case. The judge rejected the application for a speedy divorce by referring to a passage in the Koran that some have controversially interpreted to mean that a husband can beat his wife. It's a supposed right which is the subject of intense debate among Muslim scholars and clerics alike."The exercise of the right to castigate does not fulfill the hardship criteria as defined by Paragraph 1565 (of German federal law)," the daily Frankfurter Rundschau quoted the judge's letter as saying. It must be taken into account, the judge argued, that both man and wife have Moroccan backgrounds.

"The husband can beat his wife"

"The right to castigate means for me: the husband can beat his wife," Becker-Rojczyk said, interpreting the judge's verdict.

In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, Becker-Rojczyk said the judge indicated to her that it makes no sense to insist on an accelerated divorce. The judge's advice? Wait for the year-long waiting period to elapse.

The lawyer and her client were shocked. Immediately, they filed a claim alleging that the judge should have recused herself due to a conflict of interest. They felt that, because of the point of view presented by the judge, she was unable to reach an objective verdict. In the reply sent to Becker-Rojczyk, the judge expressly referred to a Koran verse -- or sura -- which indicates that a man's honor is injured when his wife behaves in an unchaste manner. "Apparently the judge deems it unchaste when my client adapts a Western lifestyle," Becker-Rojczyk said.

Fortunately, the judge appears to have p#ssed in the wrong pot:

On Tuesday evening, Becker-Rojczyk expressed amazement that the judge was still on the bench, given that the controversial verdict was handed down weeks ago. Becker-Rojczyk had elected to go public with the case to attract attention to the judge's conduct. It seems to have worked. On Wednesday, after the Tuesday evening publication of the story on SPIEGEL ONLINE, the attorney received a fax from the Frankfurt court granting the conflict of interest claim and excusing the judge from the case.

Still, it is unlikely that the case will be heard again before the mandated year of separation expires in May. But the judge who heard the case may have to face further consequences for her decision. On Wednesday, numerous politicians in Berlin voiced their horror at the verdict -- and demanded disciplinary action against the judge.

"In my opinion, this is a case of extreme violation of the rule of law that can't be solved with a mere conflict of interest ruling," Social Democrat parliamentarian Dieter Wiefelspütz told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "There have to be further consequences. This is a case for judicial supervision -- this case needs to be further investigated."

The deputy floor leader for the Christian Democrats, Wolfgang Bosbach, agreed. "This is a sad example of how the conception of the law from another legal and cultural environment is taken as the basis for our own notion of law," he said on Wednesday.

This isn't the first time that German courts have used cultural background to inform their verdicts. Christa Stolle of the women's rights organization Terre des Femmes said that in cases of marital violence, there have been a number of cases where the perpetrator's culture of origin has been considered as a mitigating circumstance -- although such verdicts have become seldom in recent years.

But there remains quite a bit of work to do. "In my work educating sexist and short-sighted Muslim men," asked Michaela Sulaika Kaiser of the Network for Muslim Women, "do I now have to convince German courts that women are also people on the same level with men and that they, like any other human, have the right to be protected from physical and psychological violence?"

And the libs tell us that we should mimic the Euros? Thanks, but no thanks!

Profile in moonbattery: John Cougar Menstrual-cramp

This would be another great addition to the Shut Up & Sing Brigade. From In the Bullpen:

Singer John Mellencamp on the ‘Charlie Rose Show’ said the removal of the Taliban after 9/11 was wrong, but further Mellencamp stated if the United States knew exactly where Osama bin Laden was it would be wrong to drop a bomb on OBL’s head.

Mellencamp: I think what would have been appropriate is exactly what we’re going to have to do right now.

Rose: What’s that?

Mellencamp: Talk to people.

Rose: Who do we go talk to? Do we call him up and say, “Osama, can we talk about this? We’re not real happy about this. Can we talk about it?”

Mellencamp then said we should talk to “the Muslims” and ask “where are we so far apart here?” (Hint: They want us to die, and we don't want to die. Aside from that, all is peachy. - Ed.)

Later in the interview Mellencamp says he doesn’t know how he’d respond to the attack on Pearl Harbor in World War II because he doesn’t really know what happened. (Condensed version: Japan dropped some bombs in a sneak attack on our fleet in Hawaii, killing a bunch of Americans. Glad I could help. - Ed.) He says he’s read books, but he doesn’t know if history is always right.

Good point, Menstrualcramp. Karl Rove probably went back in time and rewrote history books to blame Japan for Pearl Harbor, since it was probably a Prescott Bush inside job, right?

JCM's foreign policy results

DNC further slouching towards dhimmitude

From LGF:

When Imam Husham Al-Husainy delivered his now-infamous lines about doom, oppression, and occupation at the DNC winter meeting, standing at his side was none other than party chairman Howard Dean.

And Dean gave him a congratulatory handshake, right after the part about America’s “oppression and occupation.”

As you can see in this video, shot from a different angle than Hot Air’s C-SPAN clip.

Here is a partial transcript of Al-Husainy's speech at the DNC winter meeting:

In the name of God the most merciful, the most compassionate. We thank you, God, to bless us among your creations. We thank you, God, to make us as a great nation. We thank you God, to send us your messages through our father Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Mohammed. Through you, God, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. Help us God to liberate and fill this earth with justice and peace and love and equality. And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation.

"And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation"? Veiled expression of desire for the destruction of Israel and America, perhaps?

Someone remind me: how are the Dems gonna combat Islamic terrorism? If we are to judge them by their actions, I would say that the Dems plan on fighting Islam terrorism by submitting to it. I guess this is what Jean-Francois Heiz-Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Vietnam) meant by fighting that "sensitive war" on Islamic terrorism.

Jimmah's anti-Semitic bigotry continues

Via Newsbusters:

Former President Jimmy Carter has gotten himself into more hot water, although it seems quite unlikely that any in the media will pay much attention to this recent faux pas (h/t LGF).

In a seemingly absurd response to a call by The Simon Wiesenthal Center for members and supporters to send letters to Carter concerning his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” the former president penned a handwritten note to the organization’s well-respected founder and Dean.

In it, Carter suggested that the Center lied about him and his book in order to raise money.

Think I'm kidding? Well, put this in your Middle East peace pipe and smoke it:

1/26/07
To Rabbi Marvin Hier

I don’t believe that Simon Wiesenthal would have resorted to falsehood and slander to raise funds.

Sincerely,
Jimmy Carter

In reality, there was absolutely nothing in the Center’s news release concerning Carter’s book asking for money. And, there was nothing disrespectful about the letter the Center was encouraging recipients to send to the former president:

Dear President Carter:

We respect your historic achievement in forging peace between Egypt and Israel in 1979 which only deepens our disappointment and concern over your one-sided book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."

President Carter there is no Israeli Apartheid policy and you know it. I join with the Simon Wiesenthal Center in respectfully reminding you that the only reason there is no peace in the Holy Land is because of Palestinian terrorism and fanaticism.

In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak went to Camp David and offered Yasser Arafat 95% of the West Bank, 100% of Gaza and part of the Old City of Jerusalem, along with $30 billion in compensation for Palestinian refugees. Arafat’s response was the launching of the bloody Intifada which targeted innocent civilians in restaurants, malls, schools, and religious services with suicide terror attacks. Had Arafat accepted Israel’s offer at Camp David there would have long been a Palestinian State alongside Israel.

Mr. President, when the Palestinian people repudiate their fanatics in favor of a course of moderation, then there will be peace in the Middle East.

Pretty innocuous letter to elicit such a response from a former president, wouldn’t you agree?

Nothing in the letter to indicate that the Jewish center was asking for money? Why, if I didn't know any better, I'd swear that Jimmy the Dhimmi was insinuating that Jews are obsessed with money! Nah, that couldn't be the case! I mean, that would be stereotyping, and we all know how Carter has no history of anti-Semitic thought or behavior, don't we? It's not like he and Wesley "Call them 'New York Money People' and not 'Jews'" Clark have a habit of poormouthing Jews, right?

By the way, with the exception of an AP story on Tuesday, the MSM was quieter than Hillary's bedroom. Nope...no liberal media bias!

Jimmah with his usual "deer in headlights" look

"London Prison Changes Direction of Toilets in Respect to Islamic Law"

Euro dhimmitude continues. From The Sun (hat tip to Kanaka Girl):

Toilets in one London prison are getting a face-lift — or rather, a change in direction — to accommodate Muslim inmates who can't use them while facing Mecca, a British newspaper reported.

Government officials ackowledged using tax dollars for the changes to the facilities, but maintained that moving the toilets was part of "on-going refurbishment," according to an article in The Sun.

Islamic code prohibits Muslims from facing or turning their backs on the direction of prayer when they use the bathroom. Muslim prisoners complained of having to sit sideways on toilets so as to not break code.

Faith leaders in the government pressured officials to approve turning the toilets 90 degrees at HMP Brixton in London.

A Muslim American rights worker commended the London prison system for their actions, but said the problem, so far, doesn't appear to be an issue in the U.S.

"There have been very significant and numerous complaints at U.S. prisons on issues of regulating hygiene and respect for dietary laws," said Ibrahim Ramey, director of human and civil rights work for Muslim America Society. However, Ramey said he was unaware of any specific complaints regarding the direction of toilets in U.S. prisons.

Just so I'm understanding this correctly:

You can blow up a busload of Jews, self-detonate in an Israeli café, decapitate a few infidels, and Allah is pleased. But if you sh#t facing the wrong way, you're frying in Hell? Ooooooooooooo-kay then.

What if you need to go to the bathroom on an airplane? Should the pilot change course in mid-air to accommodate your defication needs? Or do you hold your dung (and decapitate the insensitive infidel later)?

Here in America, we see things every day to indicate that we're becoming a nation of p#ssies. However, even we don't do anything as stupid as rearranging toilet directions in prisons just to make Muslims happy.

Hey, I've got a brilliant idea! If you're a Muslim in America, and you're afraid that you'll wind up in prison and jeopardize your soul's final destination because you might "drop a line to headquarters" while facing the wrong way...how about, oh I dunno, not winding up in prison in the first place? You know, "obeying the law" and that kind of crazy shizit?

Carter: "Too many Jews" on Holocaust Council

Just when you think that Jimmy "the Dhimmi" Carter's anti-Semitism knew no bounds, he exceeds those bounds even further. From the Israel Insider:

The more we learn about Jimmy Carter's one-sided and biased views towards Israel and her supporters in this country, the more reason we have to be deeply troubled by what he represents and the dangerous mischief he continues to foment.

There is not enough space to repeat the detailed and well documented critiques of his best selling book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. They are, however, aptly summarized by Dr. Kenneth Stein, one of the many former aides and colleagues publicly to have disassociated themselves from the former president, who charged that: "[the book] is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments."

One of the book's most egregious - and now infamous passages -- is found at page 213, where Carter advises "the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups" to make clear that "suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism" will end once when Israel accepts the ultimate goals of the "Roadmap." Thus the former president sanctions -- indeed encourages -- continued suicide bombings until Israel meets Arab demands. In fact, what seems to trouble him most about such Arab acts is not that they kill innocent Israeli civilians, but that they may damage sympathy for the Palestinian cause.

Despite the in depth criticism of his thesis, Carter has dug in, stubbornly insisting that his book is both "accurate and needed," blaming the firestorm he has triggered on Jewish American organizations and while he accuses the pro-Israel community of trying to stifle him or any debate on Middle East policy.

And, let's not ignore his interview on the Al Jazeera network during which he astonishingly proclaimed that Palestinian missile attacks against Israeli citizens do not, to his way of thinking, constitute acts of terror. Even his apparent condemnation of the killing of children and bombing buses is problematic, as it is couched in terms of damaging sympathy for the Palestinian cause. This approach is reminiscent of that employed by Arafat who, to the extent he ever was in any way critical of acts of terror, complained only because he thought it was tactically disadvantageous.

Not surprisingly and very tellingly, Carter's frontal attacks have been warmly embraced by a nasty cast of scoundrels, including white supremacists groups and websites such as Stormfront and Aryan Nations as well as David Duke and the notorious Holocaust denying Institute of Historical Review.

It is with good reason that Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers and Howard Dean have publicly distanced themselves from Mr. Carter, a lead which hopefully others will follow. No Democratic leader or official has come to Carter's defense, and partisan attempts to use his comments to smear all Democrats as anti-Israel and anti-Semitic should not be tolerated.

The ongoing controversy, including the Carter Center's acceptance of millions of dollars from anti-Israel Arab sources, including the Saudi royal family, and the Bin Laden family prompted me last month to reveal to the JTA a disturbing 1987 encounter I had with Mr. Carter, while I was the Director of the Office of Special Investigations in the Justice Department, as he took up the cause of the family of an admitted Nazi SS concentration camp who had been stripped of citizenship by a federal court and removed from the country. (Read about it here.)

If one didn't know better, you'd think that we were not talking about a former president, but rather Pat Buchanan. After all, it was Mr. Buchanan, was it not, who over the years: denigrated Israel by calling it, among other things, an albatross around this country's neck, as he blamed her for the wars in Iraq; demeaned the pro-Israel lobby for having turned Capitol Hill into what he calls "Israeli occupied territory"; and came to the aid of Nazi criminals being pursued by our government, even while serving as communications director in the Reagan White House.

As troubling as all of this is, there is more. I have received correspondence which ineluctably leads to the comparison of Jimmy Carter to the darkest side of Richard Nixon.

In response to my earlier Op Ed, on December 27 of last year I received an email from Professor Monroe Freedman, a distinguished member of the faculty of Hofstra Law School in New York. He had been the first executive director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, which had been created during the Carter administration. Working closely with Elie Wiesel, Freedman put forward to the White House a list of Council members. The recommendations came back disapproved, and Freedman remembers well the reason: "In the top corner, in Carter's handwriting and with his initials was the notation: 'Too many Jews'."

It certainly looks like Mr. Carter took a page right out of the playbook of the disgraced Nixon, who, in a most paranoid and bigoted of moments, instructed an aide to count the Jews in the Labor Department where he believed his economic policies were being obstructed.

To all those who doubt that Jews are an extraordinary people or that Israel is an extraordinary nation, I ask: who else could bring together and find common cause between the likes of Richard Nixon, Pat Buchanan David Duke and Jimmy Carter? Enough said.

In related news, Jimmah also complains that maternity wards have "too many babies being born", high school proms have "too many teenage kids dancing", zoos have "too many animals", schools have "too much learning going on", doctors' offices have "too many sick people", and Code Pink rallies have "too many moonbats"! OK, that's a bit of a stretch...he'd never think there's a such thing as too many moonbats!

Carter's heart bleeds for Nazi

It's a known fact that former (and worst ever) president "Jimmy the Dhimmi" Carter has coddled terrorists, dictators, and evil slime all across the world. However, his depravity has sunk to new lows: taking up the cause for a former Nazi soldier responsible for the deaths of scores of Jews. From Arutz Sheva:

A former U.S. Justice Department official disclosed to Arutz-7 that former U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s advocacy extended beyond the Palestinians, when he interceded on behalf of a Nazi SS man.

Neil Sher, a veteran of the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigation, described a letter he received from Carter in 1987 in an interview with Israel National Radio’s Tovia Singer. The letter, written and signed by Carter, asked that Sher show “special consideration” for a man proven to have murdered Jews in the Mauthausen death camp in Austria.

“In 1987, Carter had been out of office for seven years or so,” Sher recalled. “It was a very active period for my office. We had just barred Kurt Waldheim – he was then president of Austria and former head of the United Nations – from entering the U.S. because of his Nazi past and his involvement in the persecution of civilians during the war. We had just deported an Estonian Nazi Commandant back to the Soviet Union after a bruising battle after which we were attacked by Reagan White House Communications Director Patrick Buchanan. (Looks like Pat Buchanan's anti-Semitism goes back quite a while, doesn't it? - Ed.)

Maybe Carter's just a really forgiving guy? That would be admirable, were it true. But it's not true. We know that because of (a) Carter's reflexive disdain for America; (b) his reflexive solidarity with terrorist leaders and oppressive regimes; (c) his reflexive contempt for all things favorable to Israel, including her survival; and (d) this:

The family approached several members of Congress. “The congressmen would, very understandably, forward their claims over to our office and when they learned the facts they would invariably drop the case,” Sher recalled.

But there was one politician who accepted the claims without asking for any further information.

“One day, in the fall of ’87, my secretary walks in and gives me a letter with a Georgia return address reading ‘Jimmy Carter.’ I assumed it was a prank from some old college buddies, but it wasn’t. It was the original copy of the letter Bartesch’s daughter sent to Carter, after Bartash had already been deported.

“In the letter, she claimed we were un-American, only after vengeance, and persecuting a man for what he did when he was only 17 and 18 years old.

“I couldn’t help thinking of my own father who returned home with shrapnel wounds after he joined the U.S. Army as a teenager to fight the Nazis and hit the beaches at Normandy at that same age on D-day.

“On the upper corner of the letter was a note signed by Jimmy Carter saying that in cases such as this, he wanted ‘special consideration for the family for humanitarian reasons.’

“I didn’t respond to the letter – the case was already over and he was out of the country – but it always stuck in my craw. A former president who didn’t do what I would expect him to do - with a full staff at his disposal – to find out the facts before he took up the side of this person. But I wasn’t going to pick a fight with a former president. We had enough on our plate.”

Now, following Carter’s book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Sher has decided to go public with the hope that a public made aware of Carter’s support and defense of a Nazi SS man will help illustrate why the arbiter of the Camp David Accords came out with a book defending the Palestinians after the landslide election of the Islamist Hamas terror group.

“It always bothered me, but I didn’t go public with it until recently, when he wrote this book and let it spill out where his sentiments really lie,” Sher said. “Here was Jimmy Carter jumping in on behalf of someone who did not deserve in any way, shape or form special consideration. And the things he has now said about the Jewish lobby really exposes where his heart really lies.”

Why would Carter need facts at his disposal to help him come to an informed decision? Considering that the Nazi in question was responsible for the atrocities committed against legions of innocent Jews, he probably has a special place in ol' Jimmah's heart.

U.S. attack on Al Qaeda gets Eurabia's thong in a bunch

From FNC:

A U.S. airstrike hit targets in southern Somalia where Islamic militants were believed to be sheltering suspects in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies, Somali officials and witnesses said Tuesday. Many people were reported killed.

Monday's attack was the first overt military action by the U.S. in Somalia since it led a U.N. force in the 1990s that intervened in Somalia in an effort to fight famine. The mission led to clashes between U.N. forces and Somali warlords, including the "Black Hawk Down" battle that left 18 U.S. servicemen dead.
...
President Abdullahi Yusuf told journalists in the capital, Mogadishu, that the U.S. "has a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies." Deputy Prime Minister Hussein Aideed told The Associated Press the U.S. had "our full support for the attacks."

But others in the capital said the attacks would only increase anti-American sentiment in the largely Muslim country.

"U.S. involvement in the fighting in our country is completely wrong," said Sahro Ahmed, a 37-year-old mother of five.

Naturally, the Euros are pissed:

The European Commission on Tuesday criticised the reported United States airstrike against a suspected al-Qaeda cell in southern Somalia, calling it counterproductive to peace efforts for the war-torn African country. (Anything short of dhimmitude or death is "counterproductive", in their eyes. - Ed.)

As A.J. Strata points out, we're actually doing the UN's job here (since the current Somali government was created in 2004 with UN backing and recognition) by "supporting the intentions and will of the international community. Wonder what the left will say about that."

So a bunch of anti-American Euros, as well as Somalis who sympathize with Al Qaeda, might get mad if we attack and kill Al Qaeda? I would like to take this opportunity to invite my readers here to remind me to give a flying fornication what these vermin think of America and how she deals with her enemies (especially those sworn to her extermination), m'kay? Reflexive anti-Americanism gets older than Robert "Sheets" Byrd's navel lint. Thanks in advance.