The Obamamatons

Prepare to be amazed at their intellectual prowess. It is man (and woman) on the street interviews in NYC with individuals so smitten with The One that they wear his visage for all to see on their t-shirts. This from an article in the Guardian (our MSM would never dare run this) wherein the first person at bat gives away her political bent by comparing Obama to Che Guerva in terms of marketing appeal.

This from the Guardian:

Jordana Zeldin, 24, photographer

Obama has become like Che Guevara in terms of what his face represents on merchandising. . .

. . . Obama represents this uniting force. He is willing to address the fact that America is far from perfect, in fact wildly flawed, in the way that recent politicians haven't done. For America to be this beacon of democracy it always says it is, it needs to acknowledge its flaws, look to other countries as models and build up from there. In terms of his biological and cultural make-up, he represents what America is - this racially mixed melting pot. It speaks to a lot of people who have moved to America or come from mixed families.

I knew our nation was imperfect, but I had no idea that in comparison it had so many flaws that we need to become more like, well, I am not sure who Ms. Z has in mind. Perhaps we can take lessons in democracy from the EU, a government form that retains the terminology of democracy while dispensing with the popular vote? Or perhaps we can become more Soviet like, as we may if Sen. Obama and the far left have their way. And one has to love Ms. Z's moral relativism spoken without any context and plied with a healthy does of identity politics.

Unfortunately, the other interviewees get no better. Next up:

Kellam Clark, 30, furniture maker and artist

I was sceptical about Obama initially. . . .

But then during the period in which he was debating against Hillary and the Republicans, he came out on top. I thought, I'll support him - he felt like the only one available to me. I'm now supporting [independent presidential candidate] Ralph Nader since he jumped back into the race. But I don't see it as a contradiction to wear the T-shirt. I still see it as important to endorse Obama, as one of the politicians we have available to us as progressive Americans. I don't go for the dream stuff, but he represents a changing of the guard. . . .

Mr. C is very confused. No Republicans showed up at the Dem debates. To the contrary Obama has been ducking and running from any direct debates with McCain like a mouse running away from a cat. And if he thinks Obama is coming out on top, obviously he did not tune in to Saddleback.

Viola Afrifa, 24, Student

. . . I'm fascinated by Obama's eloquence, the way that he speaks, both in terms of rhythm and words. I'm studying political communications, the way people project themselves, and he uses all of the techniques. The academic interest alerted me to Obama at first, and then it became political.

Obama is happy to negotiate without conditions, or so he says. He has a new way of dealing with other countries without looking only at American self-interest. This is something quite revolutionary.

A woman smitten by Obama and his teleprompter. As to "a new way of dealing" with other countries, obviously Ms. Afrifa's history lessons did not reach the 1930's. Obama's plan is not new, and it has been thoroughly discredited by history, and even Obama has disowned it as a plan. As to not "looking only at American self-interest," that is likely an accurate assessment. Given the number of people in his past now clinging to the bottom of the bus and the number of principles Obama has once claimed only to toss under the bus, I fully expect that a President Obama would put his political needs above the needs of the country. He's sort of the anti-McCain that way.

Sei Smith, 18, Student

I'm wearing it partly because I like how it looks and partly because I support Obama. I'm not a political person but the other candidates didn't speak to me. I saw Obama on television saying that you don't necessarily need experience if you have belief, and that sometimes experience can cloud your vision. I thought that was interesting and cool. Obama is similar to Lincoln in that he is a visionary. He's not as extreme as most young people, but he is a bridge to more radical views. To be a politician in America you can't be extreme, but he is pretty radical as politicians go.

If we all tap our heels together three times and just believe. . . . This is the Disney culture gone wild. It is interesting that Mr. Smith accepts Obama's take on experience without any sort of intellectual analysis. Obviously he wants to 'believe.' It is of note also that Smith sees Obama as a "bridge to more radical views." Obama's past is littered with radicals from Bill Ayers to Jeremiah Wright to name but a few. And his views on abortion that allow for infanticide are as radical as one will find in or outside of Washington. So Mr. Smith's is probably a correct assessment. If Obama takes over, it will in fact mark the first time that the far left has actually been handed the keys to the White House. Even Carter and Clinton ran as centrists.

Tony Gabaton, 30, community organiser

I wear the T-shirt because I admire Obama's forthright and genuine rhetoric; he is just cut from a different cloth from most politicians. After everything that went down in Florida in 2001 I was very cynical about the whole political process. He has revived hope in me as well as others. . . .

You have to love this one. What Obama did to get his Illinois state senate seat makes Florida 2001 look pristine and non-controversial. Obama only won his U.S. Senate seat when supporters were able to get the Court records unsealed on his opponents divorce (from the lovely Jeri Ryan). He has tossed campaign finance reform to the wind, and now he is preparing to buy votes in Philly. There is nothing about Obama that smacks of respect for the democratic process. As to 'cynical' - look that word up in the dictionary, I will be surprised if you do not find Obama's picture. Or if not there, then next to the definitions of 'hypocrisy' and 'ambition.' Obviously, the facts matter far less to Mr. G than does the fact that Gore lost the 2001 election.

You can read the entire Guardian article here. In all fairness, these folk are young and thus have an excuse for their lack of intellectual rigor. Our MSM on the other hand . . .

(H/T Maggies Farm)

Read More...

Summary only...

There Is Something Radically Wrong in the UK

A British Court, interpreting EU law, has refused Britain the right to deport thirteen terrorists, including Salafi cleric Abu Qatada, "Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe." He now, as one UK reporter puts it, gets to "prepare for a life on handouts" under Britain's generous welfare system. This is a sign of the utter rot of Labour and the British chattering class.

________________________________________________________

In the Devil's Advocate, there was a scene where Al Pacino, as Satan, explained why he chose to come to earth as a lawyer. To paraphrase, it was to pevert justice to the point where society would disintigrate. And there can be no more an example of such perversion than what is happening in the halls of British justice today, from the failure to hand out real jail sentences for serious crime to the inability to deport foreign terrorists and radical clerics who threaten the safety and stability of the nation. I do not expect British society to disintegrate - though give another decade with the EU controlling its borders and it might - but I wonder how long the British will remain as sheep in their own lands while a toxic combination of the EU and an indigenous Marxist chattering class who detest Western society and values dismember it physically with their immigration and judicial policies and destroy it spiritually with the dual poisons of multiculturalism and moral relativism.

This from the Daily Mail:

One of the world's most dangerous terror suspects was last night preparing for a life on benefits in Britain after judges ruled that his deportation would breach human rights law.

Abu Qatada, dubbed Osama Bin Laden's "truly dangerous" ambassador in Europe, could be released from jail within months following the Court of Appeal verdict.

Yesterday's decision has left Britain's anti-terror laws in tatters. It means the Jordanian father of five - who has been linked to a string of global terror conspiracies and is held in a high security prison under immigration powers - can expect to receive £1,000 a month in handouts.

The taxpayer also faces a bill of tens of thousand of pounds to keep the hate-filled cleric under 24-hour surveillance by security services under a control order unless a last-ditch Home Office appeal is granted by the House of Lords. Even if it is, Qatada could appeal again, to the European Court of Human Rights.

Yesterday the Court of Appeal said Qatada could stay because evidence used against him in any prosecution in his native Jordan may have been obtained by torture - a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

At the same time, 12 Libyan fanatics were cleared to remain in Britain for the rest of their lives by a second human rights ruling. They include an asylum seeker considered a "real and direct threat" to security who had a map marked with the flightpath to Birmingham Airport.

The rulings mean that - despite Tony Blair's promise in the immediate aftermath of the 7/7 attacks that the "rules of the game have changed" - not a single international terrorist has been forcibly removed from this country.

Almost three years on, the only Islamic fanatics to depart are eight Algerians who went voluntarily.

The Home Office had secured a Memorandum of Understanding with both Jordan and Libya, which said that returned terror suspects would not face torture. But judges - torpedoing the much-heralded strategy - said there was no guarantee that the Libyans would not suffer ill treatment or harm in the future.

Grave doubts must now be cast on the remaining 11 deportation cases before the courts, many of which are understood to involve Algerians. A separate agreement with Algeria - which has an appalling human rights record - has yet to be tested, and could be struck down in the same way as that signed by Libya.

Tory MP Patrick Mercer, who recently advised Gordon Brown on national security, said: "Yet again, terrorists are laughing at us and remaining in this country at the taxpayer's expense.

"Abu Qatada, Bin Laden's twisted mouthpiece, stays with us inside this country. What a shambles."

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: "This deals a major blow to the Government's assurances that Memorandums of Understanding are the answer in seeking to deport terror suspects."

The Qatada ruling is particularly devastating for the Home Office, which has been trying to deport the former asylum seeker for three years.

He was first detained in 2002, after spending ten months on the run immediately after September 11.

Ministers had been confident he would be booted out after securing the Memorandum of Understanding with Jordan in August 2005. It gave assurances he would not be tortured or ill-treated.

But, in a ruling which displays the true reach of human rights law, the Court of Appeal said that - while Qatada might not be harmed - witnesses who may be called to give evidence against him in any future trial held by the Jordanian authorities may have been tortured.

The judges said this would be a breach of the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Qatada remains in London's Belmarsh jail with other fanatics, including hook-handed cleric Abu Hamza.

But if the Home Office loses an expected appeal to the House of Lords, Qatada will be set free. The Government has no immigration power to hold those it has no realistic prospect of deporting.

Instead, officials would have to rely on placing Qatada - whose wife and children live in West London - under a control order, and hope he does not abscond. A string of international and homegrown terrorist suspects have gone on the run while under the shambolic orders.

The Libyan ruling, handed down by the same three Court of Appeal judges, was equally devastating. It leaves the Memorandum of Under-standing with that country in tatters.

The judges, headed by Master of the Rolls Sir Anthony Clarke, upheld an earlier ruling by the special immigration appeal court that two men known only as AS and DD could not be removed in case the agreement with Libya was breached at a later date.

The men, who had been on bail, were immediately released from any court conditions. Deportation proceedings against a further ten Libyans were abandoned, after officials admitted they had no prospect of success.

The Home Office responded by placing the men under what were described as "strict" control orders, but even the most restrictive conditions would allow the Libyans to roam the streets for ten hours each day.

Last night, Qatada's solicitor poured scorn on the Government, and Tony Blair's deportation promise, which had been part of a 12-point terror plan drawn up in direct response to the loss of 52 innocent lives in the July 7 London attacks. Many of the measures have since collapsed. . . .

Read the entire article. Do recall that it was not long ago that the British appeals court gutted Britain's anti-terror law as part of a decision setting free several young men who conspired to join jihad in Pakistan, were in possession of extremist literature, and who took actions in furtherance of the conspiracy. And all of this needs to be digested in light of Labour's unilateral transfer of British sovereignty to an EU that is equally as Marxian and suicidal as Britain's own chattering class. I would refer you to this article in the Brussels Journal for a good, very short summary of some of the problems with the EU, as well as this article from Lord Monckton.

Britain's problems with the above are monumental and existential. In truth, were what is occurring in the UK to occur in the U.S., I would expect blood to be flowing knee deep in the streets. Yet far too many of the Brits sit back and are mere observers, as if there is nothing to be done. It is difficult, at times, loving Britain and its history as I do, to stomach what I see today.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Madness of the Archbishop of Canterbury

Where is Henry II when you need him? The mad Archbishop of Canterbury has called for enactment of parts of Sharia law in Britain.





A few weeks ago, the head of the Anglican Church in Britain, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Cantebury, went off the deep end, decrying American imperealism to a Muslim audience. Now we know that was just a warm up for his main act of insanity. The Archbishop has today come out in support of allowing Sharia law in Britain. Now, admittedly, he has only followed the lead of the socialist Labour government who took the first step down the road towards recognizing Sharia law last week. The government decided to allow welfare payments to spouses in a polygamous marriage. The primary beneficiaries of that law are Muslims who are allowed, under Sharia law, to have up to four wives. This today from the Archbishop of Canterbury:

Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has sparked a political storm by calling for aspects of Sharia law to be adopted in Britain.

Dr Williams said it "seems inevitable" that elements of Islamic law, such as divorce proceedings, would be incorporated into British law.

Inevitable? Is the spirit of Britain and their belief in their own laws, customs and traditions so rotted that the march of Islam over their lands is a foregone conclusion?

That this is coming from the senior religious figure in the Anglican Church is an obscentity. It is irrational multiculturalism on steroids.

"Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states," he told the BBC's World at One programme.

"But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them."

To note the obvious, one, this promotes separatism and tribalism rather than integration. Two, this is a step precisely towards the inhumanity the Archbisop sees in Islamic states. Three, Sharia family law includes such goodies as stoning for adultery - something for which the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has already publicly called. Four, the Centre For Social Cohesion just released a lengthy report on forced marriage and honor violence - and found a part of the problem relating to these scourges was how Muslims were operating Sharia law courts unofficially in Britain. So why on earth would the Archbishop make such an idiotic suggestion?

Dr. Williams said the UK had to "face up to the fact" that some citizens do not relate to the British legal system, and argued that officially sanctioning Sharia law would improve community relations.

Wow. Does this stunning idiot understand that the only way to improve community relations with those Muslims who dissaprove of British law is for everyone to convert to Islam? Does he understand that the squeaky wheels are those who want to see Sharia law imposed on all of Britain?

What really is amazing is that, not only does reality zip by the archbishop's head without so much as a pit stop, but the Archbishop is equally as clueless as to the damage he is doing to Muslims who want to live under British law, not the Sharia law of rural Pakistan. And if the Archbishop wants to see community relations in action, he need only look to see how Christians and Jews are treated in those places that apply Sharia law.

But the insanity was not quite over for the Archbishop. He also had to work in a bit of moral relativism with his multiculturalism.

The Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said last month that non-Muslims faced a hostile reception in places dominated by the ideology of Islamic radicals. He has since faced death threats.

Dr Williams said the use of the phrase "no go areas" had sparked controversy because it reminded people of Northern Ireland.

"I don't think that was at all what was intended; I think it was meant to point to the silo problem, the sense of communities not communicating with each other," he said.

"Many Muslims would say that they feel bits of British society are no-go areas for them."

You have to laugh at this one. I think that we can safely assume that the death threats that Bishop Nazir-Ali is receiving are not from anyone named Paddy O'Toole who is pissed that the Bishop is dredging up thoughts of Northern Ireland. There are, as Bishop Nazir-Ali has pointed out, areas where a non-Muslim faces physical violence if they enter. Its those places with street signs in Arabic, not Celtic or English. No need to believe me, however. Just read this from Manzoor Moghal, or the comments to the Bishop Nazir-Ali's piece. As to no-go areas for Muslims, name one.

Okay. Now for a test. Is there anyone in Britain whom you think might have applauded the Archbishop's statements?

Dr Williams's comments were welcomed by Mohammed Shafiq, the director of the Ramadhan Foundation, who said: "Sharia law for civil matters is something which has been introduced in some western countries with much success."

Read the entire article. You just know the Queen must be asking about now, "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?"

Update: Much more on the issue here, including the BBC asking whether the reaction condemning the Archbishop is Islamophobia?

Update2: More here, including discussion of a court case in the UK seeking to hold a forced marriage null as violating the public policy of Britain.

Read More...

Summary only...