Polite Kid

...backlash feared by Muslim community.''
The 'backlash fear' stories will come next; trust me.
I thought things had been a little too quiet lately on the terror front.
By now we have all heard about the latest thwarted bomb plot in London. I noticed that on this afternoon's reports on the cable news channels, they were carefully avoiding any mention of Moslems and the Religion of Peace.
Police avert car bomb carnage
...Scotland Yard, Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur urged people to be "alert and vigilant" and to
report any suspicions to the police.
Disruption would be kept to a minimum, he said, although the police were reviewing the safety of a number of big public events set to take place in the capital over the weekend.
"I want to reassure Londoners that we are doing everything possible to make them safe," he added.''
Tariq Ghaffur? So now the Scotland Yard assistant commissioner is himself a Moslem?
Meanwhile, in our country, the President spoke at a rededication ceremony at the Islamic Center of Washington, which was celebrating its 50th anniversary. In his remarks, he included the usual twaddle about militants not representing true Islam.
In this account of the event, we learn that Bush will appoint a special envoy to the Moslem world:
President George W. Bush announced Wednesday he will establish an envoy to a coalition of Muslim countries, with hopes of bolstering ties to the Islamic world and improving the image of the United States.
[...]
"Our special envoy will listen to and learn from representatives from Muslim states, and will share with them America's views and values," Bush said in a ceremony honoring the 50th anniversary of the Islamic Center, a mosque and cultural center in Washington.
"This is an opportunity for Americans to demonstrate to Muslim communities our interest in respectful dialogue and continued friendship," Bush said.
[...]
Those attending Wednesday's ceremony, including Bush, took off their shoes as they entered. Bush listened as a verse from the Quran was read.
"We live in a time when there are questions about America and her intentions. For those who seek a true understanding of our country, they need to look no farther than here," Bush said.
"This Muslim center sits quietly down the road from a synagogue, a Lutheran church, a Catholic parish, a Greek Orthodox chapel, a Buddhist temple - each with faithful followers who practice their deeply held beliefs and live side by side in peace," he said.
Bush singled out Iran and Syria and accused them of religious and political repression.
"Millions seek a path to the future where they can say what they think, travel where they wish and worship as they choose," he said. "They plead in silence for their liberty and they hope someone, somewhere will answer.
"So today in this place of free worship, in a heart of a free nation, we say to those who yearn for freedom from Damascus to Tehran: you are not bound forever by your misery. Plead in silence no longer. The free world hears you. You're not alone. America offers you its hand in friendship. We work for the day when we can welcome you into the family of free nations."
This story is yet one more bit of evidence that the President is not the fundamentalist 'right-wing Christian' he is represented as; his actions (such as observing Moslem rituals such as taking off his shoes and listening to the Koran reading) would not be acceptable to a Bible-believing Christian. And no, being 'president of all the people' does not mean taking part in Mohammedan rituals and ceremonials. If it does, then no believing Christian can be President.
But the most troubling thing to me is not the President's fellowshipping with those of a false religion, and a religion which teaches violence and world domination, but his willful attempt to disarm us as a nation. And yes, despite our use of military force to bring 'liberty' to Iraq, we are disarmed in that we are compelled by our diversity-crazed elites to live side-by-side with hostile peoples, and we are conditioned to believe that it's only a small minority who pose a threat.
Fostering that kind of detachment from reality amounts to disarming us.
The President speaks in saccharine, smarmy platitudes about all faiths, Christian, Buddhist, Moslem, living 'side by side in peace', but if you want to see the reality of this forced coziness among disparate peoples and 'belief systems', take a look at what is happening in London. That is the reality; not the kumbaya liberal nonsense the President is peddling. And as long as we are forced to accept a murderous cult into our midst, there will be the hard reality of terror plots and bombs. And next time, the attacks may be carried out, and not fortuitously thwarted beforehand. Our luck cannot hold out forever, not as long as we keep on rolling the dice and living dangerously with diversity.

Labels: Islam, Jihad, Moslems, Muslims, Political Correctness, Terrorism

Behold the face of Political Correctness: Willie Rae, Chief Constable of the Strathclyde Police.
During his statement, after the Glasgow attack, in which he allowed that the Airport incident 'was terrorism', he proceeded to go into the obligatory song-and-dance about how the authorities would not tolerate any kind of 'harassment' of the local 'minority communities' and that any such behavior would be dealt with.
How typical of our weakling Western authorities now. It's a ritual that whenever any attack is made on citizens, even one in which lives are lost and people are injured and maimed, we have to be subjected to such lectures by our authorities, who obviously think that preserving the feelings of 'minority communities' is their chief mission. What it means is that we would rather see innocent lives sacrificed and people horribly killed and maimed rather than 'offend' any of our 'minority communities.' It's beginning to look as though our authorities, who are ostensibly charged with providing for our safety and security, instead see themselves as charged with protecting 'minority communities' from the rest of us.
I remember that Willie Rae's London counterpart, 'Sir' Ian Blair, made a disgustingly dhimmi-like speech just after the 7/7 London bombings in 2005. He said something about how the word violence and the word Islam do not belong together, and that terrorism is the work of merely a tiny minority of extremists, etc. etc. You know how the speech goes.
Our Western leaders are saying implicitly that they will see many of their own citizens dead rather than risk being mean to Moslems. So 'profiling' and exclusion of Mohammedans is not even to be discussed or considered or thought. 'Fairness' and tolerance and openness take precedence over life and survival itself.
Is this not the definition of derangement? Or is it just craven cowardice? Or is it ideological tunnel vision?
And as if Willie Rae was not bad enough, here we have Alex Salmond, Scotland's 'first minister' lecturing the Scottish people:
Mr Salmond appealed for calm, following the attack at Glasgow Airport, while stressing that steps were being taken to keep people safe.
He also told BBC Scotland that individuals, not communities, were responsible for their actions.
[...]
"No community in Scotland should feel threatened or under suspicion because of this incident."
Community relations in Scotland, he said, were strong, adding: "They've withstood a number of pressures over recent years and they'll withstand this pressure as well." '
Translation: the multicultural agenda will go on as before, regardless of its cost to human life, to civil liberties, and to the quality of life in Scotland or elsewhere. And the people will have to like it and go along with it, or else. You can be sure that any Scottish or British citizen who offends the protected Moslems will be dealt with much more harshly than any apprehended terror suspects, who will be treated with kid gloves and protected by various liberal organizations like Amnesty International.
And here in our country, it is not much better; whenever any terror plot is uncovered, the media are full of stories about the 'backlash' that never happens, and our elected officials lecture us in the same way that the PC-addled officials in the UK lecture their people. Something is really, seriously wrong with this picture.
The news coverage on Fox, CNN, and MSNBC follow the usual PC template, with inane questions from the anchors and the usual talking heads providing their useless commentary. The British correspondent Simon Marks, when asked about immigration and terror, immediately got up on his high horse and said that the 7/7 attacks were done by British citizens, and that therefore they had nothing to do with immigration.. How obtuse can one get? Of course the bombers
may have been technically 'British nationals', to use the very legalistic term, but in no sense were they part of the historic British nation and the historic British people. The very fact of their alien origins and their alien belief system is the source of their desire to do harm to British people. But this must not be acknowledged; it might offend other such 'British nationals' who nonetheless hate their adopted country and culture.
One side note: Alex Salmond, quoted above, is the leader of the Scottish National Party. Now, traditionally Scottish nationalists (like Irish and Welsh nationalists in their countries) championed their right to be free of English domination. These nationalist parties denounce the wrongs of the Sassenachs dating back hundreds of years. So why on earth do each and all of these parties support multiculturalism and the presence of Moslems and other foreign cultures in their midst? Wasn't the idea for Scotland to be under Scottish control, with a fully Scottish culture and way of life? If not, then what does nationalism mean, or what use is it? The English at their worst could never be as inimical to Scotland (or Ireland or Wales) than the Moslems and other such unassimilable alien peoples.
I noticed that some paleocons have applauded the rise of the SNP and the other nationalist parties, oblivious to the fact that these faux nationalists support the leftist, multicult agenda, and hence are no friends of true nationalism.
A 'nationalism' that stands for political correctness and multicult ideas is not what is needed in any Western country now, in these days of mass immigration, demographic warfare, and jihad.
What is needed, first of all, is a containment of Islam within its own sphere. The adnerents of that cult have proven time and again that they are both unwilling and incapable of living peaceably among non-Moslems.

Labels: Illegal Immigration, Nationalism, Political Correctness, Terrorism, War On Terror

An American blogger says she was sexually assaulted during the airport ''security'' screening.
The article, posted on an Australian news site, drew many comments, some of them very stupid and some more reasonable. I am always dumbfounded by people of whatever nationality who think there is absolutely nothing wrong with being subjected to intimate body searches or ''naked scanners'' just to board a plane.
One comment says if we get to our destinations safely, then it's worth it. I surely hope Americans won't be so ovine and passive as to simply shrug their shoulders and acquiesce to this. I hear a lot of people saying they just won't fly (which has been my resolve for a while now) but I wonder if they'll get over that and decide they 'need' to fly after all.
One cliche that we have heard ever since 9/12/2001 is that ''if we change our lives and habits just because of terrorists, then they will have won. So let's just do everything we did before 9/11 and defy the terrorists.''
That kind of thinking exasperates me. Who started that silly meme, anyway? As far as I can discern, the terrorists are not just looking to 'change our way of life' or 'destroy our freedom', they are trying to kill people, specifically Americans and infidels. If we are wise enough not to take chances, and avoid high-risk situations, the enemy will not have won; we will have won by eluding the traps set for us. We win by staying alive and foiling their designs, not by "defiantly" dying in an avoidable attack.
I don't believe they ''hate us for our freedom''. They hate us just because of who and what we are and what we represent.
So if we 'defy' them by taking risks that are usually avoidable, and we end up dead because of it, I would think that THEN, they would have won.
So why take unnecessary risks?
I don't believe these intrusive and probably unconstitutional measures make us one bit safer. They are not really intended to make us safer. If our government wanted to protect us, it would have closed the borders on 9/11 and radically tightened our immigration laws, excluding people from terrorist-producing nations. Profile. That's the best way of making us safer. And fix our wide-open borders and our lax visa regulations.
Some have declared that these new security regulations are 'theater' to make the gullible public believe that our government is protecting us. I doubt that; I think most people are past believing that our government has our interests at heart, or that they are really serious about actually performing the main duty of government -- to protect our lives and safety, particularly from foreign invasion or attack. No, I think it's simply a show of power, and an attempt to get us more accustomed to just shuffling along obediently, and giving up more of our rights and liberties in the name of 'security.'
Personally, when I have to travel, I will choose some other method than flying.

Labels: Big Government, Liberty, Privacy, Terrorism, War On Terror

The question was raised in a comment the other day about why there was no searching and body scanning involved in traveling by train or bus or boat.
We all expected this, sooner or later:
''The next step in tightened security could be on U.S. public transportation, trains and boats.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says terrorists will continue to look for U.S. vulnerabilities, making tighter security standards necessary.
"[Terrorists] are going to continue to probe the system and try to find a way through," Napolitano said in an interview that aired Monday night on "Charlie Rose."
"I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime. So, what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there?"
The writer of the article, Jordy Yager, mentions that others, like Joe Lieberman, have already suggested similar measures for those entering federal buildings.
''Napolitano said she hoped the U.S. could get to a place in the future where Americans would not have to be as guarded against terrorist attacks as they are and that she was actively promoting research into the psychology of how a terrorist becomes radicalized.''
'Guarded against terrorist attacks?' Who? Where? How? By leaving our southern border wide open to narco-traffickers and gangs and basically anyone who strays across the erstwhile border? Or by purposely admitting people from lawless countries like Somalia, and planting them in small towns across the U.S.? Who does she think she is fooling?
She mentions promoting research to try to understand the psychology of how terrorists develop. Typical blather about ''root causes'' and 'understanding.'
Even if we can psychoanalyze those who mean us harm, that would be a long term strategy, not a way of protecting American citizens here and now. The cliche about 'understanding' malefactors is a longstanding obsession with leftists and silly females. We used to hear the bleeding-hearts talking about how we should not execute murderers, but try to get at why they do what they do, so that we can prevent such acts in the future. Well, suppose we could see into the minds of violent people of whatever kind, and suppose we spot these theoretical telltale signs of a budding maniac. Do we then lock him up just in case? Medicate him? Put him in an institution for re-education? Drug him into harmlessness? The whole notion would not be allowable in a free country, and thus it is probably exactly what these lefties would like to do. I suspect they would not be as interested in the real threats, but in what they are now casually calling 'domestic extremists', formerly known as 'normal Americans', or perhaps just Americans who are being goaded to do something 'extreme' so as to justify abridging our rights even further.
So what's next? Internal passports? Searches at state borders, or other random places?
Whatever is next, it will not be to ensure our security, but to extend the government's power.

Labels: 4Th Amerndment, Anarcho-Tyranny, Freedom Of Movement, Terrorism, Totalitarianism