Pós-racial

e pós-partidário:

«Voters in this small city [Kinston, N.C] decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party. (...) The Justice Department's ruling (...) went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black. The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want. (...)»

Só me ocorre uma maneira de tornar a escolha dos eleitores, independentemente da raça, ainda mais fácil: extinguir todos os outros partidos e instaurar um regime de partido único. Afinal, seguiria a tendência que vem sendo definida por esta administração. Via American Thinker Blog e Hot Air.

URSSE - ano zero (2)

«(...) Supporters of the Lisbon Treaty say its purpose is to cement European integration by “streamlining” decision making. But in its essence, the Lisbon Treaty, which has been called a “slow motion coup d’état,” is all about the centralization of political power by an unelected ruling clique in Brussels who desire to rule Europe free from the constraints of democracy. (...) European strategists have long been frustrated by Europe’s inability to speak with one voice a debilitating weakness that often neuters Europe’s economic and political weight on the global stage (...). The Lisbon Treaty is designed to remedy this deficiency by imposing a European president and foreign minister at the top of the European edifice. (...) By giving unelected EU bureaucrats jurisdiction over questions of war and peace, the Lisbon Treaty will usurp the national prerogatives of its member states on the use of military force. (...) The Lisbon Treaty will make Europe more centralized and far less democratic than it already is. (...) The history of European integration is a textbook case in how a simple economic treaty can be gradually transformed into an all-encompassing non-democratic supranational federal leviathan. (...)»

URSSE - ano zero

Melanie Phillips reflecte sobre o dilema com que David Cameron e o Reino Unido se deparam - e, na verdade, todos os cidadão da UE.

«(...) If this constitution comes into force, the EU will be changed, unalterably and for ever, into a wholly new entity: a 27-nation superstate with no democratic legitimacy which will nevertheless rule our lives - and, in all probability, with Tony Blair as its President. (...) [I]f this constitution comes into effect, Britain and the other EU member states will no longer be self-governing nations. Foreign policy, defence, social, economic and welfare policies, immigration, internal security — every national interest will be subordinated to this new anti-democratic entity. As such, ‘President’ Blair would be committing the single most treacherous act of all towards his own country — taking away its own democratic power of self-government. And as a zealot whose aim has always been to supersede the nation state by trans-national bodies which promise the arrival of the brotherhood of man, we can be sure that ‘President’ Blair would make full use of the despotic powers of the EU constitution to impose upon us all a frightening degree of uniformity and control. (...) Frankly, unless the Lisbon treaty is stopped, there is little point in Cameron or anyone else busting a gut to win the General Election, since Parliament will be reduced to the status of Westminster regional council in the empire of Euroland. (...) Indeed, even if he did hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and Britain voted ‘no’, this would still leave the crux of the problem unaddressed. For even without the constitution, the EU has already paralysed our ability to govern ourselves in myriad different ways. (...) From fishing bans to heavy-goods lorries, from extradition orders to low-energy light-bulbs, British governments can no longer act in this country’s national interest but must defer to the diktats of EU bureaucrats. Cameron says he wants to be in a European Union of nations trading with each other, not a political union. But that’s not what the EU is. It’s a political project to create a unified superstate. And the momentum for that is unstoppable. If we don’t want to be part of that, then we have to come out of the EU altogether. (...)»

Com efeito, parece já não haver uma terceira opção: com a entrada em vigor do Tratado de Lisboa e com a constituição de facto de um super-estado europeu, ou nos conformamos com o processo federalista ou saímos da União. Não tinha que ser assim - uma união de países livres foi bem sucedida e podia continuar a sê-lo -, mas é este o ponto em que estamos.

(Fonte da imagem: Politically Incorrect.)

Recurso a Vaclav Klaus (2)

Segundo noticia o Times Online, Klaus não parece estar disponível para empatar o processo até uma suposta vitória dos tories nas próximas eleições em Inglaterra. Diz, com razão, que deviam ter pensado nisso antes. Afinal, estão fortemente representados no parlamento inglês e sem o seu voto favorável o tratado não teria sido aprovado.

«The last hurdles for the Lisbon treaty — and to Tony Blair’s chance of becoming Europe’s first president — seemed to fall away yesterday when the Poles pledged to sign and the Czech President warned David Cameron that it was “too late” for him to stop the document taking effect. Vaclav Klaus signalled that he would pass the treaty once it had been reassessed by the Czech Constitutional Court, a process which could take some weeks but is unlikely to last until May or June, when Mr Cameron hopes to take power and then hold a referendum. (...) EU leaders hope to decide upon both their new president and foreign minister, the position of High Representative also created by the treaty, at their summit in Brussels at the end of this month. The decisions could well be provisional, however, pending President Klaus’s final assent. The Czech Constitutional Court will announce in two weeks’ time a timetable for its latest inquiry, demanded by senators close to President Klaus and widely seen as a delaying tactic. (...) Asked after an anti-treaty march in Prague whether he had a message for Britain, President Klaus said: “I am afraid that the people of Britain should have been doing something really much earlier and not just now, too late, saying something and waiting for my decision.” (...)»

O golpe está consumado. Aclamemos a fundação da União das Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas da Europa, com presidente e ministro dos negócios estrangeiros (não eleitos por sufrágio universal), com rede diplomática e tudo.

«(...)Besides the two new jobs, the treaty creates an External Action Service for the EU — effectively a Foreign Office, with embassies around the world. (...)»

Como ontem adiantámos, as pressões sobre Klaus são imensas, de fora e de dentro da República Checa.

«(...) Jan Fischer, the Czech Prime Minister, will attend talks in Brussels on Wednesday designed to keep up the pressure on his President to ratify. (...)»

(Fonte da imagem: Politically Incorrect.)

Recurso a Vaclav Klaus

Depois da adopção por via não referendária na maioria dos países da UE do Tratado de Lisboa e da sua aprovação pelos irlandeses – à segunda tentativa e na sequência de enormes pressões, que chegaram à ameaça, mais ou menos directa, de expulsão da Irlanda da UE, e de uma campanha que envolveu recursos financeiros de monta, provenientes do tesouro irlandês e do orçamento da UE –, Vavlav Klaus, o presidente checo, é o próximo obstáculo com que os federalistas europeus se deparam. O Tratado foi aprovado pelas duas câmaras parlamentares checas, mas Klaus recusou-se, até ao momento, a assinar o documento. Entretanto, um grupo de senadores checos requereu ao tribunal constitucional a avaliação da constitucionalidade do documento. Um grupo de cidadãos europeus decidiu expressar o seu apoio a Klaus e a pedir-lhe que se mantenha firme na sua decisão de não assinar o Tratado, resistindo às intensas pressões provenientes de todos os quadrantes que se adivinham. Para o efeito, criaram um site, uma página no Facebook e lançaram uma petição. Já que não tivemos oportunidade de manifestar a nossa posição face a esta constituição travestida, temos agora a oportunidade de nos opor ao Tratado através da pessoa de Klaus.

(Fonte da imagem: Politically Incorrect.)

Via Gates of Vienna.

Colapso do Reino Unido (2)

A aplicação de uma ideologia educativa supostamente progressista condena as crianças inglesas à iliteracia e à marginalidade.

«(...) The educational establishment emphasises what ought to work; it doesn't investigate or accept the evidence of what actually works. As one science teacher in the East End told me: 'I'm instructed to put into place initiatives for which there's no educational evidence whatsoever.' Another complained: 'Education is an evangelical movement - evidence has nothing to do with it.' (...) [I]nspectors have been shocked by the low standard of writing, even in good schools - which one of them blamed squarely on poor marking (never to be done in red ink). Many teachers, they noted, had stopped correcting children's grammar, spelling and speech at all, for fear of discouraging them. (...) The Government, as we constantly hear, is on a mission to improve our schools. How? Well, this year, the emphasis is on promoting healthy eating and 'community cohesion'. Indeed, every single school I visited had material on these two topics prominently displayed on their noticeboards. What a pity that some of their pupils were unable to read it. One of the inspectors told me: 'I spend more time looking in children's lunchboxes than testing their literacy.' Someone, she said despairingly, needs to make children sit down, work hard and learn to concentrate. (...)»

Ver Colapso do Reino Unido.

Zelaya acusa

O presidente deposto das Honduras acusa o governo em exercício de ter contratado mercenários israelitas, os quais o estarão a alvejar com radiações de alta frequência e produtos tóxicos. Fica assim ainda mais claro por que o Tribunal Constitucional hondurenho ordenou a destituição de Zelaya, a qual foi levada a cabo pelas forças armadas, e por que o Senado se apressou a nomear um novo presidente e um novo governo, no cumprimento da Constituição. O que já não se percebe tão bem é por que a UE, os EUA e a ONU promovem o retorno ao poder do queixoso. Quanto à Venezuela e aos seus satélites e ao Brasil, estamos conversados. Sã parece estar a maioria dos hondurenhos, que se mantém do lado do governo em exercício, ao contrário do que se pode pensar vendo as imagens que as nossas televisões mostram de manifestações de apoio a Zelaya, apesar dos seus apelos à insurreição. Via Hot Air. Addendum: ver também o blogue de Fausta Wertz.

Colapso do Reino Unido

A jornalista Harriet Sergeant publica no Daily Mail uma série de artigos duma reportagem na qual investiga a gravidade e as causas do colapso social no Reino Unido, caracterizado por, entre outros aspectos, elevadas taxas de abandono escolar, iliteracia, delinquência juvenil, gravidez na adolescência, abortos na adolescência, famílias monoparentais, etc. Sergeant conclui que o colapso se deve sobretudo ao total falhanço da escola pública em facultar aos jovens, sobretudo das classes pobres, as mais elementares ferramentas para a vida social, como saber ler:

«(...) One young man I met in South London, for example, had never crossed the Thames because he couldn't read the bus timetables. (...)»

A situação descrita resulta das reformas pseudoprogressistas na educação e abre caminho a dois resultados: barbárie ou tirania - seja sob a forma do governo resultante de uma revolução socialista (com o lumpenproletariat como base) ou a decorrente da imposição da sharia, evolução natural da guerra cultural islâmica contra a enfraquecida estrutura cultural e social do Reino Unido.

[Legenda: sem nada para fazer, bandos de jovens desocupados como este (aqui representado por um modelo) têm poucos divertimentos, pelo deambulam por zonas comerciais.]

Via Melanie Phillips.

Van Jones, radical de esquerda, da supremacia negra e do ambiente

Já aqui fizemos referência, há tempos, a um personagem que o presidente genial foi descobrir para o cargo de Czar para a Ciência (Science Czar). Agora, foi a escolha de Obama para o improvável cargo de Czar para os Empregos Verdes (Green Jobs Czar) a dar que falar, como já aqui relatámos. Queria apenas acrescentar uma passagem de uma entrevista com e uma citação do novel governante, entretanto sacrificado à fúria da direita americana. Uma pérola que, para além de revelar algo sobre o seu autor, diz muito sobre o que é o movimento ecologista, ou, para ser mais justo, pelo menos sobre uma das suas tendências, mais revolucionárias que propriamente ecologistas:

«(...) But Jones' personal life has been punctuated with a series of epiphanies, each of which has expanded the focus of his work. In college, he embraced the fight for racial justice. Then he moved to the Bay Area and embraced the struggle for class justice. When he gained interest in environmentalism, he started searching for a way to pull together all three quests in the service of a better future. Now that he believes he has found that unified field theory - one suffused with his rediscovered spirituality - he's out to sell it to the progressive world. "There is a green wave coming, with renewable energy, organic agriculture, cleaner production," he said in an interview. "Our question is, will the green wave lift all boats? That's the moral challenge to the people who are the architects of this new, ecologically sound economy. Will we have eco-equity, or will we have eco-apartheid? (...)»

Addendum: como os nomeados para estes peculiares cargos na administração americana, os quais dispensam a audição prévia pelo Senado como premissa para a sua aceitação, parecem merecer o escrutínio público, aqui ficam uma lista de todos eles, até à data, publicada pelo Politico.

Naomi Wolfe e o chador

A feminista Naomi Wolfe descobriu os encantos das pudicas vestes islâmicas e o encanto sexual do pudor, da castidade e do sexo exclusivamente conjugal e expõe a sua ignorância (ou má fé) em relação à perspectiva cristã do casamento.

«(...) The West interprets veiling as repression of women and suppression of their sexuality. But when I travelled in Muslim countries and was invited to join a discussion in women-only settings within Muslim homes, I learned that Muslim attitudes toward women's appearance and sexuality are not rooted in repression, but in a strong sense of public versus private, of what is due to God and what is due to one's husband. It is not that Islam suppresses sexuality, but that it embodies a strongly developed sense of its appropriate channelling - toward marriage, the bonds that sustain family life, and the attachment that secures a home. (...) (...) I put on a shalwar kameez and a headscarf in Morocco for a trip to the bazaar. Yes, some of the warmth I encountered was probably from the novelty of seeing a Westerner so clothed; but, as I moved about the market - the curve of my breasts covered, the shape of my legs obscured, my long hair not flying about me - I felt a novel sense of calm and serenity. I felt, yes, in certain ways, free.

Nor are Muslim women alone. The Western Christian tradition portrays all sexuality, even married sexuality, as sinful. Islam and Judaism never had that same kind of mind-body split. So, in both cultures, sexuality channeled into marriage and family life is seen as a source of great blessing, sanctioned by God. (...)»

No cristianismo, o sexo conjugal e a fertilidade são bençãos, como no judaísmo, donde provem. Phyllis Chesler, na sua reacção ao artigo de Wolfe, sugere algumas explicações para a torrente de fina hipocrisia da apologista do Islão: mercenarismo e/ou calculismo político. Via Gates of Vienna. Addendum: aparentemente, Wolf não apreciou particularmente a reacção de Chesler, a quem exige correcções e um pedido de desculpa, o que já mereceu reacção de Chesler. Também o comentário de Glazov ao artigo de Wolf suscitou a sua reacção e uma réplica daquele.

Misoginia islâmica

A aliança informal Verde-Vermelha tem destas ironias: um dos principais traços do mundo islâmico, a misoginia, não merece condenação de uma das falanges do movimento revolucionário esquerdopata: o movimento feminista. Esta aliança permite-nos ver um qualquer grupo feminista manifestar publicamente o seu apoio a uma de várias organizações islâmicas suportadas por um governo totalitário, misógino e xenófobo. Um manancial de contradições. A emancipação das mulheres no Islão tem, a cada dia, novos mártires: recordemos-lhes os nomes: Nageena Akhtar, 18 anos de idade e Parveena Akhtar, 17; ofensa merecedora de pena capital: ir à escola. Via Jihad Watch.

Nem toda a direita é extrema

Por ocasião das eleições para o Parlamento Europeu, o facto de o PVV (Partij voor de Vrijheid - Partido da Liberdade) de Gert Wilders ter sido o segundo mais votado levou a análises completamente desinformadas, não só nos mass media, mas também nos blogues (até em blogues de direita), as quais, em traços gerais, tratavam de considerar o PVV um partido de extrema-direita, sem chegar nunca a explicar exactamente a razão de tal classificação. Que os esquerdopatas façam semelhantes análises, não espanta. Que a direita as replique é triste e contraproducente, ainda que alguma direita goste de alinhar, num ou noutro ponto, com a esquerda, para mostrar que também é arejada. Vem isto a propósito de um artigo de A. Millar, publicado no Hudson New York, no qual, entre outras coisas, se comparam algumas posições do PVV com as dos partidos de extrema-direita - e, a talho de foice, dos islamistas. Alguns destaques:

«(...) The most excessive piece of propaganda I saw during the recent EU election period was an article on EUobserver.com about Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom. Written by one Andrew Willis, and entitled “Netherlands embraces far right in EU elections,” the author decried the party as “far-Right” and “xenophobic.” This despite the fact that the Party for Freedom is a staunch defender of Israel, and that Wilders spent some of his youth in the

country, and still visits it regularly. Particularly troubling, however, was a photograph of a group of skinheads accompanying the text, along with the caption: “Neo-nazi youth look on as Geert Wilders campaigns in Leeuwarden, Netherlands.” The suggestion was of course that “neo-Nazi youth” are the real voters of the Party for Freedom, because the party is really neo-Nazi. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth (and curiously, there is not the slightest hint of Wilders or his party in the photograph). Although it opposes mass immigration, especially from Muslim countries, the Party for Freedom wants its immigrants to assimilate into Dutch society and enjoy the benefits of democracy and liberty. The party also ran on an essentially libertarian platform of defending women’s rights and protecting gays from street violence perpetrated by Muslim gangs (the extent of the latter problem was revealed last year after fashion model Mike Du Pree was dragged from the catwalk and assaulted by ten Muslim youths, shocking the Netherlands). Additionally, Wilders has been careful to distance himself from actual far-Right parties, for example, telling the Guardian last year that, “My allies are not [Jean-Marie] Le Pen or [Jorg] Haider, We'll never join up with the fascists and Mussolinis of Italy. I'm very afraid of being linked with the wrong rightist fascist groups.” Fascists, the far-Right, neo-Nazis and skinheads are not really fond of Israel, Jews, women’s rights, or gay rights. They are not interested in the West’s Judeo-Christian heritage, democracy, or freedom. As it turns out, they are fond of Islamism. Islamism and Nazism have had an on-off relationship since the 1930s. However, only last year Abraham H. Foxman, the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, observed a “[…] burgeoning relationship of far-right and Muslim extremists who increasingly are working together to promote anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.” The Holocaust is key to Islamist and neo-Nazi propaganda, and the latter has enthusiastically adopted the arguments of the former. If supporters of Israel are now portrayed as far-Right, the Jews are portrayed as the new Nazis, or “Zio-Nazis” by pro-Hamas agitators in Britain and Europe. At Durban II recently, a member of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's entourage even accosted Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Elie Wiesel, and repeatedly screamed “Zionazi” at him. In this applied historical revisionism - Britain’s and Europe’s politicians and media - Muslims must be portrayed as the new Jews, and Palestine as the new or real Holocaust. (...) As Wilders said about the other parties in the Netherlands recently, they like to call themselves “progressive,” but “We [in the Party for Freedom] are doing their work. Why are we the largest party (in a poll held) on the website of (gay magazine) Gay Krant? Is anybody thinking? Because homosexuals experience the consequences of Islamisation every day in their neighbourhoods.” The other parties, he said, “should be combating […] the dire position of women, unbelievers and homosexuals.” I think we can safely say, these are not the sentiments of a politician on the “far-Right.” (...)»

(Legenda: jovem coberta com o seu próprio sangue na cerimónia da Ashura.)

Aristocracia Democrata (2)

Em tempo de crise há que ser frugal, se não nas despesas, pelo menos na informação que se torna pública. (Legenda: Michelle Obama calça ténis de 540$ em evento de distribuição de alimentos a crianças carenciadas.)

O discurso no Gana

O presidente Obama fez hoje um discurso em Acca, capital do Gana, na sua primeira visita à África sub-sariana (as visitas de Obama são sempre inovadoras em qualquer coisa; como já foi a África, nomeadamente à África árabe, era preciso criar um qualquer rótulo para colar nesta). O discurso tem vários pontos de interesse, dos quais procurarei destacar alguns. Começaria pela seguinte afirmação:

«(...) Make no mistake: history is (...) not with those who use coups or change Constitutions to stay in power. Africa doesn't need strongmen, it needs strong institutions. (...)»

Será que Obama pensa que ninguém dará conta de que esta frase não compagina com a atitude complacente face ao regime iraniano, face a Chavez e a Morales, e até face a Zelaya, que foi afastado por um golpe institucional - pelo Senado e pelos tribunais superiores das Honduras - justamente porque queria mudar a constituição para continuar no poder?

Governar ao centro (2)

Hoje anda meio-mundo preocupado com o aquecimento global/alterações climáticas, exigindo medidas drásticas para salvar o planeta e acusando o outro meio de ser estúpido, mau ou uma combinação de ambos os defeitos. Há 30 anos, a preocupações eram outras, mas igualmente apocalípticas e mobilizadoras das mentes mais ilustres e bem intencionadas, como hoje dispostas a sacrificar valores reais para fazer face a ameaças hipotéticas - a própria definição de mentalidade revolucionária 1), segundo Olavo de Carvalho. Vejamos primeiro o problema e algumas propostas para o resolver:

«As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000. We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force. A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born. Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size. The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control. Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn't harm livestock. Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions. Compulsory abortions would be legal. The kind of people who cause "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children.»

As frases supra são da autoria (em coautoria com Paul R. Ehrlich e Anne H. Ehrlich) de John P. Holdren, publicadas no livro Ecoscience. E por que razão, pergunta o leitor, é que estou a citar estas frases assustadoras de um lunático revolucionário, que encarna as mais temíveis pulsões totalitárias, aplicadas por um governo global? Porque o lunático revolucionário, eugenista, tiranete em potência foi nomeado Science Czar (uma espécie de Alto Comissário para a Ciência, sem poderes executivos, mas com a particularidade de trabalhar na dependência directa do presidente americano, como conselheiro estratégico)2) pelo presidente Obama. Leia sobre este assunto todo o artigo com a contextualização das citações supra e discussão sobre as mesmas, com fotografias do livro. Certo é que quem pensou desta maneira há 30 anos, já homem maduro, e propôs aquelas soluções é alguém que deve ser temido. Via Hot Air. 1) “Mentalidade revolucionária” é o estado de espírito, permanente ou transitório, no qual um indivíduo ou grupo se crê habilitado a remoldar o conjunto da sociedade – senão a natureza humana em geral – por meio da ação política; e acredita que, como agente ou portador de um futuro melhor, está acima de todo julgamento pela humanidade presente ou passada, só tendo satisfações a prestar ao “tribunal da História”.

Olavo de Carvalho

2) Procedi a uma correcção da caracterização do cargo após a leitura do artigo em hiperligação. Addendum: na altura da redacção deste postal senti alguma familiaridade com os nomes dos coautores do livro Ecoscience. Dei-me conta mais tarde que, tal como Holdren, são hoje destacados campeões da luta contra o aquecimento global ou lá o que quer que seja que justifica neste momento a construção de uma nova sociedade sobre os escombros da nossa.

No recato de uma tarde de 6ª-feira

Via Hot Air, através de dois artigos distintos, ficamos a saber que o presidente Obama acaba de dar mais um passo na aproximação da sua política à do presidente Bush, no que diz respeito aos detidos na chamada guerra contra o terrorismo, mais uma vez tirando partido da calmia mediática típica de um fim-de-semana - ainda para mais com uma parte dos media entretidos com a morte de uma estrela pop e a outra parte a analisar as futuras consequências da legislação verde-morte aprovada recentemente pelo Congresso. Assim se confirmam duas tendências já aqui assinaladas: Obama governa para os media e em permanente campanha para a reeleição - a despeito das mais elementares regras da transparência - e não tem outro remédio, para não pôr a segurança dos EUA em maior perigo, senão aproximar as suas políticas, neste particular, das de Bush. Abaixo ficam excertos da notícia tal como surgiu na edição de sábado do The Washington Post, construída através de fugas de informação cuidadosamente vertidas pela própria administração, informação entretanto confirmada pela Associated Press:

«Obama administration officials (...) are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations. Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. (...) (...) The Justice Department has declined to comment on the prospects for a long-term detention system while internal reviews of Guantanamo detainees' cases are underway. (...) (...) In a May speech, President Obama broached the need for a system of long-term detention (...). (...) In his May speech, the president outlined five strategies the administration would use to deal with them: criminal trials, revamped military tribunals, transfers to other countries, releases and continued detention. (...) Three months into the Justice Department's reviews, several officials involved said they have found themselves agreeing with conclusions reached years earlier by the Bush administration: As many as 90 detainees cannot be charged or released. (...)»

O WP esclarece as razões pelas quais esses detidos não podem ser julgados nos tribunais comuns, e não é, pelo menos não é só, devido à suspeita de utilização de métodos coercivos de interrogatório:

«[H]alf of the cases, the officials said, present the greatest difficulty because these detainees cannot be prosecuted in federal court or military commissions. In many cases the evidence against them is classified, has been provided by foreign intelligence services or has been tainted by the Bush administration's use of harsh interrogation techniques.»

O sermão no sopé das pirâmides - IV

Na caixa de comentários do postal Uma leitura crítica do Sermão - II, um leitor amigo alude a uma suposta dívida da arte ocidental para com a arte islâmica, assunto abordado pelo presidente americano no seu Sermão:

«Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation.»

No Faith Freedom International, Zartoist faz o seguinte comentário a este propósito:

«Someone who has really studied the history of interaction between the Greco-Roman civilization and, on the one hand, Hellenized Egypt and on the other, Pre-Islamic Persia, could make a good argument that Islam actually hindered the progress of civilization. All indications are that “the light of learning”, namely of Greek and Roman civilization, was already being preserved and would have been preserved, in the Middle East – especially in Persia – to the same if not a greater extent than it was after the violent Islamic conquest of the Persian civilization (a civilization that already had over a thousand years of fruitful interaction with the Greek-inspired civilizations of the West). It is also a fact that most of the scientific “innovation in Muslim communities” cited by Obama, from Algebra to Medicine, was the product of (mostly Persian) free-thinkers who were not believing Muslims – scientists like Omar Khayyam, Ibn Razi, and Ibn Sina – who only wrote their scientific treatises in Arabic (rather than their native Persian) on account of the Arab occupation of Iran. We do not call “Gothic architecture” Christian, do we? The great architecture of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, and northern India is no more “Islamic”. It is an amalgam of ancient Persian, Byzantine and Indian styles – one that was already arising during the Sassanian Persian Empire (which extended from India to Turkey). The only “Islamic” contribution to this architecture was to prohibit the incorporation of paintings – since depiction of human beings is forbidden in Islam. Incidentally, this stunted the entire development of painting in the sphere of Persian civilization, which had a rich tradition of pictorial art before the Islamic conquest and may well have developed it to the level of modern Europe. As for poetry and music, most of the great “Islamic” poets (again mostly Persians) were considered heretics by Islamic authorities, and music is prohibited in Islam as a vain “useless” activity. Poetry and music survived in civilizations such as Persia DESPITE Islam. A careful study of the history of Sufism will reveal its roots in attempts by persecuted pre-Islamic Gnostics in Persia and Egypt, to ensure the survival of their esoteric wisdom by exoterically cloaking themselves in Islamic garb. While many of them ultimately wound up believing their own dissimulation, scholars of Islamic law have never been fooled – that is why they executed Halaj and Suhrawardi, and why the poetry of no less a genius than Nizami (the Persian analog to Shakespeare or Spenser) is censored in Iran today!!!»

Um artigo a que havemos de voltar a propósito de outros aspectos do sermão.

Já se suspeitava

Já se suspeitava, não que Obama fosse Deus, nem sequer um deus, mas que os MSM (i.e. os main stream media), dos EUA e não só, consideram Obama um deus, ou Deus (não é claro). Uma confirmação desta suspeita chega-nos através de um video no qual Evan Thomas, director da revista Newsweek, discute com o pivot informativo Chris Matthews (famoso por ter dito que sentira um arrepio na perna quando entrevistara Obama) o sermão presidencial no Cairo, video proveniente deste artigo da Newsbuster. Via Hot Air.

Uma leitura crítica do Sermão - II

Também na National Review, Victor Davis Hanson chumba Obama "as a student of history". Mas, mais importante que as correcções que Hanson faz às imprecisões e às distorções do sermão, talvez seja o último parágrafo do artigo:

«President Obama, in elegant fashion, may casually invoke the means of politically correct history for the higher ends of contemporary reconciliation. But it is a bad habit. Eloquence and good intentions exempt no one from the truth of the past — President Obama included.»

Uma leitura crítica do Sermão

Na National Review, Alex Alexiev ensaia uma leitura crítica do discurso do presidente Obama "ao mundo muçulmano", aqui designado "Sermão".

«(...) It is now clear that the president is either unable or unwilling to come to terms with the nature of the radical Islamic threat to America and the West. To him, the problem is a few violent extremists, a “small but potent minority of Muslims”. (...) [T]he West is dealing not with a few militants, or even with terrorism as such, but with a murderous, totalitarian doctrine couched in Islamic terms that has already become the dominant idiom in much of the Muslim world and its diaspora communities. (...) It is an ideology that elevates violent jihad as a religious obligation for all Muslims, openly discriminates against non-Muslims and women, banishes democracy and secularism, and ordains the murder of apostates and homosexuals. This doctrine is preached today in tens of thousands of Salafi, Wahhabi, and Deobandi mosques and madrassas, and promoted by countless Islamist organizations, from the Muslim Brotherhood networks in America to the Taliban and its fellow jihadists in Pakistan. (...) Obama has seemingly chosen to act as an apologist for this ideology. There is no other credible reason for a man with an army of experts, researchers, and fact-checkers at his disposal to utter so many half-truths and outright falsehoods about what Islam is and what it is not. These include his touting ostensible Islamic contributions to music (an art form prohibited among the devout) and printing (regarded by the mullahs as the devil’s invention, and not available to Muslims until three centuries after Gutenberg), and his preposterous promotion of Saudi King Abdullah, ruler of the most religiously intolerant country on earth, as a champion of “interfaith dialogue.” More telling still are Obama’s historically inaccurate portrayals of Muslims as being at “the forefront of innovation and education,” and his blaming colonialism and the Cold War for their falling behind. In fact, Muslims have not been at the forefront of anything since ijtihad (reason) was declared un-Islamic ten centuries ago and replaced by blind obedience to reactionary sharia dogma, which, in turn, ushered in a cultural and intellectual stagnation that is yet to be overcome. Indeed, the greatest Muslim minds over the centuries, from Averoes and Avicenna to Noble Prize physicist Abdus Salam, have invariably been persecuted and declared apostates by the guardians of Islamic orthodoxy. While colonialism is a favorite Islamist whipping boy for all real or imagined ills visited upon the Muslims, it was the result, not the cause, of the inexorable decline of Islam as a world power and civilization that culminated in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century. Nor should it be forgotten that throughout most of its history, Islam has been a premier imperialist and colonialist power itself. (...) Mubarak (...) appointed the mullahs of Al-Azhar as the sole arbiters of what books should be published in or imported into Egypt. Predictably, anything that does not meet their medieval criteria is being censored, while books that discuss how many angels could be recruited for a war against Israel (120 million) are encouraged. (...) History teaches us that tolerating the intolerant and appeasing the unappeasable results in more conflict and bloodshed.»

Fica-se sem perceber se o presidente dos EUA é simplesmente ingénuo e ignorante ou se a sua actuação faz parte de uma estratégia bem articulada para facilitar a expansão do Islão.