23.9.11

Greenfield: Israel tem que mudar de estratégia e passar à ofensiva

Amplify’d from sultanknish.blogspot.com
No matter the outcome of the statehood bid for the Palestinian Authority, the only sure loser in this scenario is an Israeli government which has once again allowed itself to react to events, rather than dictating them. The price for defeating the statehood bid is almost certain to be more concessions. Whether Abbas gets his UN vote or gets blocked at the gate by Obama, he can still count on more Israeli territory extracted under pressure.
The terrorist game has always been fairly simple, create a crisis and force Israel to react, and then collect their winnings. The Israeli game has been to point at the terrorism and lawbreaking on the enemy side and expect the world to finally acknowledge that the Palestinian Authority has lost its credibility and force it to negotiate honestly. After decades of terror and lies this clearly isn't going to happen, but that hasn't stopped the Israeli government from playing that one card over and over again.
Israel is full of engineers and generals all pointed at the wrong goal, and easily undermined by a shift of terrain that once again forces them to make concessions to enemies that are dumber, but who do take the initiative.
The difference between the magnificent triumph of the Six Day War and the near apocalypse of the Yom Kippur War was the difference between taking the initiative and waiting behind passive defenses for the approval of the international community before taking action. The lesson of both wars is that Israel does not have enough territory, population or resources to be passive. But its current hyper-passive alertness is nearly as awful as pure passivity would be.
Over and over again, the enemy counts on provoking an Israeli reaction and leading it into another lose-lose scenario in which whatever it does, it loses. Passivity allows the enemy to claim victory and a last minute overreaction results in condemnation and forces Israel to write more checks in the form of concessions.
Israel made the mistake of paying too much attention to its image problems and not enough to its military ones. It hasn't won the image war and it's rapidly losing the military one. No Muslim army ever succeeded in cutting Israel in half, even during the Yom Kippur War, but it is on the verge of allowing itself to be pressured into creating a contiguous Palestinian state that will cut it in half.
No Muslim army has managed to seize half of Jerusalem since 1967, but that too is now a mandate on the table. The negotiations and concessions have already cost Israel more territory than any war since 1948 when it was low on weapons, had militias instead of an army, was under an arms embargo and was also on the edge of civil war.
Israel's problem isn't its image, it has an image problem because it has a terrorist problem. If Israel were Sri Lanka or Turkey, then the world might shrug and the story would be reported on Page 5B, but Israel's enemies are an alliance of Islamist petrodollars and the red brigades of the left who have more people, access and resources. The longer the situation drags on, the more material they have to work with, and the more they can make this seem like a raw bloody wound that has to be solved for the sake of regional and world peace. And the more Israel debates, the more it inflates.
Israel has lost its own left, it isn't going to win over the international left, or the Jewish left, the majority of whom with a few exceptions think the world would be a better place if it were to be destroyed.
The American and European foreign policy establishments can't let go of Israel, but they can't stop torturing it either. It's a powerful piece in a game that they don't dare commit to, and in the game of half-measures that they play, it's a piece that does more harm than good. And the Israeli government is playing that same game of half-measures, which also do more harm than good. Everyone wants to keep their options open, to take the high road and kiss the olive branch-- but that road leads down to the abyss.
What Israel needs to do most of all is stop talking, stop reacting and stop playing defense while waiting for a referee to recognize all the fouls committed by the other side and call the game in its favor. The only referee likely to do that is the omnipotent One, and there's no word on when He intends to to blow the whistle. The more Israel reacts to the disruptions, the more they persist and trap it in a game of Catch 22 ball that it can't win.
The peace is not winnable, the war is, and only war can bring about some kind of manageable peace. As long as Israel holds on to the belief that passive defenses, barriers and blockades and bar lev lines will maintain some sort of liable status quo, its position will keep on degrading until it is at risk of being unsalvageable.
Israel has trapped itself in a lose-lose scenario, it needs a strategy that doesn't depend on illusions, on the failures of the other side finally becoming apparent or on tinkering with the status quo so it doesn't hurt so much. It needs to plan for victory, rather than looking for ways to manage defeat. And it may have to get much more desperate before it is ready to commit to the kinds of risky strategies that it has become famous and infamous for.
Bad leadership and international pressure has trapped Israel in a downward strategic spiral of reactive policies leading to image problems, leading to more reactive policies, leading to more disruptive assaults, and more image problems. Breaking out of that spiral will take hard work and risks, but it isn't impossible. What it requires is serious thinking of how to secure a future for Israel that does not depend on the goodwill of its enemies. That is the fundamental error and question that it faces today. And it will likely not find its way to that new independence until its back is once again up against the wall.
Read more at sultanknish.blogspot.com
 

Rubin: a liderança islâmica

Amplify’d from pajamasmedia.com

Still, Erdogan is making his leadership bid. Here he is at the Arab League foreign minister’s meeting: “It is time for us to take responsibility for our common future….We are entitled to meet the righteous demands of our people using any legitimate means.” 

Note two phrases: “our common future” means forget about Arab nationalism. All us Muslims got to stick together. Seeing Turks as Europeans is an obsolete notion for him. Ninety years of secular, Western-oriented nationalism is over. 

“Any legitimate means” means the right and need to go to war against Israel. Of course, the U.S. government still acts as if nothing has changed, that Turkey is not just a reliable ally but an especially honored role model, star ally. 

Incidentally, don’t waste any time on the lies and denials, here’s Turkey’s foreign minister explaining the new policy of Turkey being leader of the Middle East as he secretly expressed it to a meeting of high-level ruling party officials and as made available to us by Wikileaks. 

And let’s not forget Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser; and Syria’s Assad dynasty; and, of course, Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasir Arafat. All of them also had the same basic program. All of them failed miserably and left their people worse off.

 There were some others—King Abdallah of Jordan; Anwar al-Sadat of Egypt; Bashir al-Gemayel of Lebanon. They were all murdered, though, by other locals. King Hussein of Jordan isn’t around any more. So let’s see, demagogues who back terrorism and violence, hate the West, and refuse compromise fail miserably and become heroes. Moderates who want to focus on economic progress (including here Husni Mubarak) and peacemaking are jeered and killed or deposed by their own people.

 Might there be a pattern here?   

 Meanwhile, like Bart Simpson, President Barack Obama and other Western leaders keep writing on the blackboard one hundred times: Now, if only we prove to them we’re their friends they’ll like us.

Maybe, say the Europeans, if we recognize a Palestinian state they will like us! Maybe if we say enough things about Muslims they’ll like us! After all, it is all our fault, or Israel’s fault, that they are angry. They couldn’t possibly want a revolution based on a radical ideology followed by a repressive dictatorship because that’s what they really want!

In other words,  Western leaders aren’t protecting their interests. They’re auditioning for the role of Middle East hero against those who can say they are a Muslim or even an Arab. Guess who’s going to get the part? Are they going to persuade the producers that they hate Israel more than Qaradawi or Erdogan or Fadlallah? That they will promote Islam as well as people like that? That they will kick the West (that is, themselves) out of the Middle East?

In contrast, a Gulf Arab, who hates all this stuff, gave the alternative in a private conversation: “I don’t want an American president to behave like an Arab. I want an American president who will behave like an American.”

Read more at pajamasmedia.com
 

22.9.11

Estado Palestiniano deixaria de fora 45% dos palestinianos

Ou como se prova que o objectivo não é defender o interesse do povo palestiniano, mas o objectivo mais amplo do islão de se afirmar como única religião no mundo, a começar pelos locais que já dominou; a aniquilação de Israel é só um passo pouco mais que simbólico nesse processo.

Via O Insurgente: http://oinsurgente.org/

consider the shocking interview the PLO’s ambassador to Lebanon, Abdullah Abdullah, gave the Lebanese Daily Star last week:

The ambassador unequivocally says that Palestinian refugees would not become citizens of the sought for U.N.-recognized Palestinian state…

This would not only apply to refugees in countries such as Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Jordan or the other 132 countries where Abdullah says Palestinians reside. Abdullah said that “even Palestinian refugees who are living in [refugee camps] inside the [Palestinian] state, they are still refugees. They will not be considered citizens.”

Abdullah said that the new Palestinian state would “absolutely not” be issuing Palestinian passports to refugees…

“When we have a state accepted as a member of the United Nations, this is not the end of the conflict. This is not a solution to the conflict. This is only a new framework that will change the rules of the game.”

The Palestinian Liberation Organization would remain responsible for refugees, and Abdullah says that UNRWA would continue its work as usual.

This is simply unbelievable. For years, the world has backed a Palestinian state on the grounds Palestinians are stateless people who deserve a country of their own. And now, a senior Palestinian official has announced once they have received a state, most Palestinians will still be stateless – even those who actually live in “Palestine.”

Moreover, the new state won’t provide these residents with any services: It expects UNRWA – or, more accurately, the American and European taxpayers who provide the bulk of that organization’s funding – to continue providing their schooling, healthcare, welfare allowances, etc.

According to UNRWA, some 689,000 of the  West Bank’s 2.4 million Palestinians and 1.1 million of Gaza’s 1.5 million Palestinians are refugees. Thus, aside from the 2.9 million Diaspora refugees, a whopping 45  percent of the new state’s residents will also remain stateless, deprived of both citizenship and services by the country the world fondly imagines is being created to serve their needs.

But of course, the PA doesn’t want a state to serve its people’s needs; it wants a state to further its goal of destroying Israel. Hence the refugees can’t be given citizenship; that would undermine its demand to resettle them in Israel, thereby destroying the Jewish state demographically.

Read more at www.commentarymagazine.com
 

Informação contra a contra-informação sobre a execução de Troy Davis

Não se pretende fazer uma apologia da pena de morte, tão somente contrariar alguma informação errónea que tem vindo a ser divulgada nos merdia portugueses:

Amplify’d from townhall.com
It's nearly impossible to receive a death sentence these days -- unless you do something completely crazy like shoot a cop in full view of dozens of witnesses in a Burger King parking lot, only a few hours after shooting at a passing car while exiting a party.

That's what Troy Davis did in August 1989. Davis is the media's current baby seal of death row.

After a two-week trial with 34 witnesses for the state and six witnesses for the defense, the jury of seven blacks and five whites took less than two hours to convict Davis of Officer Mark MacPhail's murder, as well as various other crimes. Two days later, the jury sentenced Davis to death.

Now, a brisk 22 years after Davis murdered Officer MacPhail, his sentence will finally be administered this week -- barring any more of the legal shenanigans that have kept taxpayers on the hook for Davis' room and board for the past two decades.

It has been claimed -- in The New York Times and Time magazine, for example -- that there was no "physical evidence" connecting Davis to the crimes that night.

Davis pulled out a gun and shot two strangers in public. What "physical evidence" were they expecting? No houses were broken into, no cars stolen, no rapes or fistfights accompanied the shootings. Where exactly would you look for DNA? And to prove what?

I suppose it would be nice if the shell casings from both shootings that night matched. Oh wait -- they did. That's "physical evidence."

It's true that the bulk of the evidence against Davis was eyewitness testimony. That tends to happen when you shoot someone in a busy Burger King parking lot.

Eyewitness testimony, like all evidence tending to show guilt, has gotten a bad name recently, but the "eyewitness" testimony in this case did not consist simply of strangers trying to distinguish one tall black man from another. For one thing, several of the eyewitnesses knew Davis personally.

The bulk of the eyewitness testimony established the following:

Two tall, young black men were harassing a vagrant in the Burger King parking lot, one in a yellow shirt and the other in a white Batman shirt. The one in the white shirt used a brown revolver to pistol-whip the vagrant. When a cop yelled at them to stop, the man in the white shirt ran, then wheeled around and shot the cop, walked over to his body and shot him again, smiling.

Some eyewitnesses described the shooter as wearing a white shirt, some said it was a white shirt with writing, and some identified it specifically as a white Batman shirt. Not one witness said the man in the yellow shirt pistol-whipped the vagrant or shot the cop.

Several of Davis' friends testified -- without recantation -- that he was the one in a white shirt. Several eyewitnesses, both acquaintances and strangers, specifically identified Davis as the one who shot Officer MacPhail.

Now the media claim that seven of the nine witnesses against Davis at trial have recanted.

First of all, the state presented 34 witnesses against Davis -- not nine -- which should give you some idea of how punctilious the media are about their facts in death penalty cases.

Among the witnesses who did not recant a word of their testimony against Davis were three members of the Air Force, who saw the shooting from their van in the Burger King drive-in lane. The airman who saw events clearly enough to positively identify Davis as the shooter explained on cross-examination, "You don't forget someone that stands over and shoots someone."

Recanted testimony is the least believable evidence since it proves only that defense lawyers managed to pressure some witnesses to alter their testimony, conveniently after the trial has ended. Even criminal lobbyist Justice William Brennan ridiculed post-trial recantations.

Three recantations were from friends of Davis, making minor or completely unbelievable modifications to their trial testimony. For example, one said he was no longer sure he saw Davis shoot the cop, even though he was five feet away at the time. His remaining testimony still implicated Davis.

One alleged recantation, from the vagrant's girlfriend (since deceased), wasn't a recantation at all, but rather reiterated all relevant parts of her trial testimony, which included a direct identification of Davis as the shooter.

Only two of the seven alleged "recantations" (out of 34 witnesses) actually recanted anything of value -- and those two affidavits were discounted by the court because Davis refused to allow the affiants to testify at the post-trial evidentiary hearing, even though one was seated right outside the courtroom, waiting to appear.

The court specifically warned Davis that his refusal to call his only two genuinely recanting witnesses would make their affidavits worthless. But Davis still refused to call them -- suggesting, as the court said, that their lawyer-drafted affidavits would not have held up under cross-examination.

With death penalty opponents so fixated on Davis' race -- he's black -- it ought to be noted that all the above witnesses are themselves African-American. The first man Davis shot in the car that night was African-American.

Read more at townhall.com
 

21.9.11

Armas como prémio de recitação do Alcorão

Alcorão quer dizer isso mesmo: A Recitação. Quem o lê fica estupefacto com a violência e o ódio, com as invectivas à guerra aos infiéis.
Por isso, não surpreende esta notícia:

Amplify’d from clix.visao.pt

Crianças recebem armas e bombas como prémio por recitação do Alcorão

Três crianças da Somália, vencedoras de um concurso de recitação do Alcorão, receberam como prémios armas, bombas e livros religiosos, entregues por uma estação de rádio com ligações à Al-Qaida

A estação de rádio Andulus, administrada pela milícia al-Shabab, anunciou na segunda-feira que o vencedor do primeiro prémio do concurso tinha ganho uma espingarda e 700 dólares (514 euros), o segundo uma espingarda e 500 dólares (367 euros) e o terceiro duas bombas.

As três crianças receberam ainda livros religiosos.

Read more at clix.visao.pt
 

Filhos de emigrantes muçulmanos na Suiça querem mudar a bandeira

Grande ideia. Também podemos retiras as quinas da nossa, último vestígio da cruz azul em fundo branco, nossa primeira bandeira nacional.

Musulmanes exigen en Suiza que desaparezca la cruz de la bandera nacional

El diario suizo alemán Aargauer Zeitung ha informado que inmigrantes de segunda generación en Suiza exigen eliminar la cruz de la bandera suiza, y afirman que la bandera de Suiza no corresponde a un país multicultural.

Este colectivo exige que ya que hay musulmanes en Suiza y la cruz tiene un trasfondo cristiano, Suiza debe respetar la separación de religión y política, y tener un nuevo símbolo que no sea cristiano, sino que sea aceptable para los inmigrantes musulmanes.

Este colectivo de musulmanes no ha pedido que los países musulmanes de los cuales proceden eliminen la media luna de sus banderas, ni han exigido que estos países separen religión y política.


NOTAS

http://www.aargauerzeitung.ch/schweiz/weg-mit-dem-kreuz-secondos-fuer-neue-schweizer-fahne-113290242

Read more at www.religionenlibertad.com
 

ONU: loca infecta

Alguém ainda atribui alguma credibilidade a este antro de violadores e de protectores de violadores?

Amplify’d from pajamasmedia.com
I want to discuss the kind of human beings who are employed at the UN, how they treat each other on the job, but especially how they treat the vulnerable civilians who are under their protection. In other words: I want to focus on the professional ethics of the people who are voting on such weighty, global issues, and on the institutionalized crimes they commit under the auspices of the UN.

In 1973, Shirley Hazzard, an Australian civil servant who had worked for the UN Secretariat for a decade in New York, published a book about it. In Defeat of an Ideal: A Study of the Self-Destruction of the United Nations, Hazzard described a level of mediocrity, incompetence, petty despotism, corruption, hypocrisy, and overall impotence, which was so non-redeemable that, in her view, the otherwise lofty UN ideals were “being defeated by the manner in which the present body executes, or claims to execute them.”

And in 1990, Hazzard wrote another book, Countenance of Truth: The United Nations and the Waldheim Case, in which she indicted the UN again, explaining that the “problem” of the Austrian (and one-time Nazi) UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim was merely “symptomatic of the (ongoing) structural defects” at the UN which include non-accountability, non-transparency, incompetence, cowardice, and exaggerated self-importance. Only in such a setting, Hazzard writes, could such a

deceitful figure be presented as a paragon, his very deficiencies exalted into talents, and his fawnings on tyrants rationalized as consummate diplomacy throughout ten of this world’s most cruel and dangerous years.

In the early 1970s, Detective Frank (“police corruption”) Serpico was the torchbearer for whistleblowers. He passed that torch along to Karen (“plutonium”) Silkwood in the 1980s and to Erin(“hexavalent-chromium”) Brockovich in the 1990s. One 21st century heroic torchbearer, Kathryn (“United Nations sex traffickers”) Bolkovac, like her three predecessors, is now the subject of a film. Bolkovac also wrote a book on her experience.

In 1999, Bolkovac, originally a cop from Nebraska, became a UN peacekeeper in Sarajevo, where she discovered that the UN peacekeepers, the UN- hired military contractor (DynCorp), and the local police had been trafficking underage female sex slaves into Sarajevo both for profit and for their own twisted pleasure. Their savage treatment of these frightened, mainly East European and Russian girls, which included routine torture, gang-rape, semi-starvation, overwork, primitive living and “working” conditions, is standard behavior for pimps, traffickers, and obviously for UN staff as well.

In the film version, Bolkovac tried to save some girls. This only led to their being more severely tortured, while the other girls were forced to watch — and then murdered. Bolkovac, like others, tried to hold the UN accountable for these enormous crimes. The result? She was threatened and her employment terminated. Bolkovac went public with the information — which was heroic but which changed nothing.

Like Hazzard, I also once worked at the United Nations; I have some skin in the game. I am, therefore, quite familiar with the UN culture in which civil servants and diplomats hold onto the passports of their home-country domestic servants/slaves, and make them work sixteen hour days, seven days a week, for no money and for very little food; the culture in which the same UN personnel sexually harass and assault their female colleagues and subordinates and when reported, even sued, get off, at most, with the proverbial slap on the wrist; a culture in which UN “peacekeeping” troops rape and traffic the very girls, boys, and women they are supposed to be protecting from war-zone atrocities — for example, the use of rape as a weapon of war. Given the UN’s general level of ineffectiveness (other than in legalizing Jew hatred), the body is also remarkably effective in protecting their barbarian and un-trained employees.

For example: In 1988, Luis Maria Gomez, the Argentine assistant secretary general at the UN, was sued by his assistant, American citizen Catherine Claxon. She filed a sexual harassment complaint. As a result, Claxon was barred from a promotion and her employment was terminated. She took her case to the UN Administrative Tribunal. Although the numerous courts and tribunals acknowledged that her claim was supported by strong evidence, Claxon’s case was eventually blocked by Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar. Gomez was granted diplomatic immunity and returned to Argentina.

In 2003, Joumana Al-Mahayni, an employee working in the office of the United Nations Development Programme in Kuwait, filed a similar claim against her male boss and, of course, received similar results. Again, the UN protected her boss, Mr. Yusuf Mansur; again, there was ample evidence that he had sexually assaulted his subordinate. Nevertheless, and predictably, Ms. Al-Mahayni’s employment was terminated. Many years later, she received a settlement of $10,000; she was never reimbursed for her legal fees or given a severance package. Mr. Mansur resigned and avoided litigation. The UN did not make any follow-up charges.

In 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union charged a UN diplomat from Kuwait, Major Waleed Al Saleh, and his wife with abusing their three female domestic servants from India. The ACLU stated that

the women were forced to work every day from 6:30 or 7:00 a.m. until late in the night, sometimes as late as 1:30 a.m…the women…never received any of the money.…They were subjected to threats and verbal and physical abuse, including one particularly violent incident in which Sabbithi (one of the servants) was knocked unconscious after being thrown against a counter by Al Saleh. The women were often not allowed time to eat or to use the bathroom and were frequently deprived of food. Two of them were allowed one hour off a month to attend church.  The workers had their passports taken away and were isolated from contact with the external world.

Ultimately the case was dismissed on the grounds of diplomatic immunity.

Was Bolkovac’s experience unique? Were UN peacekeepers particularly awful only in Sarajevo? On the contrary. UN peacekeepers were also accused of “sexual misconduct” not only in Kosovo/Serbia/Bosnia in the 1990s, they were similarly accused in Sierra Leone (2002), Liberia (2003-2004), the Congo (2004), Haiti (2005-to the present day), and in the Sudan (2005-to the present).

How does the UN defend their dastardly peacekeepers? They argue that the troops often come from and serve in countries which have “poor records” in terms of “gender based violence.” This is offered as a culturally relativist explanation or excuse for that old canard, “Must Boys be Boys?” In Bolkovac’s case, the troops came from 45 different countries, and many of them could not use computers, write reports, or drive cars.

In addition, in terms of redress, the legal loopholes are gigantic — herds of elephants can easily spend their long lives grazing there.

Neither the UN nor the countries in which UN employees actually commit the crimes can legally punish these men. Only their own home countries may do so — but why would they? The countries in which the UN operates are not responsible for the actions of foreign employees. One Haitian feminist group has accused UN peacekeepers of “ bringing their bad habits with them.” The group is referring to an “increase in prostitution.”

Yes, there are ways the UN can feed already traumatized girls and women other than forcing them to provide sex services to UN peacekeeping troops as their only or best way of survival.

In her excellent report for Refugees International, “Must Boys Be Boys?” Sarah Martin describes a culture of fear and intimidationamong UN peacekeepers in the Congo (2004) which effectively silenced staff members who wanted to “report sexual misconduct by colleagues because they fear(ed) being stigmatized and punished as ‘whistle-blowers.’” UN peacekeepers had sex with Congolese children and women, including Congolese adult female UN colleagues, simply because the practice was already pandemic. They did not view their role as stopping such violence or as refraining from joining it.

As the UN peacekeepers ribaldly frolicked in the Congo, the UN orgy was also on in Liberia. An internal UN document was exposed in the mainstream media. In Liberia, UN peacekeeping troops had sex with

girls as young as 12 years of age (who) are engaged in prostitution, forced into sex acts and sometimes photographed by UN peacekeepers in exchange for $10 or food or other commodities.

Might the rape of a male child or a young man by a UN peacekeeper make the front pages and lead to an effective prosecution?

Well — no. In July of 2011, an 18-year-old Haitian male rape victim accused a UN peacekeeper of “sexually assaulting” him.  The rape was videotaped. A physician confirmed physical evidence of the rape — the evidence was clear even five weeks later. The UN found the man guilty, not of “sexual misconduct,” but of allowing a civilian to enter the UN compound. The UN dismissed this as “the actions of only a few,” and claimed that the UN “does its utmost to prevent such abuses from occurring” by “training troops to sensitize them to respect human rights.”

The Wilsonian-influenced ideals of the UN are not realistic or realizable. In turn, the UN is predicated on the myth — nay, the lie — that UN diplomats and civil servants are morally upright, fair, decent, rational — and, not the vicious tyrants, bullies, thugs, liars, egomaniacs, cowards, and grifters that they truly are. Nor does the UN have a transparent system in place that would hold their mightily flawed personnel accountable for the crimes they commit.

I am told we live in a post-feminist age. Thus, the information is in about what rape is and what rape does. We know that repeated public gang-rape and repeated rape is no longer just a spoil of war but is now a weapon of war. We know that prostitution is not a “victimless” crime, that the prostituted child or woman are the victims; they must become alcoholics and drug addicts in order to deaden their torment, they are given foul diseases by their “customers” who are sometimes their murderers because they infect them with AIDS; both their working lives and how long they actually live are significantly shorter than those who are not prostituted. The UN (ironically enough) has estimated that over 32 million people are enslaved around the world and that the majority (80% or more) are sex slaves. We now know that sex trafficking is estimated as a $32 billion global business, that girls and women are kidnapped, sold by their parents, or tricked into it and rarely escape alive.

Why is the United States funding rapists, criminals, pimps, brothels, and sex traffickers? Why are we funding orgies? Why are we funding the most heinous betrayal of the world’s most vulnerable civilians in war zones? Why are we overpaying for UN peacekeeping?

Read more at pajamasmedia.com
 

Documentos secretos da Stasi: Ratzinger, “um feroz opositor”

Notícias como esta ajudam a explicar o ódio que a esquerda tem a Ratzinger, como aos homens da Igreja em geral.
Revelam também o grau de infiltração dos inimigos da Igreja no seu seio:

Amplify’d from www.zenit.org

Documentos secretos da Stasi: Ratzinger, “um feroz opositor”

Polícia secreta da antiga Alemanha Oriental espionou futuro papa

Por Edward Pentin

ROMA, segunda-feira, 19 de setembro de 2011 (ZENIT.org) – Em 1974, um Trabant sacolejava pelos campos da Turíngia, na Alemanha Oriental. Ao volante sentava-se o padre Joachim Wanke, assistente do seminário local, o único da Alemanha comunista. De carona, o professor Joseph Ratzinger. Os dois padres, escreve Rainer Erice, jornalista da rádio alemã Mitteldeutsche Rundfunk Thüringen (MDR), faziam uma excursão às históricas cidades de Jena e Weimar. Era um momento de descanso na breve visita do padre Ratzinger à República Democrática da Alemanha, onde daria uma série de palestras a estudantes e teólogos de Erfurt.

O que deu importância à visita, porém, é que ela marcou o começo da vigilância da Stasi, a polícia secreta da Alemanha Oriental, sobre o padre Ratzinger.

Que o professor Ratzinger foi espionado pelos informantes da Stasi já se sabia. Em 2005, revelou-se que os agentes da Alemanha do Leste tinham mantido arquivos sobre o agora eleito papa. Nesta semana, novos arquivos descobertos pelo MDR esclarecem um pouco mais o que a polícia secreta pensava do futuro pontífice e quem eram os informantes que o espionavam.

Os documentos revelam que, em 1974, aStasi era muito consciente de que o padre Ratzinger tinha futuro na Igreja, mas não havia espiões adequados para vigiá-lo. Tudo o que sabiam então, por um informante não oficial chamado Birke, empregado do bispo de Meissen, era que o professor Ratzinger tinha dado palestras sobre teologia moderna para estudantes e acadêmicos durante aquela visita.

Esforços renovados

À medida que o papel do professor crescia na Igreja, a polícia da Alemanha Oriental começou a se interessar mais pelas suas atividades, segundo o informe de Erice. Na época em que Dom Joseph Ratzinger, arcebispo de Munique, visitou Berlim, em 1978, para encontrar o cardeal Alfred Bengsch, presidente da Conferência Episcopal, o departamento de assuntos exteriores da segurança alemã oriental já tinha assumido a tarefa de espioná-lo com a ajuda de numerosos informantes não oficiais em ambas Alemanhas.

O serviço secreto da RDA considerava o professor Ratzinger como “conservador, reacionário e autoritário”, escreve Erice, e assumia que João Paulo II encarregara o então cardeal de organizar “a contrarrevolução na Polônia”. Outros documentos da Stasi revelam que Ratzinger era considerado “um dos mais ferozes opositores ao comunismo”; achavam que ele apoiava a dissuasão nuclear entre os blocos militares do Leste e do Oeste e que considerava o pacifismo “pouco realista”.

Mas Erice acrescenta que, apesar das “centenas de páginas” sobre Joseph Ratzinger, havia “pouca informação significativa”, e os informes individuais de espionagem estrangeira foram “destruídos quase na totalidade”. Os documentos descobertos se relacionam somente com “a informação básica do autor e o motivo pelo qual a informação foi reunida”.

Os documentos, no entanto, revelam detalhes interessantes sobre os agentes da Stasiencarregados de informar sobre Joseph Ratzinger. Erice escreve que “havia ao menos uma dúzia de empregados não oficiais” encarregados dessa tarefa. Estavam no grupo dois professores universitários da Alemanha Oriental considerados pela Stasicomo “de confiança”: o agente “Aurora”, professor de ateísmo científico em Jena e Warnemünde, e o agente “Lorac”, que trabalhava como professor de teologia em Leipzig. Além deles, o agente “Georg” estava no comitê executivo da Conferência Episcopal de Berlim e, aparentemente, era bem informado sobre os assuntos internos da Igreja.

Na Alemanha Ocidental, a rede da Stasi incluía um monge beneditino em Trier, cujo codinome era “Lichtblick” (Raio de Esperança). Lichtblick espionou para a Stasidurante décadas e, segundo Erice, “fez informes extensos e fiáveis sobre os acontecimentos no Vaticano”. Outro agente não oficial conhecido como “Antonius” era um jornalista da agência católica alemã de notícias, a KNA, que enviou para a Stasi vasta informação sobre o papa, o cardeal Ratzinger e o Vaticano.

Outro jornalista foi contratado em Munique com o codinome “Chamois”, enquanto um espião especialmente importante era um político da União Social Cristã e antigo confidente de Franz Josef Straus, que fora líder desse mesmo partido. O agente era chamado de “Lion” e “Trustworthy”. A rede ultrapassava as fronteiras da Alemanha. Na Itália, a Stasi empregou o agente “Bernd”, que fornecia informação sobre a política exterior da Santa Sé.

Tímido, mas encantador

Com todos esses informantes, a Stasi estava bem organizada quando Joseph Ratzinger viajou a Dresden em 1987, para um encontro com um grupo de católicos. “A Stasi fez um grande esforço para vigiar o encontro”, diz Erice, esforçando-se para que a vigilância passasse despercebida em especial na fronteira. “As forças de segurança receberam instruções para dar a ele um tratamento preferencial e educado quando cruzasse a fronteira”, dizem os informes, e acrescentam que incômodos como os registros de bagagem, usualmente aplicados aos visitantes ocidentais, “deveriam ser suprimidos”.

Apesar dos esforços, Erice diz que aStasicometeu erros básicos. Escreveu errado o nome da cidade natal do papa, Merkl em vez de Marktl. E, mesmo querendo retratá-lo negativamente, não conseguiram evitar algumas observações positivas. Além de louvar a sua grande inteligência, destacaram: “Ele pode parecer tímido no começo de uma conversa, mas tem um encanto que cativa”.

Bento XVI não é, evidentemente, o primeiro pontífice que passou boa parte da vida vigiado por agentes secretos. O beato João Paulo II foi espionado pela KGBe pela SB, polícia secreta polonesa. Segundo o estudo de George Weigel em seu recente livro “O final e o começo”, essas agências começaram a se interessar pelas atividades de Karol Wojtyla quando ele era bispo auxiliar de Cracóvia, em 1958.

Weigel recorda que, entre 1973 e 1974, as autoridades polonesas consideraram prender Karol Wojtyla com a acusação de sedição. A polícia secreta o perseguia em suas viagens e tentou comprometer os seus colaboradores mais próximos. E não foi apenas o papa quem esteve na sua mira: o próprio Vaticano também esteve.

“O que mais me surpreendeu foi a magnitude de seus esforços, que exigiram milhões de horas de trabalho e bilhões de dólares”, disse Weigel, em uma entrevista ao National Catholic Register no ano passado. “Também desconhecia a quantidade de vezes que as agências de inteligência soviética tentaram manipular o Concílio Vaticano II para seus propósitos e o quão inconsciente o Vaticano parecia ser disso (e continuou sendo até 1978).

As revelações dessa semana acontecem dias antes da visita de Estado que Bento XVI realizará à Alemanha, de 22 a 25 de setembro, que inclui uma visita a Erfurt. Nessa cidade, ele será recebido pelo atual bispo da diocese, seu guia na vista de 1974, Joachim Wanke.

Read more at www.zenit.org
 

A demagogia fiscal de Obama (e da esquerda em geral)

Excerto conclusivo: «So this Buffet Rule is a great populist proposal if the president wants to score some political points, but it has little practical value. It might provide the government a little bit of additional revenue, but unless extremely aggressive, it wouldn't make a dent in the nation's deficit problem. To do that, you'll need to cut entitlements and/or raise taxes much more broadly.»

Amplify’d from www.theatlantic.com

So how much would the so-called Buffett Rule bring in? It's hard to say, because Obama didn't define precisely how it would work. But he did say it would create a tax rate floor for those who make more than $1 million per year. So let's use 2009 tax return data from the IRS to imagine some possible scenarios for how much additional tax revenue the new tax could bring in. Here's a chart:

buffett rule.png

Let me explain what's going on here. I used IRS data for 2009* adjusted gross income (which I know isn't perfect, but it was the best they had). I then calculated the effective tax rate based on its data to be 29.1% for all Americans who earned more than $1 million. I consequently took the total income of the group and multiplied by different tax rates (as shown). I subtracted the taxes already paid (at the 29.1% effective rate) to figure out how much additional revenue they'd provide to the U.S. government at those new tax floors.

As you can see, the short answer is: some, but not enough to make a dent in the deficit. If you put a floor at their current marginal tax rate of 35%, the government would obtain $37 billion more dollars. That might sound like a lot, but it amounts to just 2.5% of the 2009 $1.5 trillion deficit (which is the red line shown). If you increase the floor to the pre-Bush-tax-cut marginal rate of 39.6%, the additional revenue grows a bit -- to $66 billion, or 4.5% of the year's deficit.

Even if you get really aggressive, it doesn't help much. Even a tax floor for these individuals at 75% would cover less than 20% of the year's deficit. And, of course, even most populist among us probably worries that a tax rate that high could do more harm to the U.S. economy than good. All of these calculations also assume that these wealthy individuals wouldn't find new and creative ways to ensure that their income was shielded from very high tax rates. (They would.)

So this Buffet Rule is a great populist proposal if the president wants to score some political points, but it has little practical value. It might provide the government a little bit of additional revenue, but unless extremely aggressive, it wouldn't make a dent in the nation's deficit problem. To do that, you'll need to cut entitlements and/or raise taxes much more broadly.

Read more at www.theatlantic.com
 

20.9.11

Atentado suicida com explosivos no turbante

Pergunta Marisol pertinentemente: «Which causes more global outrage: a cartoon of a turban bomb, or real turban bombs causing real casualties?»

http://media.patriotpost.us/img/ref/cartoon11.jpg

Amplify’d from www.jihadwatch.org
"Former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani assassinated," by Laura King for the Los Angeles Times, September 20:
Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan— Former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani was killed by a suicide bomber on Tuesday in his home in the capital, the latest in a series of high-profile assassinations to rock the country in recent months.
Rabbani was the head of a government panel set up last year to try to begin negotiations with the Taliban, and his death was seen as a serious blow to those still-nascent efforts.
The bomber, who apparently had explosives concealed in his turban, entered Rabbani's home in an upscale Kabul neighborhood on the pretext of visiting him, said Gen. Mohammed Zaher, the head of criminal investigation for the Kabul police.
The powerful blast injured at least two other people, Zaher said, possibly including at least one other member of the High Peace Council, as the reconciliation body was known.
The Associated Press reported that four of Rabbani's bodyguards were also killed, but that could not be immediately confirmed.
President Hamid Karzai's office said the Afghan leader was cutting short a visit to the U.N. General Assembly to return home.
Afghanistan's political climate, always violent, has become much more so in recent months.
Karzai's younger half-brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, was assassinated by a close family associate in July. A close Karzai aide, Jan Mohammed Khan, was killed that same month, as was the mayor of the southern city of Kandahar, Ghulam Haidar Hamidi.
Read more at www.jihadwatch.org
 

O feto e o camarão

Amplify’d from www.ncregister.com

Marc Barnes recently met a girl he thought he might be interested in...until he found out that she was a pro-choice vegetarian. He goes on to dissect the silliness of this viewpoint, which, from the Catholic perspective, is basically an exercise of shooting fish in a barrel. It’s such an obviously inconsistent position that many of my Catholic friends are baffled by how someone could hold both of those views simultaneously: How can you respect animal life but not human life? they wonder. To me, it makes sense. In fact, I used to be a pro-choice vegetarian. And while I now vehemently disagree with at least the pro-choice part of it, I still find the vegetarian/pro-choice position to be an intellectually consistent—if chilling—part of the atheist-materialist worldview.

The way I used to see it, all life is just chemical reactions, no one type of life any more inherently special than the next. In this view, the only reason that a human being would be considered more valuable than, say, a squirrel is because the human has higher levels of intelligence and consciousness than his furry friend. The “truth” of this position seemed obvious. For example, most of us would have no problem killing a simple lifeform like a gnat, but we would be opposed to killing a more intelligent lifeform like a dog. Increased intelligence equals increased value.

I would ponder this sort of thing whenever I ate meat, imagining what must have gone through the pig’s mind before it was slaughtered to provide the meat for my BLT sandwich. Maybe it didn’t experience the level of fear that an adult human would, but it had enough intelligence to know that something bad was happening. I began to do research into the conditions of modern slaughter houses, and was disturbed by what I found. I decided to adopt a mostly vegetarian diet. The few exceptions I made were based on the animals’ low levels of consciousness: I ate shrimp and shellfish as a protein source, justifying this choice on the grounds that their brains were not as complex as those of mammals and birds.

My intentions were good, and my views were internally consistent. But the implications for human life were chilling.

While I donated money to PETA and other animal rights organizations to help save pigs and cows, I also donated money to Planned Parenthood to support the abortion industry. I had not the slightest qualm about the idea of an early-stage abortion. On my spectrum of worthiness of life, adult humans were on the far right side; fetuses were on the left. Unborn humans were somewhere around shrimp and worms in terms of value, because they could not display any intelligence. And so it seemed unfair to ask women to turn their lives upside down for a lifeform that had all the value of a crustacean.

Even though it would be years before I would come to see that this entire understanding of human life was founded on a lie, I would occasionally get a glimpse of the chilling implications of this view. For example, one time in college I heard a professor make the statement that it would be more ethical to kill a newborn baby than a pig, since pigs are more intelligent and aware of their surroundings. I scoffed at the absurdity of such a notion. Yet when I tried to argue against it, I realized that he was actually using my own worldview to justify his position.

Also in college, I heard a classmate (who was a vegetarian too) make the case that severely mentally disabled people should be euthanized. I thought it to be one of the most offensive, disgusting statements I’d ever heard. I was even able to come up with some defense about it being wrong because we’re evolved to protect members of our own species…but such a coldly scientific argument sounded lame and hollow. There was absolutely nothing in the atheist lexicon that allowed me to articulate just how morally repugnant such an idea really was.

When I began researching Catholicism, one of the many things that immediately resonated as true was the Church’s teaching on the dignity of man. This idea that every single one of us has dignity—a dignity that exists simply by virtue of being human, regardless of our of size, intelligence, consciousness, or any other observable traits—was like an articulation of a truth that had been written on my heart all along. Somewhere deep down inside, I had known that that this was true, which is why I’d been so horrified by the professor and the classmate’s statements. As with so many other things in life, Catholicism took all my well-meaning energy and channeled it in a healthy way: I maintained a compassion for animals, but came to see that the members of my own species were in an entirely different category than other lifeforms, because we are the only ones made in the image and likeness of God.

These days I’ve gone back to eating meat, though I try to support local farms and other organizations that treat their animals humanely. I maintain respect for vegetarians, and understand why a lot of people choose to go that route. What’s troubling, however, is that this idea of intelligence = value is increasingly prevalent in our culture. It might make a certain amount of sense when applying it to other animals, but when we evaluate people by this standard, throwing out the millennia-old concept of the inherent value of human life, the results are chilling indeed.

Read more at www.ncregister.com
 

Um decapitador e amputador saudita

Eis uma profissão com futuro, a ter em atenção face ao desemprego crescente no Ocidente: uma vez que o islão alastra por todo o mundo, na Europa a um ritmo alucinante, e que a xariá se vai instalando no seio das comunidades islâmicas europeias, com a criação de tribunais de xariá, os jovens devem ter em consideração esta via profissional:





19.9.11

Os desmandos turcos e o colapso dos estados árabes

Amplify’d from pajamasmedia.com

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan brings to mind the story about the housewife who calls her husband during rush hour. “Be careful driving home on the Beltway, dear,” she advises. “The news says that there’s a maniac driving in the wrong direction.” “What do you mean, ‘a maniac’?,” he replies. “Everybody’s driving in the wrong direction!”

The Arab world is in free fall. Leave aside Syria, whose regime continues to massacre its own people, and miserable Yemen, and post-civil war Libya. Egypt is dying. Erdogan’s “triumphal” appearance in Egypt served as a welcome distraction to Egyptians — welcome, because what they think about most of the time is disheartening. What’s on the mind of the Egyptian people these days? According to the Arab-language local media, it’s finding enough calories to get through the day.

Egypt imports half its caloric consumption, the price of its staple wheat remains at an all-time high, and most Egyptians can’t afford to buy it. The government subsidizes bread, but according to the Egyptian news site Youm7 (“The Seventh Day”), the country now faces “an escalating crisis in subsidized flour.” Packages of subsidized flour are not reaching the intended recipients, in part because the Solidarity Ministry hasn’t provided the promised shipments to stores, and in part because subsidized flour and bread are diverted to the black market. A small loaf of government-issue bread costs 5 piasters, or less than one U.S. cent, but it can’t be found in many areas, as the Solidarity Ministry, provincial government, and bakers trade accusations of responsibility for supply problems. Poor Egyptians get ration cards, but flour often is not available to card-holders. Rice, a substitute for wheat, also is in short supply, and the price has risen recently to 5.5 Egyptian pounds per kilo from 3.75 pounds.

Most Egyptians barely eat enough to keep body and soul together, and many are hungry. That is about to get much, much worse: The country is short about $20 billion a year. The central bank reports that the country’s current account deficit in the fiscal year ended July 1 swung from a $3.4 billion surplus in the fiscal year ended July 2010 to a deficit of $9.2 billion in the fiscal year ended July 2011. Almost all of the shift into red ink occurred since February, suggesting an annualized deficit of around $20 billion. Egypt’s reserves fell about $11 billion since the uprising began in February. Who’s going to cough up that kind of money? Not Turkey, whose own balance-of-payment deficit stands at 11% of GDP and whose currency is collapsing, as shown in the chart below:

It doesn’t occur to liberals that there are problems for which solutions might not exist; the notion that cultures and countries may suffer from tragic flaws does not enter into consideration, because if that were true, there would be no need for liberals.
consider how Tayyip Erdogan must feel. His economic boom is about to come to a crashing end, and his country is doomed demographically to split up when Kurds outnumber Turks not long from now, as I argued here recently. And his ambitions for Turkish hegemony in the Muslim world have run directly into an existential crisis that is long past solution. That would make anyone crazy. Don’t think of the Turkish leader as an outpatient who lost his meds. In the spirit of political correctness, we might call him “existentially challenged. ”

It would be easy to overestimate just how dangerous Erdogan might become. The estimable David Warren calls him “the man who could trigger a world war.” That seems alarmist. Whom is Erdogan going to fight? Any military provocation would lead to a further collapse of the Turkish currency, and a deep setback for the Turkish economy.

Read more at pajamasmedia.com