Unholy Alliance..

What follows is an excerpt from DiscoverTheNetworks.org site.  There are more full length articles posted there to read.

The core of today’s radical left consists of the ideological descendants of the communist/progressive left that wanted the West to lose the Cold War to the Soviet Union. They are the well-organized and immensely influential driving force behind the contemporary peace and civil liberties movements. Upon the foundation of its hatred for the United States, the radical left has forged an alliance with radical Islam, whose wellspring of anti-American hatred runs just as deep.

On April 25, 2005 this hatred was expressed passionately by Member of British Parliament George Galloway, who was interviewed that day by the Iraq News Network on the subject of the War on Terror and the clash of Western and Muslim cultures. Galloway was asked, “You often call for uniting Muslim and progressive forces globally. How far is it possible under the current situation?” To this, Galloway replied:

“Not only do I think it’s possible but I think it is vitally necessary and I think it is happening already. . . . [T]he progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. . . .  the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries, mainly Muslim countries. They have the same interest in opposing savage capitalist globalization which is intent upon homogenizing the entire world turning us basically into factory chickens which can be forced fed the American diet . . .  So on the very grave big issues of the day — issues of war, occupation, justice, opposition to globalization — the Muslims and the progressives are on the same side. . . . [To] use an English colloquialism, ‘If we don’t hang together we will all hang separately.’ Our enemies are very powerful and they are currently ruling the world, and if we don’t stop them they will finish both of us and they will be the new tyrants, new emperors of the world for a very long time to come if we don’t stop them. So it’s necessary to unite these two great forces. . . . The left is weaker and the Muslims are weaker because they are not together.”

In word and deed, both Western leftists (like Galloway) and radical Muslims make it plain that they consider everything about the United States to be evil and unworthy of preservation; that they wish to see American society and its way of life crushed by any means necessary, including violent revolution. Their position was well summarized by the now-infamous professor Ward Churchill, who asserted that terrorist violence directed against the United States is a morally justifiable response to what he characterizes as the U.S. government’s “rape” and “murder” of other peoples.

These sentiments are echoed by Osama bin Laden, who in 1998 issued the following edict: “We . . . call on every Muslim . . . to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan’s U.S. troops and the devil’s supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson. The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.”

Radical Islam seeks purification and social justice by means of jihad, or holy war, whose highest ideal is martyrdom achieved while attempting to conquer an evil worldly power such as the United States, the Great Satan (and Israel, the Little Satan). The radical Islamist’s ultimate goal is to subdue the “infidel” nations and therein institute sharia, or Islamic law, so as to redeem the world for Allah. The socialist left, similarly, advocates revolution as the means of achieving its ends — eliminating capitalism and creating a socialist paradise on earth. Whereas Islamic radicals seek to purify the world of heresies and of the infidels who practice them, the radical left seeks to purify society’s collective “soul” of the vices allegedly spawned by capitalism — those being racism, sexism, imperialism, and greed. Just as Islamic radicals seek to impose their religion on the rest of the world in a totalitarian fashion requiring unwavering obedience, so do radical leftists seek to create an omnipotent socialist state that will control every aspect of daily life and will impose a universal brand of “social justice” on all mankind.

Central to both radical Islam and the radical left is an inclination to overthrow the existing order, so as to create a paradise on earth. This end ultimately justifies any means, and any alliance, that leads there. American leftists may find the bigotry and intolerance of Islamic radicals repugnant, but their desire to rid the world of U.S. “imperialism” and capitalism overrides this revulsion and beckons them to forge their alliance. As Osama bin Laden himself declared in a fatwa which he issued in March 2003: “The interests of Muslims and the interests of the socialists coincide in the war against the crusaders.”

Gives one pause, eh?

Al Gore and Vaclav Klaus…

This is an old news item from September 2007, but for those of us fairly new to the GW agenda, this article titled, “Gore Dodges Repeated Calls To Debate Global Warming”, is highly enlightening and bears reading again and again.  Vaclav Klaus is the Czech President and challenged Al Gore to a debate about his alarmist theories, which he refused.

An excerpt from Klaus:

“As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.”

From the article:

Gore’s reluctance to go toe-to-toe with global warming skeptics may have something to do with the – from the standpoint of climate change alarmists – unfortunate outcome of a global warming debate in New York last March. In the debate, a team of global warming skeptics composed of MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, University of London emeritus professor of biogeology Philip Stott, and physician-turned novelist/filmmaker Michael Crichton handily defeated a team of climate alarmists headed by NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt. Before the start of the nearly two-hour debate, the audience of several thousand polled 57.3 percent to 29.9 percent in favor of the proposition that global warming is a “crisis.” At the end of the debate, the numbers had changed dramatically, with 46.2 percent favoring the skeptical point of view and 42.2 percent siding with the alarmists.

This piece at tcsdaily.com was penned by Bonner R. Cohen, a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C. and author of “The Green Wave: Environmentalism and its Consequences”, published by the Capital Research Center.

Excellent reading.

Speaking of Al Gore…

Anyone interested in the GW debate should head on over and read Anthony Watts’ piece today. It seems that one of Al’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made climate warming, NASA warming scientist James Hanson, is now being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.  Dr. John S. Theon has now declared himself officially a skeptic and says that Hanson “embarrassed NASA” with his alarmist claims.  Global warming alarmists would like to shut down the opposition, declaring that the debate is over, but new information keeps emerging…and more people are speaking out.  Dr. Theon says he is glad to throw his hat into the ring opposing the alarmist views.  Anthony’s blog is worth keeping track of for all the news and views on GW.  GW alarmist Al Gore is in favor of a bill that would set up carbon offsets.  I can only imagine what this will do  to our already battered economy.  And the way the alarmists want to shut down debate…well, it is reminiscent of another type of government. (Think Germany in the 30’s or Russia in 1917.)

In another noteworthy mention, but in a different type of situation, I saw a report today of a man from the Dutch parliament and leader of the Freedom Party, Geert Wilders, who is now being prosecuted by his government for hate crimes.  It seems he has been speaking out about what the Islamic Koran really says and produced a film about Islam.  Now he will be tried for “hate crimes”.  Does this sound familiar to anyone?  Guess who else has issued death threats against him.  Yep, the Islamic radicals are slamming him pretty good.  If you want more information about that particular subject, you might check out this link for a video.

Does anyone see what’s going on here?  It looks like there’s a movement to shut down speech condemning homosexuality (see post from Jan. 25, 2009) which is already happening in Canada, shut down the debate about climate change, and in the Netherlands, shut down speech about Islam if Islam doesn’t like it.  Hmmm….John the Baptist lost his head because he said something the other side didn’t like too.  Watching Geert Wilders today, I felt he was a very brave man who is secure in his position, no matter what he has to go through.

And Now For Some Good News…

Pro-Life Victory—President Obama Removes Controversial Contraceptive Element from Economic Stimulus Plan

The plan had earmarked $200 million to fund contraception and the abortion industry, however, the Obama Administration called for its removal on Tuesday.

Rep. John Boehner questioned the line item’s original inclusion in the economic stimulus plan, noting that it was unclear how the “family planning” aspect would have stimulated the economy.
Thank you, Mr. President.

Global Warming Chit Chat

Former VP Al Gore is to address the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today on global warming.  Meanwhile a serious winter storm has descended on Washington, D.C.  The guys over at Power Line say there is no word if the wintry weather will lead to a cancellation of his testimony.  I think the committe may want more information before they institute a cap-and-trade damper on the economy.  I know some better places to get it rather than from a man trying desperately to make a name for himself.  This one knows actual science. See Anthony Watts’ blog.

Just What Is the Mexico City Policy?

January 22 was the anniversary of the infamous Roe v.  Wade decision by the Supreme Court.  Estimates of tens of thousands to 200,000 were in Washington for a rally. It didn’t get much coverage by the news media.  I heard that president Obama was advised to wait til the day afterwards to rescind the Mexico City Policy.  I thought our economy was bad, that we were in a crisis (which is why they want to rush the economic stimulus package through Congress).  What I don’t understand is why rescinding this policy was so urgent.  It is not stimulating the economy.  It is taking money from the taxpayers.  Let’s look at some history and see what the Mexico City policy actually is.  This info is lifted from the whitehouse.gov site.  Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)  must be those like Planned Parenthood, which is receiving lots of taxpayer dollars (against the wishes of lots of Americans) as well as making lots of money on abortions.

“The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1)), prohibits nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that receive Federal funds from using those funds “to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.”  The August 1984 announcement by President Reagan of what has become known as the “Mexico City Policy” directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to expand this limitation and withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available.  The Mexico City Policy was in effect from 1985 until 1993, when it was rescinded by President Clinton.  President George W. Bush reinstated the policy in 2001, implementing it through conditions in USAID grant awards, and subsequently extended the policy to “voluntary population planning” assistance provided by the Department of State.

These excessively broad conditions on grants and assistance awards are unwarranted.  Moreover, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations.  Accordingly, I hereby revoke the Presidential memorandum of January 22, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), the Presidential memorandum of March 28, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), and the Presidential memorandum of August 29, 2003, for the Secretary of State (Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning).  In addition, I direct the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID to take the following actions with respect to conditions in voluntary population planning assistance and USAID grants that were imposed pursuant to either the 2001 or 2003 memoranda and that are not required by the Foreign Assistance Act or any other law:  (1) immediately waive such conditions in any current grants, and (2) notify current grantees, as soon as possible, that these conditions have been waived.  I further direct that the Department of State and USAID immediately cease imposing these conditions in any future grants.

This was signed by Barack Obama. What I don’t get is why this was so all-fire important, when we are so “in crisis”. Before his inauguration, there was a lot of talk that it certainly looked like he would govern from the center, if one looked at his cabinet picks. Now that he is elected it looks like he intends to ramrod his agenda through fast and hard (in the first 100 days maybe) at the total expense of the American people. Obviously, this action is something he has been thinking about for a long time. I wonder what our Founding Fathers would say about such a thing.  Read the Obituary of common sense that I posted below on January 26, 2009.

Update:  This is taken from a report on topix.com:

“Most liberal news media refuse to cover the annual event, effectively resulting in news censorship over Pro-life events on a national level.

The new President Obama was invited to address the participants, but refused the invitation, reiterating his strong pro-abortion stance. He held the strongest pro-abortion stance in Congress and co-sponsored the FOCA bill (Freedom of Choice Act) to strip the States of the ability to have individual stances on abortion, expand abortion options, and to use federal money – despite the bad US economy and deep national debt – to fund abortions here and abroad. He has even spoken about killing unwanted babies after delivery, if the mother wishes. The FOCA bill is under consideration in Congress, at this time.”