Říjen 2010


Zrádce Nečas. Jak cizák zapíská, tak český premiér zatancuje.

30. října 2010 v 0:57 | הלט |  Globální zámraz
N

Po všech těch kecech o "klimatickém náboženství", odporu k socialismu a potřebě šetřit...akceptoval doktor Nečas v den státního svátku republiky tyto věty:

"Potřeba dosáhnout pokroku v boji proti změně klimatu je stále naléhavější. Proto je důležité, aby výsledek cancúnské konference znamenal významný dílčí krok, vycházející z Kjótského protokolu a připravující půdu pro celosvětový a komplexní právně závazný rámec, v němž budou začleněny politické pokyny uvedené v Kodaňské dohodě. Je zásadní, aby Evropská unie a její členské státy hrály i nadále konstruktivní úlohu a aby vystupovaly jednotně. Evropská rada potvrzuje závěry Rady ze dne 14. října 2010 týkající se přípravy konference v Cancúnu a potvrzuje ochotu Evropské unie zvážit druhé kontrolní období podle Kjótského protokolu za předpokladu, že podmínky stanovené v těchto závěrech budou splněny. Evropská unie v Cancúnu předloží komplexní a transparentní zprávu o provádění svého závazku v oblasti financování rychlého startu, kterou bude následně předkládat každoročně, a vyzdvihne důležitost dalšího zvýšení transparentnosti financování v oblasti změny klimatu. Po skončení cancúnské konference Evropská unie opět zhodnotí situaci a mimo jiné posoudí možnosti pro snížení emisí skleníkových plynů o více než 20 % tak, aby mohla reagovat na vývoj mezinárodních jednání v oblasti klimatu; Rada se vyzývá, aby zprávu o této otázce předložila nejpozději na jaře roku 2011. Souběžně s úsilím o dosažení mezinárodní dohody EU rovněž připraví různorodější přístup pro jednání s klíčovými partnery, pokud jde o oblasti, na kterých mají společný zájem a díky nimž mohou snížit své emise. V této souvislosti EU podporuje regionální iniciativy, které se zaměřují na boj proti změně klimatu a prosazují zelený růst, jako například nedávnou středomořskou iniciativu v oblasti změny klimatu."


A to uplynulo jen pár hodin od vyznání víry doktora Strejčka stran akceptace blábolů:

I.S.

A pár měsíců po jednom chatování...
idnes.cz

Nové hranice islámu vedle Chrámu Panny Marie Vítězné

28. října 2010 v 11:55 | הלט
iglú
V šedesátém roce byl vysvěcen tento mariánský svatostánek za polárním kruhem v Kanadě, který uvnitř vypadá takhle:
interiér
Nyní kousek vedle stanula mešita. I s minaretem. Prý první za polárním kruhem. AFP


Připozdívá se

20. října 2010 v 1:23 | הלט
LDV

Proslov paní Merkelové o multikultikrachu vyvolal vlnu reakcí. Rád bych si zaznamenal některé: Patricka Buchanana, George Friedmana a Thomase Sowella: I a II.

Karel III v Brně

15. října 2010 v 19:24 | הלט
Karel III

Po bohoslužbě bude přednášet o vojenském významu našeho krále vojenský historik Luděk Šubert v salonku restaurace L.A.G. šermířský klub od 19.00 hod.

Hodně deště a hodně sluníčka. Hříbky porostou

11. října 2010 v 21:42 | הלט
Pak
Pákistán si prý chce s čínskou pomocí vyrobit kupu atomových bombiček na Indy. (Daily Telegraph)

Až je na ně nahází, Čína ho sežere.

Harold Lewis opouští Americkou fyzikální společnost

9. října 2010 v 7:28 | הלט |  Globální zámraz
APS

Prezident APS Curtis G. Callan dostal dopis od kolegy.

Patří do historie:

"Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence---it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind---simply to bring the subject into the open.

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people's motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don't think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I'm not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Hal"


PACE: Občanští demokraté a socani ve vzácné shodě

7. října 2010 v 23:26 | הלט
Parlamentní shromáždění RE debatovalo o právu lékaře odmítnout zabíjet, když mu svědomí říká "nedělej to", a o povinnostech nemocnic zajistit pro žadatele, kteří se zabitím nemají problém, nějakého experta bez svědomí.


A už je po hlasování. 56:51:3.
PACE
Daniela Filipiová: PROTI ---- Jana Fischerová: PROTI ---- Dana Váhalová: PROTI ---- Alena Gajdůšková: ZDRŽELA SE


Maltský Independent píše, že podle hlasování ve výborech to vypadalo, že navržený text projde. Prodělal však hodně změn. Takových, že britská levičačka Christine McCaffertyová, autorka zprávy o pokroku a překážkách zabíjení, nakonec hlasovala PROTI.

Jako občanské demokratky Filipiová a Fischerová a socialistka Váhalová.

Filipiová
Fischerová

Socialistka Váhalová si na Facebooku včera pochvalovala počasí...:
Váhalová

Schwarzenberg tahá do Prahy americké levičáky

7. října 2010 v 21:27 | הלט |  Globální zámraz
To takhle jeden otevře ihned.cz, aby se dozvěděl, co zase ukutilo kníže Bilderberg za Atlantikem. A čte:

ihned.cz

Pak si ten jeden otevře lidovky.cz, aby se dozvěděl, o co jde konkrétně. A čte:

lidovky

Tak ASPEN INSTITUTE panu Bilderbergovi pod Řípem tuze chybí. Hm, hm. Zašmátrá po paměti ten jeden, co tam je o Aspenu, a zjistí, že nic moc. :-) Nějak se mu to jméno spojuje s Albrightovou a Fordem. Tak si tedy otevře web té inštituce, aby se dozvěděl, o čem a jak přemítá.

Klik, klik. A je to. Hrdina pojmenován:
Pachauri

"The president of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, is my all time hero because of his outspokenness on the urgency of climate change, so to hear his second in command was a thrill." Tak mluví aspenští dekarbonizátoři.

Pačaurí. Hrdina XXI. věku. Něco jako Rytíř. Tedy loupeživý rytíř. :-) Železniční inženýr, co si z vylhaného klimatismu udělal tak báječný džobík, až za to dostal Nobelku. (Christopher Booker, DT)

Dobrá práce, Bilderbergu. Vlastně ne. Špatná! Moc špatná. Zlá! Pan Delingpole z Daily Telegraphu už postřehl, že zatímco mnozí státníci po světě pořád volají po oduhlíkovávání proti tomu strašlivému globálnímu oteplování, pro Bilderberg je tématem globální ochlazování.

Pražské kníže Bilderberg na schůzce letos nebylo, před dvěma lety ano, ale to se zase prý o klimatismu nemluvilo.

Mělo by tam rychle zajet, aby bylo v obraze. Anebo zakládá oteplovací frakci v ochlazujícím se Bilderbergu?

teplo

Obamobolševici

5. října 2010 v 21:08 | הלט

Video z mítinku nejpokrokovějších sil Nového světa:
Washington 02-10-2010


10

Ve Státech nedávno vyšla knížka "10 Truths About Socialism", zaznamenává Phyllis Schlaflyová.

Škoda jen, že si o tom Američan musí číst, lepší by byla praxe v Zápotockého laboratoři...

Washington: Demoška bolševiků netáhne

3. října 2010 v 19:38 | הלט
Wash

ONE NATION... Spíš "národní kusovky" :-)

prezident AFL-CIO


Bývaly doby, kdy za AFL-CIO mluvil George Meany. Ale to už je pryč.

Geert Wilders v Berlíně: ZBOŘME TU ZEĎ!

3. října 2010 v 17:39 | הלט
GW
Ronald Reagan před lety vyzval Gorbačova, aby strhnul Berlínskou zeď. Nás dnes čeká podobný úkol. Jen ta zeď není z betonu, nýbrž z ignorování a popírání skutečné povahy islámu.

A co říká spolkový prezident Christian Wulff? "Aber der Islam gehört inzwischen auch zu Deutschland." (prezident)

Geert Wiilders v Berlíně:

"Dear Friends,

I am very happy to be here in Berlin today. As you know, the invitation which my friend René Stadtkewitz extended to me, has cost him his membership of the CDU group in the Berlin Parliament. René, however, did not give in to the pressure. He did not betray his convictions. His dismissal prompted René to start a new political party. I wish him all the best. As you may have heard, the past weeks were extremely busy for me. Earlier this week we succeeded in forging a minority government of the Liberals and the Christian-Democrats which will be supported by my party. This is an historic event for the Netherlands. I am very proud of having helped to achieve this. At this very moment the Christian-Democrat Party conference is deciding whether or not to approves this coalition. If they do, we will be able to rebuild our country, preserve our national identity and offer our children a better future.

Despite my busy schedule at home, however, I insisted on coming to Berlin, because Germany, too, needs a political movement to defend German identity and to oppose the Islamization of Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel says that the Islamization of Germany is inevitable. She conveys the message that citizens have to be prepared for more changes as a result of immigration. She wants the Germans to adapt to this situation. The Christian-Democrat leader said: "More than before mosques will be an integral part of our cities."

My friends, we should not accept the unacceptable as inevitable without trying to turn the tide. It is our duty as politicians to preserve our nations for our children. I hope that René's movement will be as successful as my own Partij voor de Vrijheid, as Oskar Freysinger's Schweizerische Volkspartei in Switzerland, as Pia Kjaersgaard's Dansk Folkeparti in Denmark, and similar movements elsewhere.

My good friend Pia recently spoke in Sweden at the invitation of the Sverigedemokraterna. She said: "I have not come to mingle in Swedish domestic politics because that is for the Swedish people to be concerned with. No, I have come because in spite of certain differences the Swedish debate in many ways reminds me of the Danish debate 10-15 years ago. And I have come to Sweden because it is also a concern to Denmark. We cannot sit with our hands in our lap and be silent witnesses to the political development in Sweden."

The same applies for me as a Dutchman with respect to Germany. I am here because Germany matters to the Netherlands and the rest of the world, and because we cannot establish an International Freedom Alliance without a strong German partner.

Dear friends, tomorrow is the Day of German Unity. Tomorrow exactly twenty years ago, your great nation was reunified after the collapse of the totalitarian Communist ideology. The Day of German Unity is an important day for the whole of Europe. Germany is the largest democracy in Europe. Germany is Europe's economic powerhouse. The wellbeing and prosperity of Germany is a benefit to all of us, because the wellbeing and prosperity of Germany is a prerequisite for the wellbeing and prosperity of Europe.

Today I am here, however, to warn you for looming disunity. Germany's national identity, its democracy and economic prosperity, is being threatened by the political ideology of Islam. In 1848, Karl Marx began his Communist Manifesto with the famous words: "A specter is haunting Europe - the specter of communism." Today, another specter is haunting Europe. It is the specter of Islam. This danger, too, is political. Islam is not merely a religion, as many people seem to think: Islam is mainly a political ideology.

This insight is not new.

I quote from the bestselling book and BBC television series The Triumph of the West which the renowned Oxford historian J.M. Roberts wrote in 1985: "Although we carelessly speak of Islam as a 'religion'; that word carries many overtones of the special history of western Europe. The Muslim is primarily a member of a community, the follower of a certain way, an adherent to a system of law, rather than someone holding particular theological views." The Flemish Professor Urbain Vermeulen, the former president of the European Union of Arabists and Islamicists, too, points out that "Islam is primarily a legal system, a law," rather than a religion.

The American political scientist Mark Alexander writes that "One of our greatest mistakes is to think of Islam as just another one of the world's great religions. We shouldn't. Islam is politics or it is nothing at all, but, of course, it is politics with a spiritual dimension, … which will stop at nothing until the West is no more, until the West has … been well and truly Islamized."

These are not just statements by opponents of Islam. Islamic scholars say the same thing. There cannot be any doubt about the nature of Islam to those who have read the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. Abul Ala Maududi, the influential 20th century Pakistani Islamic thinker, wrote - I quote, emphasizing that these are not my words but those of a leading Islamic scholar - "Islam is not merely a religious creed [but] a revolutionary ideology and jihad refers to that revolutionary struggle … to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth, which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam."

Ali Sina, an Iranian Islamic apostate who lives in Canada, points out that there is one golden rule that lies at the heart of every religion - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. In Islam, this rule only applies to fellow believers, but not to Infidels. Ali Sina says "The reason I am against Islam is not because it is a religion, but because it is a political ideology of imperialism and domination in the guise of religion. Because Islam does not follow the Golden Rule, it attracts violent people."

A dispassionate study of the beginnings of Islamic history reveals clearly that Muhammad's objective was first to conquer his own people, the Arabs, and to unify them under his rule, and then to conquer and rule the world. That was the original cause; it was obviously political and was backed by military force. "I was ordered to fight all men until they say 'There is no god but Allah,'" Muhammad said in his final address. He did so in accordance with the Koranic command in sura 8:39: "Fight them until there is no more dissension and the religion is entirely Allah's."

According to the mythology, Muhammad founded Islam in Mecca after the Angel Gabriel visited him for the first time in the year 610. The first twelve years of Islam, when Islam was religious rather than political, were not a success. In 622, Muhammad emigrated to Yathrib, a predominantly Jewish oasis, with his small band of 150 followers. There he established the first mosque in history, took over political power, gave Yathrib the name of Medina, which means the "City of the Prophet," and began his career as a military and a political leader who conquered all of Arabia. Tellingly, the Islamic calendar starts with the hijra, the migration to Medina - the moment when Islam became a political movement.

After Muhammad's death, based upon his words and deeds, Islam developed Sharia, an elaborate legal system which justified the repressive governance of the world by divine right - including rules for jihad and for the absolute control of believers and non-believers. Sharia is the law of Saudi Arabia and Iran, among other Islamic states. It is also central to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which in article 24 of its Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, proclaims that "all rights and freedoms are subject to the Islamic Sharia." The OIC is not a religious institution; it is a political body. It constitutes the largest voting block in the United Nations and writes reports on so-called "Islamophobia" in Western Countries which accuse us of human rights violations. To speak in biblical terms: They look for a speck in our eye, but deny the beam in their own.

Under Sharia law people in the conquered territories have no legal rights, not even the right to life and to own property, unless they convert to Islam.

Before I continue, and in order to avoid any misunderstandings, I want to emphasize that I am talking about Islam, not about Muslims. I always make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam. There are many moderate Muslims, but the political ideology of Islam is not moderate and has global ambitions. It aims to impose Islamic law or Sharia upon the whole world. The way to achieve this is through jihad. The good news is that millions of Muslims around the world - including many in Germany and the Netherlands - do not follow the directives of Sharia, let alone engage in jihad. The bad news, however, is that those who do are prepared to use all available means to achieve their ideological, revolutionary goal.
In 1954, in his essay Communism and Islam, Professor Bernard Lewis spoke of "the totalitarianism, of the Islamic political tradition." Professor Lewis said that "The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, … has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. … The aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same."
The American political scientist Mark Alexander states that the nature of Islam differs very little - and only in detail rather than style - from despicable and totalitarian political ideologies such as National-Socialism and Communism. He lists the following characteristics for these three ideologies.

* They use political purges to "cleanse" society of what they considere undesirable;

* They tolerate only a single political party. Where Islam allows more parties, it insists that all parties be Islamic ones;

* They coerce the people along the road that it must follow;

* They obliterate the liberal distinction between areas of private judgment and of public control;

* They turn the educational system into an apparatus for the purpose of universal indoctrination;

* They lay down rules for art, for literature, for science and for religion;

* They subdue people who are given second class status;

* They induce a frame of mind akin to fanaticism. Adjustment takes place by struggle and dominance;

* They are abusive to their opponents and regard any concession on their own part as a temporary expedient and on a rival's part as a sign of weakness;

* They regard politics as an expression of power;

* They are anti-Semitic.

There is one more striking parallel, but this is not a characteristic of the three political ideologies, but one of the West. It is the apparent inability of the West to see the danger. The prerequisite to understanding political danger, is a willingness to see the truth, even if it is unpleasant. Unfortunately, modern Western politicians seem to have lost this capacity. Our inability leads us to reject the logical and historical conclusions to be drawn from the facts, though we could, and should know better. What is wrong with modern Western man that we make the same mistake over and over again?

There is no better place to ponder this question than here in Berlin, the former capital of the evil empire of Nazi Germany and a city which was held captive by the so-called German "Democratic" Republic for over forty years.

When the citizens of Eastern Europe rejected Communism in 1989, they were inspired by dissidents such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Václav Havel, Vladimir Bukovsky, and others, who told them that people have a right, but also an obligation, to "live within the truth." Freedom requires eternal vigilance; so it is with truth. Solzhenitsyn added, however, that "truth is seldom sweet; it is almost invariably bitter." Let us face the bitter truth: We have lost our capacity to see the danger and understand the truth because we no longer value freedom.

Politicians from almost all establishment politicians today are facilitating Islamization. They are cheering for every new Islamic school, Islamic bank, Islamic court. They regard Islam as being equal to our own culture. Islam or freedom? It does not really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire establisment elite - universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians - are putting our hard-earned liberties at risk. They talk about equality, but amazingly fail to see how in Islam women have fewer rights than men and infidels have fewer rights than adherents of Islam.

Are we about to repeat the fatal mistake of the Weimar Republic? Are we succumbing to Islam because our commitment to freedom is already dead? No, it will not happen. We are not like Frau Merkel. We do not accept Islamization as inevitable. We have to keep freedom alive. And, to the extent that we have already lost it, we must reclaim it in our democratic elections. That is why we need political parties that defend freedom. To support such parties I have established the International Freedom Alliance.

As you know, I am standing trial in the Netherlands. On Monday, I have to go to court again and I will have to spend most of the coming month there. I have been brought to court because of my opinions on Islam and because I have voiced these opinions in speeches, articles and in my documentary film Fitna. I live under constant police protection because Islamic extremists want to assassinate me, and I am in court because the Dutch establishment - most of them non-Muslims - wants to silence me.

I have been dragged to court because in my country freedom can no longer be fully enjoyed. Unlike America, we do not have a First Amendment which guarantees people the freedom to express their opinions and foster public debate by doing so. Unlike America, in Europe the national state, and increasingly the European Union, prescribes how citizens - including democratically elected politicians such as myself - should think and what we are allowed to say.
One of the things we are no longer allowed to say is that our culture is superior to certain other cultures. This is seen as a discriminatory statement - a statement of hatred even. We are indoctrinated on a daily basis, in the schools and through the media, with the message that all cultures are equal and that, if one culture is worse than all the rest, it is our own. We are inundated with feelings of guilt and shame about our own identity and what we stand for. We are exhorted to respect everyone and everything, except ourselves. That is the message of the Left and the politically-correct ruling establishment. They want us to feel so ashamed about our own identity that we refuse to fight for it.

The detrimental obsession of our cultural and political elites with Western guilt reinforces the view which Islam has of us. The Koran says that non-Muslims are kuffar (the plural of kafir), which literally means "rejecters" or "ingrates." Hence, infidels are "guilty." Islam teaches that in our natural state we have all been born as believers. Islam teaches that if we are not believers today this is by our own or by our forefathers' fault. Subsequently, we are always kafir - guilty - because either we or our fathers are apostates. And, hence, according to some, we deserve subjugation.

Our contemporary leftist intellectuals are blind to the dangers of Islam.

Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky argues that after the fall of communism, the West failed to expose those who had collaborated with the Communists by advocating policies of détente, improved relations, relaxation of international tension, peaceful coexistence. He points out that the Cold War was "a war we never won. We never even fought it. … Most of the time the West engaged in a policy of appeasement toward the Soviet bloc - and appeasers don't win wars."

Islam is the Communism of today. But, because of our failure to come clean with Communism, we are unable to deal with it, trapped as we are in the old Communist habit of deceit and double-speak that used to haunt the countries in the East and that now haunts all of us. Because of this failure, the same leftist people who turned a blind eye to Communism then, turn a blind eye to Islam today. They are using exactly the same arguments in favor of détente, improved relations, and appeasement as before. They argue that our enemy is as peace-loving as we are, that if we meet him half-way he will do the same, that he only asks respect and that if we respect him he will respect us. We even hear a repetition of the old moral equivalence mantra. They used to say that Western "imperialism" was as bad as Soviet imperialism; they are now saying that Western "imperialism" is as bad as Islamic terrorism.

In my speech near Ground Zero in New York on September 11, I emphasized that we must stop the "Blame the West, Blame America"-game which Islamic spokesmen are playing with us. And we must stop playing this game ourselves. I have the same message for you. It is an insult to tell us that we are guilty and deserve what is happening to us. We do not deserve becoming strangers in our own land. We should not accept such insults. First of all, Western civilization is the freest and most prosperous on earth, which is why so many immigrants are moving here, instead of Westerners moving there. And secondly, there is no such thing as collective guilt. Free individuals are free moral agents who are responsible for their own deeds only.

I am very happy to be here in Berlin today to give this message which is extremely important, especially in Germany. Whatever happened in your country in the past, the present generation is not responsible for it. Whatever happened in the past, it is no excuse for punishing the Germans today. But it is also no excuse for you to refuse to fight for your own identity. Your only responsibility is to avoid the mistakes of the past. It is your duty to stand with those threatened by the ideology of Islam, such as the State of Israel and your Jewish compatriots. The Weimar Republic refused to fight for freedom and was overrun by a totalitarian ideology, with catastrophic consequences for Germany, the rest of Europe and the world. Do not fail to fight for your freedom today.

I am happy to be in your midst today because it seems that twenty years after German reunification, a new generation no longer feels guilty for being German. The current and very intense debate about Thilo Sarrazin's recent book is an indication of the fact that Germany is coming to terms with itself.

I have not yet read Dr. Sarrazin's book myself, but I understand that while the ruling politically-correct establishment is almost unanimously critical of his thesis and he lost his job, a large majority of Germans acknowledges that Dr. Sarrazin is addressing important and pressing issues. "Germany is abolishing itself," warns Sarrazin, and he calls on the Germans to halt this process. The enormous impact of his book indicates that many Germans feel the same way. The people of Germany do not want Germany to be abolished, despite all the political indoctrination they have been subjected to. Germany is no longer ashamed to assert its national pride.

In these difficult times, where our national identity is under threat, we must stop feeling guilty about who we are. We are not "kafir," we are not guilty. Like other peoples, Germans have the right to remain who they are. Germans must not become French, nor Dutch, nor Americans, nor Turks. They should remain Germans. When the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan visited your country in 2008, he told the Turks living here that they had to remain Turks. He literally said that "assimilation is a crime against humanity." Erdogan would have been right if he had been addressing the Turks in Turkey. However, Germany is the land of the Germans. Hence, the Germans have a right to demand that those who come to live in Germany assimilate; they have the right - no they have a duty to their children - to demand that newcomers respect the German identity of the German nation and Germany's right to preserve its identity.

We must realize that Islam expands in two ways. Since it is not a religion, conversion is only a marginal phenomenon. Historically, Islam expanded either by military conquest or by using the weapon of hijra, immigration. Muhammad conquered Medina through immigration. Hijra is also what we are experiencing today. The Islamization of Europe continues all the time. But the West has no strategy for dealing with the Islamic ideology, because our elites say that we must adapt to them rather than the other way round.

There is a lesson which we can learn in this regard from America, the freest nation on earth. Americans are proud of their nation, its achievements and its flag. We, too, should be proud of our nation. The United States has always been a nation of immigrants. U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt was very clear about the duty of immigrants. Here is what he said: "We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else … But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American. … There can be no divided allegiance here. … We have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

It is not up to me to define what Germany's national identity consists of. That is entirely up to you. I do know, however, that German culture, like that of neighboring countries, such as my own, is rooted in judeo-christian and humanist values. Every responsible politician has a political obligation to preserve these values against ideologies which threaten them. A Germany full of mosques and veiled women is no longer the Germany of Goethe, Schiller and Heine, Bach and Mendelssohn. It will be a loss to us all. It is important that you cherish and preserve your roots as a nation. Otherwise you will not be able to safeguard your identity; you will be abolished as a people, and you will lose your freedom. And the rest of Europe will lose its freedom with you.
My friends, when Ronald Reagan came to a divided Berlin 23 years ago he uttered the historic words "Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall." President Reagan was not an appeaser, but a man who spoke the truth because he loved freedom. Today, we, too, must tear down a wall. It is not a wall of concrete, but of denial and ignorance about the real nature of Islam. The International Freedom Alliance aims to coordinate and stimulate these efforts.

Because we speak the truth, voters have given my party, the Partij voor de Vrijheid, and other parties, such as the Dansk Folkeparti and the Schweizerische Volkspartei, the power to influence the political decision process, whether that be in opposition or in government or by supporting a minority government - as we want to do in the Netherlands. President Reagan showed that by speaking the truth one can change the course of history. He showed that there is no need to despair. Never! Just do your duty. Be not afraid. Speak the truth. Defend Freedom. Together we can preserve freedom, together we must preserve freedom, and together, my friends, we will be able to preserve freedom.

Thank you." (Pamela)

Stuxnet

3. října 2010 v 17:11 | הלט
Už nějaký čas čtu nejenom na Debce o tom, jak tenhle červ řádí v počítačových systémech. Ale teprve po tom, co se o Stuxnetu zmíní New York Times, se zpráva objeví i v českých novinách. Pozoruhodná závislost. :-)

Jsou za Stuxnetem v Íránu Rusové? (Debka)

Nad ponaučením ze Stuxnetu dumá Caroline Glicková v Jerusalem Postu.

O tom, že tankové bitvy už nefrčí, svědčí i tahle tabulka:

3

O starší historii v Sovětském svazu psal loni Pipeline & Gas Journal.

Polák testuje eurokraturu

2. října 2010 v 12:08 | הלט
K.Sz.
Polský europoslanec Konrad Szymański interpeluje Eurokomisi,
jak se vede článku čtvrtému a bodu druhému Direktivy EK 2000/78/WE ze dne 27. 11. 2000,
která říká, že církevní školy si mohou vybírat zaměstnance podle kritéria vlastní ethiky.

W związku z tym powstaje pytanie, czy szkoła katolicka w Państwie Członkowskim UE odmawiając zatrudnienia osoby, która publicznie deklaruje swój homoseksualizm łamie prawo Unii Europejskiej w zakresie niedyskryminacji? W szczególności, czy taka odmowa jest naruszeniem zasad wyżej wymienionej dyrektywy Rady 2000/78/WE?

Na czym polega w świetle prawa UE prawo Kościoła, a także innych organizacji publicznych i prywatnych, których etyka opiera się na religii do "wymagania od osób pracujących dla nich działania w dobrej wierze i lojalności wobec etyki organizacji."?

Czy Komisja Europejska planuje zmiany w statusie prawnym Kościoła, a także innych organizacji publicznych i prywatnych, których etyka opiera się na religii w zakresie wyżej wymienionych rozwiązań prawnych dotyczących dyskryminacji ze względu na orientację seksualną?


Star Wars pro třidéčkaře

2. října 2010 v 8:59 | הלט
3D
Vypadá pro netřinedéčkaře poněkud psychedelicky.
Já dávám přednost klasickým kinofilmovým formám. :-)

ne3neD

Ekofašisté znovu na scéně: 10-10-10

2. října 2010 v 4:31 | הלט |  Globální zámraz
akce!

Jak jsem si tak prohlížel web těch zelených fašounů, postřehl jsem, že v Čechách jim nikdo nefandí,
ale z Downing Street 10 by je svinským krokem nehnali.

Svatý František by dnes také bojoval s globálním oteplováním, myslí si možná někteří... katoličtí princové.

Pákistánské šahídky

1. října 2010 v 20:36 | הלט
statistika

Tak vypadá momentálně poslední zápis v tabulce Náboženství míru.

U afghánských sousedů ale už prý běží šahídizační kampaň a náboráři prý uspívají. I u čtrnáctiletých.

šahídě