Precedent Set at Geert Wilders Trial….A Victory of Sorts for Free Speech

The following information regarding the Geert Wilders trial in the Netherlands for saying bad things about Islam and the Koran was found at Topix….an Australian outfit concerned about Leftwing Political Correctness gone beserk.

The Expert Testimony of Hans Jansen at the Geert Wilders Trial:

Monday, November 01, 2010

Professor Hans Jansen, one of the most prominent and respected scholars of Islam in the Western world, was called by Geert Wilders as an expert witness in Mr. Wilders’ recently-postponed trial for “hate speech” in Amsterdam.

Just as with the testimony given by Simon Admiraal and Wafa Sultan, Hans Jansen’s words are a devastating blow to those who accuse Mr. Wilders of “insulting” Islam. Every statement by the defendant is painstakingly demonstrated to be an accurate description of Islamic scripture, law, history, and theology.

Anyone in the future who is unfortunate enough to have to defend himself against the charge of “defaming Islam” will owe a great debt to Hans Jansen and Geert Wilders. This material has been read into the official record of a court of law in the Netherlands, and thus the European Union. This is precedent.

Our Flemish correspondent VH, who undertook the massive task of transcribing and translating Dr. Jansen’s testimony, provides this introduction:

*** The Arabist Hans Jansen was one of the expert witnesses called by the defense at the Geert Wilders Trial. He gave explanations of Mr. Wilders’ statements about Islam and the Quran, such as “A moderate Islam does not exist.” According to Jansen, that is correct:“There are moderate Muslims, but no moderate Islam.”

On comparing the Quran with Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Professor Jansen declared that there are more anti-Semitic passages in the Quran than in Mein Kampf. He also said that the Quran commands violence in the imperative. Professor Jansen agreed the Quran incites to hatred and murder.“As long as it only concerns unbelievers,” Jansen added.***

Washington Post vs. New York Times Opinion Pages Reviewing Obama’s Reign

Dennis Prager often remarks that the Washington Post, allthough a liberal institution, is a far more reliable, truth oriented, fair aware newspaper than the New York Times,….the latter he considers a loser.   If there is any doubt one might compare the opinion page analyses of the two interpreting the November 2 Republican victories.   Here is an opinion piece from the Washington Post.  Its title is “Obama Pledges More Openness after Shellacking.”

“THERE IS A certain sameness to presidential rhetoric in the aftermath of an electoral thumping – or, as President Obama put it, “shellacking.” The president acknowledges the voters’ verdict, accepts his (unspecified) share of the responsibility, vows to put aside partisan differences to find common-ground solutions. The tone will be more civil, the voters’ point taken: They are fed up with Washington business as usual. So it was Wednesday when Mr. Obama came to the microphone to discuss election results that, if not disastrous for his party, came awfully close.

As shellackees go, though, Mr. Obama did not exactly sound chastened – although he allowed that “it feels bad” to see so many lawmakers who supported his policies lose their seats. Mr. Obama did not phrase it in such blunt terms, but his diagnosis about what went wrong boiled down to voter failure, however understandable, to perceive the wisdom of his administration’s actions. The economy is stabilized, and jobs are growing in the private sector, Mr. Obama said, yet “people all across America aren’t feeling that progress. They don’t see it.” The administration had to respond to so many emergencies so fast, he added, that “it felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people’s lives than they were accustomed to” – and the accompanying “price tags” only added to the public’s anxiety. Meanwhile, “we were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn’t change how things got done.” Asked whether the vote reflected a rejection of his administration’s policies, Mr. Obama wasn’t biting. “If right now we had 5 percent unemployment instead of 9.6 percent unemployment, then people would have more confidence in those policy choices,” he said.

There is truth in much of Mr. Obama’s argument, and as much as Tuesday’s outcome was anticipated, it takes some time for any administration in this position to adjust to its changed circumstances. Nonetheless, we would have preferred to see more in the way of a presidential acknowledgement that voters’ reaction might be more than simple misperception on their part or failure to communicate adequately on his. Certainly, Mr. Obama’s description of his new administration coping with a flurry of emergencies does not extend to his decision to launch an ambitious health-reform agenda in the midst of the maelstrom. Mr. Obama said voters were understandably disappointed that the change in atmosphere he had promised had failed to materialize. But the examples he cited – the “ugly mess” of getting health reform passed, or the fact that he, “in the rush to get things done, had to sign a bunch of bills that had earmarks in them” – involved hard-headed decisions on the part of administration strategists to do what it took to achieve their ends. Those choices may have been correct, but why should voters think Mr. Obama would behave differently when circumstances call for it in the future?

If Mr. Obama faces difficulties operating in a new environment, so, too, do Republican leaders. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has a bolstered but potentially fractious caucus. The incoming speaker, John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), has the task of joining in governing rather than simply criticizing and maneuvering for advantage. The challenges for the president and congressional Republicans will come quickly: how to handle the expiring tax cuts, what to do about a needed increase in the debt ceiling early next year. Wednesday was full of promises of respectful openness to the other side’s positions. The coming months will put those promises to the test.”

              Let’s look at the New York Time Opinion page article:  “Sorting Out the Election”.

“Tuesday’s election was indeed a “shellacking” for the Democrats, as President Obama admitted after a long night of bad news. It was hardly an order from the American people to discard the progress of the last two years and start over again.

Mr. Obama was on target when he said voters howled in frustration at the slow pace of economic recovery and job creation. To borrow his running automotive metaphor, voters threw the keys at Republicans and told them to drive for a while, but gave almost no indication of what direction to drive in.

Republican leaders, who will take over the House and have a bigger minority in the Senate, say they heard the American people tell them to repeal the “monstrosity” of health care reform, in the words of the likely House speaker, John Boehner. In fact, the American people said no such thing. In polls of Tuesday’s voters, only 18 percent said health care was the nation’s top issue. While 48 percent of voters said they wanted to repeal the health care law, 47 percent said they wanted to keep it the way it is or expand it — hardly a roaring consensus.

The “loud message” to cut spending cited by Mr. Boehner was actually far more muted. The polls showed that 39 percent of voters say cutting the deficit should be the highest priority of Congress, but a statistically equal 37 percent prefer spending money to create jobs. Fully a third of those who want to spend money to create jobs were Republicans.

More voters (correctly) blamed President George W. Bush for the economic problems than President Obama, and even more (also correctly) blamed Wall Street.

The Republican victory was impressive and definitive, although voters who made it happen were hardly spread evenly across the electorate. The victory was built largely on the heavy turnout of older blue-collar white men, most in the South or the rusting Midwest.

Democratic candidates did better among voters younger than 30, minorities, city dwellers, and those living on the East or West Coasts. But women essentially split their vote between the parties — and that is a major challenge to the Democrats, who also failed to turn out their core voters among young people and minorities.

The new Republican officeholders will have to quickly address the economic pain and fear expressed by the voters who flocked to them in frustration. But it does those voters no good to say the answer is as simple as cutting discretionary government spending. It is time to show how cuts would lead to jobs and to specify which ones should be made — and how they plan to reduce the deficit while also preserving the Bush-era tax cuts.

Mr. Obama offered some specific ideas. Extending unemployment insurance. Extending tax cuts for the middle class. Providing tax breaks for companies that are investing in American research and development.

He proposed finding common ground on energy policy, developing domestic natural gas resources and encouraging electric cars. He took Republicans up on their offer to start banning earmarks, while urging greater investment in infrastructure. And he acknowledged that he could have done more to change Washington’s messy and secretive ways, and to have been in closer touch with those suffering from the recession.

The question is how the Republicans will act. For two years, they have refused to cooperate on any of those ideas, simply to deny Mr. Obama a policy victory and try to reduce his re-election prospects. If they are serious about accepting Tuesday’s mantle, they will join in governing and not simply posturing.”

Comment:  One of these opinion pieces, in my view is a hack job……it might as well be a press release from the Obama re-election committee.   It is a political advertisment.  

Johnny Carson Runs for Office

Before it became chic in America to espouse Marxism, there was Johnny Carson in the evening.   Good friend and former teacher colleague of mine, Mark Waldeland sent me this youtube video of one of Carson’s  masterpiece performances portraying  an American figure…in this case, the potentate politician:

Take a look:         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKgmScYcK6g

A German View of Nov. 2: “Settling Accounts with Mr. Perfect.”

The following is from an article from the German publication, Der Spiegel by Gregor Peter Schmitz:

The Country’s Lecturer-in-Chief

“America, indeed the entire world, fell in love with the idea in November, 2008 of having a young, black president in the White House. Voters felt that they could be a part of the change that they so wanted — a change that Obama promised so eloquently.

But the voters’ affection evaporated quickly. Campaigns are like poetry, it is said, whereas governing is prose. To be sure, the crises Obama faced when he took the oath of office were enormous. But so too were the opportunities — like that of explaining to Americans how urgently reforms were needed.

Obama, the great communicator, turned into the country’s lecturer-in-chief. His reforms required a vision to give them an overarching structure. But instead, Obama preferred to go on about the failures of his predecessor George W. Bush, who had long retired to his ranch in Texas. Or else he analyzed how the impact of the global recession would have been far worse without him and his economic rescue team.

His advisors seem to still believe that the public just doesn’t understand how much good Obama has achieved, from health care reform to tougher regulations for the Wall Street gamblers.

They may well be right. But they are not doing the president any favors. No American without work wants to hear how the unemployment figures would be at 15 percent instead of 10 percent if it were not for the man in the White House. And no one casts their vote out of gratitude.

Uncertainty in America

It seems to have escaped Obama, the great listener, just how fragile the American Dream has become for many Americans or how much they yearn for clear words about their future — rather than details about health insurance. Instead of listening he has become deaf in the White House. He has not understood how uncertain Americans have become. Perhaps because he has always seemed so self-assured himself.

From day one Obama made it look as if he had grown up in the Oval Office — and continued in his role there as Mr. Perfect: the slender athlete, the award-winning author, the smooth orator, the loving husband and father. Not to mention, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate.

When America is feeling self-confident and optimistic it can adore this kind of president, like John F. Kennedy was idolized during the Camelot era. However, an America that is uncertain and at odds with itself can find it hard to place its trust in someone who seems so perfect. That too helps to explain why so many people see the former community worker as a member of the establishment — someone who is allegedly in cahoots with Wall Street and who doesn’t take care of ordinary people.

One may find it ironic, unfair even, that the Republicans are profiting from this. But Obama must realize that he himself is part of the problem. That is his only chance of repeating Bill Clinton’s success. Clinton shifted towards the center following the crushing defeat for his Democrats in the 1994 Congressional elections.

Becoming More Humble

Clinton accepted criticism and listened to it. He joked about his weaknesses. It was in his nature to court opponents. After his mid-term defeat he quickly cooperated with the Republicans to forge a major welfare reform.

Obama has never had to court favor, people regarded him as a star right from the start. He takes himself seriously, he only trusts a small number of close aides and he finds it hard to charm members of Congress.

// <![CDATA[
if (navigator.userAgent.indexOf('iPhone') == -1) {
document.writeln('

');
document.writeln('');
document.writeln('');
document.writeln("OAS_RICH('Middle3');");
document.writeln('\/\/ -'+'->');
document.writeln('');
document.writeln('');
}
// ]]>

//

But he has no alternative now. He has to take the anger of the voters seriously even if they supported the Tea Party. He may even have to negotiate with Republicans about measures to curb the budget deficit. The political messiah needs to eat a piece of humble pie.

Clinton responded to his mid-term setback by singling out small issues that he could turn into big victories. Suddenly the world’s most powerful man was fighting for school uniforms or television programming for children. These were minor policies, but they were popular. Clinton soon managed to claw himself back up in opinion polls.

During the election campaign Obama poked fun at such maneuvers. After all, he wanted to change the country. “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president,” he said in January. If he sticks to that view, he won’t have the choice.”

Comment:  I wonder if there are any Germans, any Europeans, who sense that maybe “The Bigger the Government….the Smaller the Citizen”, might ever be in a voter’s mind at voting time.