While Obama Sleeps, British PM David Cameron Speaks Out Against Multiculturalism

Islamist immingrants are not interested in blending into western society.   The days of accepting enemies to your home soil must be ended.  

United Kingdom Prime Miniester, David Cameron calls multiculturalism a failure corroding the freedoms once enjoyed in Britain.  I wonder why American President Barack Hussein Obama is not listening.   Click on below for the video:

http://thevirtuousrepublic.com/?p=6959

Reagan Admitting His Fault for the Nation’s Faltering Economy (and other jokes)

It is very popular these days for the American leftwing gurus to pretend Barack Obama is the new Ronald Reagan.  While Reagan was alive comparing the ex-president with any Democrat would have been a Marxist insult.

Click here for a video recording of President Reagan admitting to making an error of judgment regarding the nation’s sluggish economy at the time:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRUbwnkEPqc

We are awaiting for the first EVER of graduate school president Barack Obama to confess an error at any front.

Here is another video, a compilation of many of his humerous remarks to lighten his crowd and himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X39dGQmBEww\

The third video records some of the Soviet jokes president Reagan enjoyed telling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN3z3eSVG7A

Thanks go to Mark Waldeland for submitting the videos to us.

A Closer View of the Signs Carried by Egyptian Freedom Fighters

 We weren’t shown these sign by our American correspondents coverying the rebellion in Cairo…..Why?

The following article, “Democracy or Jew Hatred” and related pictures were  found at Pajamas Media, written by John Rosenthal:

“In response to my PJM article documenting anti-Semitic imagery at the Egyptian protests, I’ve received several comments — both in public and in private — suggesting that, nevertheless, anti-Semitic and/or “anti-Zionist” sentiment among the protestors has played only a marginal role. The assurances to this effect are typically based on the first-hand accounts of Western observers or English-speaking participants with Western contacts. These accounts are supposed somehow to trump the clear pictorial evidence to the contrary.

The appearance of anti-Semitic and/or “anti-Zionist” motifs in the photos and videos of the protests is, however, simply too widespread and systematic for such assurances to reassure. Such images are to be found in video and photographic material from virtually every major Western news organization present in Egypt. This fact is all the more significant when one considers that the reports published or broadcast by these very same news organizations have as a rule outright ignored any anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli sentiment among the protestors. Indeed, as will be seen below, even more outrageous images figure prominently in the flickr streams of amateur local photographers.

Herewith further evidence.

(video still; source: CNN; hat-tip Bruce Bawer)

(Reuters Photo; source: Hashem Studios Board)

(AP photo; source: N-TV German television)

(Imago Photo; source: Tagesspiegel)

(Keystone/AP photo; source: Tagesanzeiger)

The below image is a rarely seen Reuters photo. According to the Reuters photo description, it shows the effigy of Hosni Mubarak that was famously hanged in Tahrir Square last Tuesday. Most of the photos of the hanging effigy that have appeared in the media consist of long-distance shots from behind. This close-up of the front of the effigy clearly reveals the Star of David painted on its tie. Note too the American dollars sticking out of one of its pockets. As shown in my last article, the effigy of Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman, which was also abused by protestors, likewise had a Star of David drawn on its tie.

(Reuters Photo: source: Hashem Studios Board)

The above photo and the second photo in the preceding series were both found on an English-language pro-protester/anti-Mubarak discussion forum named the Hashem Studios Board. The thread from which they are taken is titled “The Egyptian Revolution.” The thread is replete with anti-Israeli vitriol.

Such vitriol includes comments like “Israel after we are done with Mubarak, we will come for you!!!” In response to the sarcastic question “Whats a pro mubarak protester?,” another commentator replies, “Yeah good question, does he look like this….,” and posts the following cartoon.

Protestors interviewed by CNN’s Nick Robertson during the first week of demonstrations unleashed a remarkably similar torrent of hatred toward Israel and the United States. “He supporting Israel, Israel is our enemy, we hate him!” one female protestor screamed as regards Mubarak. And then she screamed some more: “Israel and America supported him, we hate them all!”

Continued on Next Page ->

Whereas his female companion did nothing but spew hatred, a male protestor did at least bring up the aspirations of Egyptians to be free. This is what he said about them: “The United States stand beside Hosni Mubarak one hundred percent, because they know if Hosni Mubarak fell, the whole people in Egypt they gonna be free. And if the people free in Egypt, … they gonna go free the Palestinians! They gonna destroy Israel! The country that controls the United States is Israel!” (The interview can be found here. For the context of the interview, see here.)

Note that the evidence that I have assembled above and in my previous article is based solely upon searches of English- and German-language sources. It presumably represents just a fraction of the evidence that could be found in Arabic sources. To test this hypothesis, I did a flickr search on the name Mubarak in Arabic (مبارك). This led me to the following photos from the Egypt protests.

Ironically, the second-to-last photo above appears to have been taken in front of an office of the European Union. Here is a close-up detail.

It seems that the Western news organizations present in Egypt have been kindly “sparing” their audiences the most blatantly offensive images. The local photographers obviously have no such inhibitions.

The flickr streams make clear that most of the posters displayed at the demonstrations did not in fact contain any pictures or symbols at all. They consist of pure Arabic text. It would undoubtedly by highly revealing to have those posters translated. Translations of the Arabic text present on the above posters would be greatly appreciated.”

John Rosenthal writes regularly on European politics for such publications as The Weekly Standard, Policy Review and The Daily Caller.

Obama Budget: More Spending…..More Taxes! What Did You Expect from This Marxist Government Man?

By JONATHAN WEISMAN And DAMIAN PALETTA

“Obama Budget Proposes Broader Unemployment Taxes”……Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama’s budget proposal is expected to give states a way to collect more payroll taxes from businesses, in an effort to replenish the unemployment-insurance program. The plan could cause controversy at a time when the administration is seeking to mend fences with corporate America.

The proposal would aim to restock strained state unemployment-insurance trust funds by raising the amount of wages on which companies must pay unemployment taxes to $15,000, more than double the $7,000 in place since 1983.

More

Executives Skeptical Obama Can Deliver (Jan. 27)

Labor Shortage Persists in Some Fields (Feb 7)

No Rush to Hire Even as Profits Soar (Feb. 7)

The plan, which would take effect in 2014, could increase payroll taxes by as much as $100 billion over a decade, according to a person involved in its construction.

By proposing to enlarge the pool of wages subject to unemployment taxes, the White House appears to be offering states a more politically palatable way to raise revenues than to boost tax rates. States could keep the tax rates they have, or even lower them somewhat, and still raise considerably more revenue than they are raising now.

The unemployment insurance program is a joint federal-state program. The federal unemployment insurance tax rate of 6.2% on the new, larger base would be reduced, so that the U.S. would be taking in no more revenue than it does under the current system, a person familiar with the plan said.

To avoid hitting businesses with a tax increase during the economic recovery, the proposal would delay the new rules until 2014. The plan is expected to be included in Mr. Obama’s budget proposal for fiscal 2012, to be released Monday.

See state-by-state unemployment rates, dating back to the end of the recent recession.

States in the Red

See state-by-state details on tax revenue shortfalls and budget gaps.

 

Any proposal would need congressional approval.

State governments have had to borrow heavily from the federal government to cover the jobless benefits they provide. States are responsible for the first 26 weeks of benefits, and many have seen their reserve funds wiped out.

More than 40 states raised their unemployment-insurance payroll taxes last year to boost revenues.

The proposal comes as the White House is trying to improve relations with business groups while also pushing them for financial help to shore up the unemployment insurance system, drained by prolonged high joblessness.

Republican aides on Capitol Hill reacted warily. Increasing levies on businesses in the next few years could hit a wall of opposition among Republicans, said one senior G.O.P. tax aide in the Senate. Mr. Obama delivered a speech on Monday to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to repair frayed relations with business and offering areas of possible cooperation.

Mr. Obama has promised business an effort to simplify the corporate tax code while lowering the corporate tax rate. Pushing for higher unemployment taxes could reignite tensions.

—Sara Murray contributed to this article.

Roger Kimball: The Jimmy Carter in Barack Obama

Only Roger Kimball’s article in Pajamas Media was titled, “Remember Iran as you Think about Egypt:

“As you ponder what the Obama administration means by “now” — the time for Hosni Mubarak to begin the transition of power, Obama said again yesterday, is “now” — close your eyes and think back, back, all the way back to 1979.

That was when our “friend” and “ally” the Shah of Iran was unceremoniously booted out of Teheran to make way for the Ayatollah Khomeni. Remember him? Scary guy, right?

Yes, right. But not everyone thought so at the time. Andrew Bostom just posted a little trip down memory lane called “The ‘Trusting Khomeni’ Syndrome, Redux?” It stars Professor (natch, he would be a professor) Richard Falk, “activist on world affairs,” emeritus professor at Princeton, etc., etc.

“Bostom does us all the service of reprinting a good deal of  Falk’s surreal editorial about the “exotic” Ayatollah in — can you guess? — The New York Times. The date was February 16, 1979, just as the new Islamic regime was taking power in Teheran. What should we in the West think of this new government?

A few days ago, Bruce Riedel cheerfully advised us: “Don’t Fear Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.”  Back in 1979, Richard Falk  was telling us all about “Trusting Khomeni.”  He had just been to see the Ayatollah.  Conclusion? Nothing to worry about.  “Having created a new model of popular revolution based, for the most part, on non-violent tactics. Iran may yet provide us with a desperately-needed model of humane governance for a third-world country.”

Bostom quotes Khomeni from 1942, who puts a novel spin on Mr. Falk’s understanding of phrases like “non-violent tactics,” “humane governance,” etc. Here is Khomeni in 1942:

Those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under Allah’s law (Sharia). … Islam says: ‘Kill [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter their armies.’ Islam says: ‘Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors (jihadists)!’ There are hundreds of other Koranic psalms and hadiths (sayings of the prophet) urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim. …Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless.

I’ve always thought the same thing!

But let’s return to Professor Falk:

Part of the confusion in America about Iran’s social revolution involves Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. More than any third-world leader, he has been depicted in a manner calculated to frighten.

…In recent months, before his triumphant return to Tehran, the Ayatollah gave numerous reassurances to non-Moslem communities in Iran. He told Jewish community leaders that it would be a tragedy if many of the 80,000 Jews left the country. Of course this view is qualified by his hostility to Israel because of its support of the Shah and its failure to resolve the Palestinian question.

He also indicated that the non-religious left will be free to express its views in an Islamic republic and to participate in political life, provided only that it does not “commit treason against the country” by establishing foreign connections—a lightly-veiled reference to anxiety about Soviet interference.

To suppose that Ayatollah Khomeini is dissembling seems almost beyond belief. His political style is to express his real views defiantly and without apology, regardless of consequences. He has little incentive suddenly to become devious for the sake of American public opinion. Thus the depiction of him as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false. What is also encouraging is that his entourage of close advisers is uniformly composed of moderate progressive individuals…[T]hey are widely respected in Iran outside religious circles, share a notable record of concern for human rights and seem eager to achieve economic development that results in a modern society oriented on satisfying the whole population’s basic needs.

Ayatollah Khomeini said recently, in France, that in any well-governed society “the ruler does not live very differently from the ordinary person.” For him, to be religious is to struggle for these political goals, yet the religious leader’s role is to inspire politics, not to govern. Hence, it is widely expected that he will soon go to the holy city of Qum, at a remove from the daily exercise of power. There he will serve as a guide or, if necessary, as a critic of the republic.

In looking to the future, Ayatollah Khomeini has spoken of his hopes to show the world what a genuine Islamic government can do on behalf of its people. He has made clear frequently that he scorns what he considers to be the so-called Islamic Governments in Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Pakistan.

Despite the turbulence, many non-religious Iranians talk of this period as “Islam’s finest hour.”

Be sure to read Andrew Bostom’s original post: it interweaves a lot of illuminating commentary about Khomeni’s “humane” vision of government. It also links to this useful compendium of things Khomeni promised as compared to what he actually did.

Richard Falk: he is only one in a long line of Ivy League intellectuals who take to the pages of organs like The New York Times to dispense their “progressive” anti-American fantasies. Were Falk in his prime (he was born in 1930), he surely would be there next to Bruce Riedel on the roster of Obama’s foreign policy advisors.”

Obama’s head goes East, but his tail goes West?

 Richard Fernandez’s article at Pajamas Media is titled, “Mr. Dithers”.

“Alex Johnson at MSNBC  says Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman has ticked off the Obama administration [by declaring that Egypt was unready for democracy], but the White House is sticking to its position that he’s in charge of the transition to a new government that it won’t determine.” Pressed on what it would do to rebuff Suleiman, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said:

“I speak for the president of the United States.”

He went on to say, however, that disputes like that “can’t be arbitrated by us.”

“That’s going to be determined by the reaction in Cairo and by the people,” he said.

Gibbs’ statement that the response which cannot “be arbitrated by us” is going to come from somebody else, presumably from reactions “by the people,” is the characteristic signature of an administration which has trying to have it both ways.  This occurred as demonstrations, rather than dying down, have gotten bigger than ever, according to the BBC:

Mark Steyn on Detroit and the Chrysler Super Bowl Ad

 The following video is from Mark Steyn’s website, SteynonLine:

When Mark Steyn substituted for Rush Limbaugh this week, Mark took advantage of the opportunity to say a few words about Detroit, its 50% illiteracy rate in the city, the government ownership of Chrysler and General Motors, and  the nine million dollar tag the American tax payer paid for the Chrysler department’s Super Bowl Ad:

http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-steyn-on-absurd-chrysler-commercial

For more than fifty years the city of Detroit has been almost exclusively a  black American  plantation society kept under control by the Democrat Party bossman who delivers them the goodies for their vote during political elections.

What ever happened to community enterprise?….competition?

This one party system is the goal of the American Progressive for the America of their future.

The Huntington Post Rip-off

The following is from Pajamas media, written by Tom Blumer:

“On Monday, AOL Inc. announced that it will buy The Huffington Post for $315 million. Paul Farhi at the Washington Post writes:

In effect, [Arianna] Huffington is taking over AOL.

A Reuters story by Anthony Boadle and Jennifer Saba properly questions the deal’s wisdom:

The move … comes at a hefty premium. AOL is estimated to be paying 32 times earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization for The Huffington Post, said Benchmark Co. analyst Clayton Moran. Similar content deals, such as Hellman & Friedman’s acquisition of Internet Brands in September 2010, typically go for eight to 12 times earnings, said Moran.

Based on conventional metrics, AOL is overpaying by roughly $200 million. Why?

Perhaps it’s because this deal looks like a bargain compared to other clunkers in AOL’s past. In 2000, AOL bought Time Warner for $162 billion. Today, after a near-total unwinding of that deal and more business missteps than can be counted, the company is worth $2.34 billion. Oops, make that $2.26 billion — the stock fell 3.4% on Monday on news of the HuffPo acquisition. In June of last year, AOL sold the social network Bebo, an $850 million 2008 acquisition, for the princely sum of $10 million. These guys still know how to pick ‘em, don’t they?

Matt Drudge is making an issue of the fact that HuffPo’s backers “had sought an exit.” Well, of course they did. That’s what venture investors do, either by taking a company public or by selling out to a larger firm. There’s nothing unusual in that. What is unusual is that AOL, which has been telling the public that it has “built a news operation that relies far less on wire reports and focuses instead on original reporting, analysis and commentary,” would want to associate itself with:

•     An entity which, along with its principals, has been sued by a pair of former Democratic Party consultants who claim that Huffington and business partner Ken Lerer “stole their business idea.” It would be easy to dismiss the legal action as a money grab, but progressive co-plaintiffs Peter Daou and James Boyce are not minor actors, and at least on the surface their arguments seem credible.

•     A CEO who “has been accused of lifting portions of a number of her books from other authors, and in one case had to dole out a 5-figure settlement to put plagiarism charges to rest.”

•     Someone who appears to have started up her enterprise on false pretenses. Envirozealot Laurie David, a good friend of Arianna, has said that before the business began, “everybody was talking about the antidote to the Drudge Report, and from the very beginning she was thinking of that and so much more.” That’s interesting, because “in her initial blanket e-mail to recruit bloggers to the site, she promised it ‘won’t be left wing or right wing; indeed, it will punch holes in that very stale way of looking at the world.’” Late Monday evening, HuffPo’s home page featured very, very stale offerings from the left-wing likes of American Prospect co-founder Robert Kuttner, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research Dean Baker, Democratic Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and Mike Honda, the aforementioned Ms. David, Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke, and “special admirer” of Bill Clinton Nina Burleigh. The only item I located coming from a clearly sensible conservative perspective was one co-authored by Reason’s Nick Gillespie and Cato’s Veronique de Rugy.

•     An astroturfing activist chief executive who on impulse spent an estimated $250,000 so that 100 buses full of New Yorkers could attend Jon Stewart’s laughably misnamed “Rally to Restore Sanity” in Washington last October.

The guess here is that it was HuffPo and not personal money which paid for those buses. Arianna, who is a millionaire many times over thanks to a divorce settlement from her previous marriage, has nonetheless been remarkably proficient at keeping money from leaving her personal pockets, and just about as effective at keeping company cash locked in the vault.

At inception, Huffington’s investment consisted entirely of sweat equity; she “did not invest but brought in others who did.”

Her operation has been a pink-collar sweatshop from the beginning. In 2005, shortly after start-up, she told a Business Week blogger that the operation was suffering from a serious logjam:

Arianna Huffington tells me that HuffingtonPost, the meta blog she established in May, has a backlog of 15,000 comments to the site’s 400-odd blogs. She says that volunteers are wading through the comments and posting as many as they can. But they can’t keep up.

It must be nice to screw up your initial business planning and not have it cost you anything.

To the extent that some of the backroom folks still aren’t getting paid (according to Wikipedia, the operation has about 60 employees), they have lots of company. Since start-up, HuffPo hasn’t paid its bloggers either, despite getting $1 million, $5 million, $5 million, and $25 million, respectively, in angel, first-stage, second-stage, and third-stage funding, and achieving revenues of about $30 million. Even beyond the financial considerations noted earlier, AOL is gambling that HuffPo’s apparently across-the-board gratis arrangement with its content providers, who as of mid-2009 numbered about 4,000, will continue. Why in the world should it?

If an already well-heeled conservative or even a political agnostic built such a business model and allowed it to continue even after handsomely cashing out, news outlets would be ripping him or her limb from limb for serial exploitation of the naive. But because she holds politically correct views, and because her operation opportunistically serves as one of the left’s more ruthless and far from civil attack dogs, I expect that almost no one in the establishment press will even raise the issue.

This column will probably be one of the few places where you will see anyone question how Arianna Huffington and her investors can sleep at night with even more millions of dollars stashed safely away, knowing that they achieved their gains largely on the backs of free, starry-eyed help.”