Taliban To Gain Control Of A Nuclear-Armed Pakistan?

I remember the libs stamping their feet and screaming that the election of Barack Obama would make the world a safer, better place. Well, someone forgot to tell that to the Taliban in Pakistan.

The Taliban is threatening to topple the Pakistani government. From the Daily Mail:

Extremists are now just 60 miles from the capital Islamabad, sparking fears that they are are poised to wrest control of the country, which has nuclear capability. This morning a Taliban spokesman said that fighters would withdraw from Buner later today. 'Our leader has ordered that Taliban should immediately be called back from Buner,' spokesman Muslim Khan said. Khan belongs to a faction led by Taliban commander Fazlullah, whose stronghold is in the neighbouring Swat valley where the government has caved in to demands for the imposition of Islamic law. The announcement came hours after the capital Islamabad came under threat from Taliban fighters. It is feared that the state is one the brink of collapse as Taliban fighters get closer to the nuclear powers of the country. As violence broke out in the north-west corner of the country, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Pakistan posed a 'mortal threat' to the world. 'I think the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and the extremists,' she added. And White House spokesman Robert Gibbs echoed her concerns. He said last night: 'The news over the past several days is very disturbing.'

(Trucks burning after Taliban militants attacked a NATO staging area.)

Keep a close eye on this one, folks. Just as the Somali pirate problem was the first question on Obama's test, this is now the second question. And given Pakistan's claim to possess nuclear weapons, this becomes even more interesting.

How will Obama respond to a terrorist regime governing a nuclear-armed Pakistan? That will most certainly qualify as a defining moment for the United States.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

You Have One Last Chance To Retreat - Or Face The Consequences, Pakistan Leader Tells Taliban Militants
Liz Hazleton
Daily Mail UK
April 24, 2009

UK Senior Judge: Nothing "Honorable" About Muslims Abusing And Killing Their Own Families

How many times have we read stories about "honor killings" or forced marriages or abuse of Muslim children? Far too many times.

I used to think that most (if not all Europeans) were simply too scared to speak out in the face of a Muslim culture that is coming to dominate them. Well, over in the United Kingdom, at least one sane, rational voice is speaking out. That voice belongs to Lord Justice Wall, a senior judge in the U.K. judicial system.

According to the Daily Mail Online:

Lord Justice Wall, giving a ruling on a case involving three Muslim children put in the care of white foster parents, said the time had come to 're-think the phrase honour killing'. He had heard that a mother had set fire to one of her three children and tried to burn down the house where they lived in an attempt to incriminate her sister-in-law. The sister-in-law 'presented a problem to the family' and had fled the home after being beaten and her first child murdered by her husband, the mother's brother. The judge said: 'The message from this case, which must be sent out loud and clear, is that this court applies a tolerant and human rights based rule of law: one which... regards parents as equals and the welfare of the child as paramount. 'That is the law of England, and that is the law which applies in this case. Arson, domestic violence and potential revenge likely to result in abduction or death are criminal acts which will be treated as such.' He said the activities brought to light by the case had 'nothing to do with any concept of honour known to English law'. 'They are acts of simply sordid, criminal behaviour and a refusal to acknowledge them as such.'

Wow! Those are some strong words and they are exactly the words that needed to be said. Two things to note:

1. Abuse and killing of family members has "nothing to do with any concept of honour known to English law."

2. The acts are "of simply sordid criminal behaviour."

That is stripping the issue down to the bare-bones essentials. Islamics who abuse and kill their own family members have no place in the civilized society of the West. That much is clear from point Number 1.

Point Number 2 serves as a reminder that moral relativism has no place in the application of laws and that all laws must be applied equally to all people across the board. As such, Muslims who abuse and kill their own family members should not be considered as adherents to a different set of beliefs, but merely common criminals who need to be held accountable and punished for their crimes.

How bad can it get? Read on:

The mother of the children - a girl aged 11 and boys of nine and five - is 32 and serving a five-year jail sentence for arson. One of her brothers had contracted a second marriage to a woman in Pakistan who came to England in 2003 pregnant with her first child. That child was taken to hospital aged 27 months suffering from multiple injuries and died. It was not known the motivation for the killing but among the injuries on the child were signs of chronic sexual abuse.

A 27-month-old child. That's not even three years. What motivates a person to physically harm a defenseless little human being like that?

I went to school here in the West and we were never taught to do anything like that. In fact, we were taught that such behavior is simply evil and that those who engage in such actions should be severely punished.

But, in certain Muslim cultures, such behavior is acceptable and encouraged and when it happens, is justified under Sharia law.

Now, I know some Muslims out there will complain that these people do not represent mainstream Islam. But my response to this complaint is that instead of berating people like me, they should go after these abusers and murderers and tell them to stop claiming to be acting in the name of Islam.

The people of Europe would do very well to listen to the admonitions of Lord Justice Wall. Maybe it's not too late yet.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Senior Judge Condemns Use Of The Word 'Honour' To Describe Abuse And Murder Within Muslim Families
Daily Mail Reporter
March 16, 2009

A Look At What Joe Biden Meant Last Sunday And Democrats Resorting To Violence

Joe Biden let slip some very important information last Sunday when he spoke about how Obama would be tested in his first six months of his presidency and that his decisions would be unpopular with the American people.

Well, what would those situations be? And what decisions would be made?

Herb Denenberg of The Bulletin looks at that in his most recent column:

Why would they test his mettle? This was unsaid, but you test someone's mettle when you don't know what he's made of or when you suspect he's weak and you want to start testing for weakness. But here's why Sen. Biden is wrong on the world testing Sen. Obama's mettle. No one has to test his mettle. They know he is weak on foreign policy, and has a heavy tinge of appeasement, retreat, defeat, and surrender - as does the Democratic Party, which nominated him. Our enemies already knows Sen. Obama is weak and soft, as is his party, so our enemies will just proceed with their plans for terrorism and aggression. Why would the Russians want to test his mettle? They saw what he is made of by his reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia. First, Sen. Obama called for restraint on both sides. So the Russians know, that in the face of aggression, instead of taking a firm stand with an ally and innocent victim, Sen. Obama calls for restraint on the part of the victim being invaded. Why test someone who has so clearly flunked his exam? Then the Russians heard Sen. Obama suggest the matter be sent to the Security Council. The Russians now know he is so wet behind the ears on foreign policy that he doesn't even know the Russians have a veto in the Security Council and could make sure nothing happened there. Then the Russians heard Sen. Obama observe that we'd be in a better position to complain about this aggression if we set a good example ourselves. So the Russians know he equates their illegal, unprovoked aggression against Georgia with America's legal, U.N.-sanctioned liberation of Iraq from the murderous Saddam Hussein, the butcher of Baghdad. This tells the Russians he doesn't approve of America using armed force to defend its national interests and he doesn't have the sense to refrain from criticizing his own country in a time of international crisis.

And on Iran, Obama is known for this:

The Iranians would lose no time in attacking one of their neighbors, most likely Israel. Perhaps by then armed with nuclear weapons, they would use them on a neighbor, or threaten to blackmail a neighbor or perhaps even a continent such as Europe, if certain concessions were not forthcoming. Obama would call for restraint, and assure the American people again, as he has already done, that Iran is a tiny country and not a real threat to the U.S. The Iranians know he said this while they were killing American troops in Iraq, sending terrorists and weapons into Iraq and serving as the headquarters of international terrorism. The Iranians know what others have already said - Sen. Obama is a Jimmy-Carter type, only worse. They know how President Carter locked himself in the White House and did not face down international lawlessness after the Iranian took American hostages at our embassy in Teheran. Why test his mettle, when his record suggests an enemy of America can invade, attack, and terrorize with impunity. Remember his reaction to 9/11 - the typical liberal, leftist response. We've got to understand why they did such a terrible thing. Anyone with good judgment would say we've got to kill and defeat all those responsible for this mass murder. When Pastor Rick Warren asked him what he would do about evil, he danced around like a confused college professor. When Sen. McCain was asked the same question, he said, without hesitation, you defeat it. Terrorists would be aware of Sen. Obama's reaction to the first bombing of the World Trade Center. He said you handle it with the legal system and prosecute wrongdoers. I'm sure al-Qaeda is trembling waiting for a grand jury and indictments from Obama? Will that really deter terrorists or just give them a fat laugh? Like Obama, President Clinton believed in the law enforcement approach to terrorism, and that mistake led directly to 9/11.

And Biden should know what it means to be wrong on foreign policy issues. He has made more than his share of mistakes along the way:

Our enemies know how naïve Sen. Obama is on foreign policy, as they know he announced to the world that if he knew where Osama bin Laden was and if he were in Pakistan, he would strike him without permission of that country. Sen. Kit Bond, an intelligence expert whose comments will be discussed in more detail later, says Sen. Obama "doesn't understand how dangerous it would be to destabilize Pakistan and allow their radical fringes to take over." His outburst on this subject betrays a lack of understanding on how to deal with a present ally in a most precarious position. And all the axis of evil would be emboldened knowing that Sen. Obama's key adviser on foreign policy would likely be Sen. Biden, who has a record of being wrong and often weak on almost all questions of foreign policy. Consider a few of his hare-brained judgments: * After Iraq invaded Kuwait, Sen. Biden opposed the first war against Iraq. He apparently was willing to cede the entire Middle East and all of its oil to Saddam Hussein. * Before Sen. McCain succeeded in turning the tide toward American victory in Iraq, Sen. Biden wanted to break Iraq into a group of separate nations that would include a Sunni state, a Shia state and a Kurdish state.

And finally this:

Sen. Bond summarized the whole Obama approach: "He [Obama] dismisses the threat, rewards enemies with summit meetings, abandons allies and then refuses to support trade agreements with vital allies like Colombia, who are fighting off the narco-terrorists."

It will not look good for the United States if Barack Obama gets into the White House. He will invite attacks against innocent Americans and then refuse to effectively respond to those attacks which will, in turn, invite more attacks.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obama Would Weaken, Destroy American Defenses And Bring Challenges
Herb Denenberg
The Bulletin
October 22, 2008

---

And here is a news story you will never see in the MSM unless the politcal affiliations were reversed. from Pajames Media:

While the Democrat-leaning media continues to scare undecided voters with bedtime stories about some mythical angry McCain supporter whom nobody has seen, here is a real district attorney’s complaint documenting an unprovoked assault by an enraged Democrat against a McCain volunteer in midtown Manhattan: “Defendant grabbed the sign [informant] was holding, broke the wood stick that was attached to it, and then struck informant in informant’s face thereby causing informant to sustain redness, swelling, and bruising to informant’s face and further causing informant to sustain substantial pain.”

The overly formal document doesn’t mention this important detail: the victim was a small, quiet, middle-aged woman wearing glasses, and the attacker was a loud, angry man who went into orbit at the mere sight of McCain campaign signs. On a Monday afternoon, September 15, 2008, three McCain volunteers were holding campaign signs and distributing leaflets on a busy corner of 51st Street and Lexington Avenue. As they were peacefully talking to each other, they were approached by a man who, in the words of the victim, provided the impression of “a rather benign, doughy-looking guy — not a person I would have expected to assault me.”

Here is a picture of the attacker:



You can access the complete blog entry on-line here:

Obama Supporter Assaults Female McCain Volunteer in New York
Pajamamedia.com
October 17, 2008

Benazir Bhutto, Rest In Peace

I was going to post some other articles today, but they paled in comparison to the news from yesterday. David Ignatius, writing for Investor's Business Daily has the following to say about Benazir Bhutto:

I remember encountering her once when she was a graduate student at Oxford, shaking up the august and occasionally somnolent Oxford Union debating society as its president. She was wearing a Rolling Stones T-shirt, the one with the sassy tongue sticking out, and I recall thinking that Pakistani politics would never be the same once she returned home. In later years, I would see her during her periodic visits to Washington after she assumed her family's mantle of political leadership and became prime minister in 1988, at the age of 35. She changed in her outward appearance, wearing a head scarf and traditional clothes as she matured, but not in her inner passion for change. Bhutto was fearless, from her college years in America to her cruel assassination Thursday. She had an unshakable belief that Pakistan should embrace the modern world with the same confidence and courage that she had.

Although the corruption charges that marred her second term as Prime Minister were legitimate, she was Pakistan's trail-blazer into the modern political world and thus a symbol for others to follow.

Rest In Pace, Madam Prime Minister.

Bhutto Paid Ultimate Price For Freedom
David Ignatius
Investor's Business Daily
December 27, 2007