Posts Tagged ‘UK’
Obama sent an envoy to Venezuela dictator Hugo Chavez’s funeral, but refuses to send anyone from his administration to honor Thatcher.
Why? Because a Socialist dictator like Chavez is an ideological ally, while a liberty-loving conservative like Thatcher is political enemy. That should tell you all you need to know about dark and dangerous Obama’s personal ideology truly is.
This is a deliberate, public slap in the face in front of the entire international community. Obama is a small, petty, dangerous man.
President Obama declined to send a high-level delegation to Wednesday’s funeral of Britain’s Margaret Thatcher. It’s a measure of how little he values the special relationship — and a sign of his own smallness.
Back in more gracious times, vice presidents routinely attended funerals of foreign dignitaries. As such, the presence of Vice President Joe Biden — if not Obama himself — would seem fitting for as significant a U.S. ally as the late Prime Minister Thatcher, if not out of warmth of feeling, then simply to represent the U.S.’ gratitude. Thatcher’s uncompromising friendship with the U.S. helped to set off a free-market revolution, end the Cold War, and left the U.S. and U.K. the standard-bearers for freedom in the world — the very basis of the power Obama now enjoys.
But appallingly, not even Biden could be spared for the funeral of the most consequential British prime minister since Winston Churchill.
[...] This snub shows Obama places partisan politics above leadership or statecraft.
Obama isn’t the only one deliberately insulting the memory of this great woman. The media is taking this opportunity to verbally burn her memory in effigy:
In the days leading up to Margaret Thatcher’s funeral on Wednesday, the three networks repeatedly hyped hateful, ugly attacks on the former Prime Minister of Britain, describing her as a “polarizing,” “divisive” figure. On Rock Center, his low-rated Friday night show, Brian Williams explained that it was “sad, but necessary to report” that, while Americans may like Thatcher, “It’s been a harsh couple of days …Tonight, the number one song on iTunes in Great Britain is the Wizard of Oz classic [Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead], in this case celebrating the death of the Iron Lady.”
On Sunday’s Today, Lester Holt began by insisting, “Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is proving to be as polarizing in death as she was in life.” He, too, highlighted angry liberals in Britain gleefully playing the mocking song. Leftist journalist Martin Bashir appeared on the program to bemoan the “controversial” Thatcher. He touted, “An online campaign has pushed the song Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead up towards the top of the British music charts.”
Bashir made sure to play a clip of a protester complaining, “I’m here to remember the victims, the victims of Margaret Thatcher and her society– her type of government.”
On Wednesday, CBS This Morning reporter Mark Phillips lectured, “Well, this funeral was going to be a tense and controversial affair even before [the Boston bombing.]” It was going to be “controversial’ to bury Thatcher, the woman elected three times in massive landslides?
On the April 17 Today, Keir Simmons reported live from the funeral route and deemed Thatcher a “divisive figure for many people in Britain.” He did allow that there were “many people here in the streets to pay their last respects.”
This last point, the massive outpouring of people who actually admired Thatcher, hasn’t received as much attention from the network reports.
The Real Legacy of Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s Iron Lady
View on YouTube
So long, Maggie! Say “Hi” to Ronnie for us! You’ll be missed!
Mrs. Thatcher’s predecessor as prime minister, the amiable but forgotten Sunny Jim Callaghan, once confided to a friend of mine that he thought Britain’s decline was irreversible and that the government’s job was to manage it as gracefully as possible. By 1979, even this modest aim seemed beyond the capabilities of the British establishment, and the nation turned to a woman who was one of the few even in a supposedly “conservative” party not to subscribe to the Callaghan thesis. She reversed the decline, at home and overseas.
[S]he understood that the biggest threat to any viable future for Britain was a unionized public sector that had awarded itself a lifestyle it wasn’t willing to earn. So she picked a fight with it, and made sure she won. In the pre-Thatcher era, union leaders were household names, mainly because they were responsible for everything your household lacked. Britain’s system of government was summed up in the unlovely phrase “beer and sandwiches at Number Ten” — which meant union grandees showing up at Downing Street to discuss what it would take to persuade them not to go on strike, and being plied with the aforementioned refreshments by a prime minister reduced to the proprietor of a seedy pub, with the Cabinet as his barmaids.
In 1990, when Mrs. Thatcher was evicted from office by her ingrate party’s act of matricide, the difference she’d made was such that in all the political panel discussions on TV that evening no producer thought to invite any union leaders. No one knew their names anymore.
What Reagan and Thatcher showed–and it is a lesson that may seem at odds with the conservative impulse that the private sector is the most significant–is what a difference political leadership can make. (Later Rudolph Giuliani showed the same thing–he was for urban policy what Reagan and Thatcher were for national policy.) They both inherited a mess: In Thatcher’s case she took over in 1979 following the “Winter of Discontent” when Britain was paralyzed by multiple strikes and high unemployment. As the Conservative advertising slogan had it, “Labour isn’t working.” Reagan, of course, took over from Jimmy Carter in the wake of the failed hostage-rescue mission and in the midst of a severe recession characterized by “stagflation.” Worst of all was a widespread loss of confidence in the future–both in Britain and America it was fashionable back then to imagine that the “the West” was finished and that the Soviet Union was ascendant.
Reagan and Thatcher would have none of it. Both were firmly outside the political and intellectual mainstream, and both were derided as simpletons for imagining that they could reverse the course of history. But that is precisely what they did–Reagan with his tax cuts (helped by Fed chairman Paul Volcker’s anti-inflationary policy) and defense spending increases which, respectively, revived the economy and restored our military power; Thatcher with her income-tax cuts, budget cuts, interest-rate hikes and her willingness to stand up to the unions, all of which revived the British economy, and her willingness to fight Argentina for the Falkland Islands, which restored British confidence.
[...] Thatcher’s challenge was all the greater given that so much of the Conservative Party remained “wet”–i.e., skeptical of her conservative principles. Eventually it was not the political opposition but her own party which toppled her, leading to a long period of Conservative wandering in the wilderness, punctuated by uninspiring rule first by John Major and now by David Cameron, neither of whom will ever be mentioned in the same breath as the Iron Lady.
Like Reagan, Thatcher was vindicated by history–and just as Reagan was praised by Bill Clinton, so she was praised by Tony Blair. She will be remembered as the greatest female ruler since Queen Elizabeth I and the greatest British prime minister since Winston Churchill.
Canada, the UK and European churches are finding out the hard way what the end result of the radical gay agenda truly looks like.
Take heed, America!
If churches are forced by new legislation or by civil suits to conduct homosexual “marriage” ceremonies against their beliefs, it would constitute “a piece of tyranny by which the rights of hundreds of thousands, millions even, of people of faith … will be ruthlessly trampled upon,” said the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP).
[...] But in a statement issued November 15th, UKIP warned that the writing is on the wall for churches if the government introduces legislation creating gay “marriage.”
It is “inevitable that gay couples will seek the right to marry in Church and that Churches will refuse to permit them to do so,” said UKIP. Despite the government’s assurances, “there will, very soon after the introduction of gay civil marriage, be a challenge in first the domestic courts of England and Wales and then in the European Court of Human Rights alleging that the exclusion of gay people from the right to have a religious ceremony of marriage is unlawful discrimination against them on the grounds of their sexual orientation.”
“[T]here is a very strong likelihood that the Court at Strasbourg will agree that it is an unlawful discrimination on those grounds and order the United Kingdom to introduce laws which will force Churches to marry gay people according to their rites, rituals and customs.”
The party said it is sure that the current government would “swiftly bend the knee to such a ruling and introduce such legislation” forcing churches to conduct gay “marriages.”
Leftist ‘Tolerance’ In The UK: Conservative Foster Parents Deemed ‘Unfit’ Because Of Political Views
Before, it was Christians being declared “unfit.” Now loving foster parents with a proven track record are being discriminated against because they happen to be conservative.
The husband spent three decades as a reservist in the Royal Navy and currently works with disabled people. The wife is a qualified nursery nurse. The two of them have cared for dozens of children in the past seven years. But they’re “unfit” to act as foster parents now because they support a conservative political group?
That’s leftist “tolerance.”
Here’s a chilling tale of political persecution from across the pond. A loving, exemplary foster couple in England had their children taken away because of their membership in the UK Independence Party. The UKIP is a limited-government, libertarian group that opposes membership in the European Union and advocates for stricter enforcement of immigration laws. The local council that oversees foster care tore the family apart because bureaucrats deemed the parents, you guessed it, racist.
[...] Substitute “Tea Party” for “UK Independence Party.” If it can happen in Britain, it could happen here. The criminalization of conservative dissent is already well underway.
The Ukip advocates lower taxes, limited government, freer markets, and immigration reform. However, to certain social workers in the Labour-controlled Rotherham borough, supporting the above makes you an “unsuitable” foster parent.
The parents claim they were made to feel like criminals and that they had a “black mark” on them for supporting the conservative group. And now it has culminated in the loss of their foster children, one boy and two girls.
Unsurprisingly, Farage unloaded on the Rotherham borough’s decision to take the children away, calling it “a bloody outrage” and “political prejudice of the very worst kind.”
Tim Loughton, the former children’s minister, agrees with Farage.
“I will be very concerned if decisions have been made about the children’s future that were based on misguided political correctness around ethnic considerations,” he said.
“Being a supporter of a mainstream political party is not a deal-breaker when it comes to looking after children if it means they can have a loving family home,” he added.
The foster couple wishes to remain anonymous because they don’t want the children they cared for being involved. However, it has been revealed that they are both in their 50s, the husband is a retired Royal Navy reservist of more than 30 years who currently works with disabled people, and the wife is a “qualified nursery nurse.”
It is also being reported that they have spent seven years acting as foster parents and have looked after about a dozen different children.
In America, the Left has already pushed the narrative that all Tea Party conservatives are “racists.” Catholic charities have already been forced out of foster care service charities for their supposed “bigotry” in favor of traditional families. How long before they try to use these same discrimination tactics against conservatives in the U.S.?
If the Romney campaign flagrantly violated the law in this manner, I can guarantee the Justice Department would be all over it, and it would be front page news for a week. But if a Democrat does it, they shrug their shoulders and look the other way.
The Obama re-election campaign has accepted at least one foreign donation in violation of the law — and does nothing to check on the provenance of millions of dollars in other contributions, a watchdog group alleges.
Chris Walker, a British citizen who lives outside London, told The Post he was able to make two $5 donations to President Obama’s campaign this month through its Web site while a similar attempt to give Mitt Romney cash was rejected. It is illegal to knowingly solicit or accept money from foreign citizens.
Walker said he used his actual street address in England but entered Arkansas as his state with the Schenectady, NY, ZIP code of 12345.
“When I did Romney’s, the payment got rejected on the grounds that the address on the card did not match the address that I entered,” he said. “Romney’s Web site wanted the code from the back of card. Barack Obama’s didn’t.”
Unfortunately, it’s clear this isn’t an isolated incident:
A soon to be released report from the conservative Government Accountability Institute shows that President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign has increasingly collected more electronic donations from non-existent ZIP codes throughout the 2012 campaign cycle.
From February through June this year the GAI findings reported that the Obama campaign collected $175,816.26 in electronic donations from non-existent ZIP codes. One month later, the campaign raised $411,369.55 through such donations and $197,464.59 in August.
By the end of September, the Obama campaign raked in $2,199,204.38 – thanks to donations from non-existent ZIP codes.
Good for her! I loved that she used the song “Hava Nagila” for her floor routine. It’s a bold statement with anti-Semitism so rampant in the IOC and Europe.
It wasn’t a gloved-fist salute from the medal stand, but Jewish-American gymnast Aly Raisman made quite a statement yesterday by winning a gold medal and invoking the memory of the Israeli athletes killed 40 years ago in Munich.
Raisman finished first in the women’s floor exercise, but she deserves to have another medal draped around her neck for having the chutzpah to face the world and do what needed to be done and say what needed to be said.
At the same Olympic Games where bigoted organizers stubbornly refuse to honor the slain athletes with a moment of silence, 18-year-old Raisman loudly shocked observers first by winning, then by paying her own tribute to 11 sportsmen who died long before she was born.
And if that weren’t enough, she won her event with the Hebrew folk song “Hava Nagila” playing in the background.
“Having that floor music wasn’t intentional,” an emotional but poised Raisman told reporters after her performance.
“But the fact it was on the 40th anniversary is special, and winning the gold today means a lot to me.”
Then Raisman stuck the landing.
“If there had been a moment’s silence,” the 18-year-old woman told the world, “I would have supported it and respected it.”
Obama, as the son of a Marxist Anti-Colonialist, naturally disdains Winston Churchill and everything he stood for. He was all too happy to return the bust on loan in the oval office to the British as soon as he was sworn in. The British press was scathingly indignant.
Now, three years later, the reasons for Obama’s insult are coming into sharper focus, as he scrambles to deny the incident and attack anyone who confirms it.
Dinesh D’Souza breaks down the scandal at the Daily Caller:
I am convinced that the White House is attempting a pre-emptive strike on my film “2016: Obama’s America.” Unfortunately for White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, his strike has turned out to be a complete bust.
“Bust” is the right term here, because Pfeiffer was attempting to re-write the story of the Winston Churchill bust. Pfeiffer accused Obama critics including columnist Charles Krauthammer of getting the facts wrong and promulgating an “urban legend.” Now Pfeiffer has publicly admitted that he got his facts wrong.
Why do I think that any of this was directed at my movie? Because it’s just now hitting theaters across the country. The film is the work of Gerald Molen, the producer of “Hook,” Jurassic Park,” and “Schindler’s List.”
It is the movie’s “buzz” that explains why the White House would strongly react to a three-year-old story. This White House has a pattern of attempting to pre-empt stories that are damaging.
My film points out that one of President Obama’s first actions as president was to return a bust of Winston Churchill. While Obama’s actions caused puzzlement at the time, the film explains them as a consequence of Obama’s anti-colonial and anti-British sentiments. Churchill was a lifelong colonialist, head of the colonial office, and the British prime minister who crushed the anti-colonial Mau Mau uprising in Kenya.
And there is a personal side of this for President Obama: his father was arrested in connection with the Mau Mau revolt, and his grandfather Onyango Obama was also allegedly interned and tortured. So President Obama may think he has good reason to hate Winston Churchill.
Yet the White House insists that it is “100 percent false” that the president removed a Churchill bust from the Oval Office.
Alas, it is the White House statement that is 100 percent false. Here are the facts. After the September 11 attacks, the British government loaned the White House a bronze bust of Winston Churchill, the work of sculptor Sir Jacob Epstein. Between 2001 and 2009, Bush prominently displayed the bust in the Oval Office.
When Obama was elected, British officials offered to let him keep the bust. He refused, and the bust was returned. It now sits in the home of the British ambassador to America. It has technically been “sent back to Britain.”
All of this is beyond dispute, and was reported in the London Telegraph and around the world in early 2009.
So what was the White House trying to say? The White House contended that there are actually two Churchill busts. Yes, two Churchill busts. And by the same sculptor Jacob Epstein. According to Pfeiffer, “The White House has had a bust of Winston Churchill since the 1960s.” But apparently that bust was being “worked on” and so the British provided another bust by the same sculptor. Pfeiffer insisted that at the end of Bush’s second term, the Churchill bust was removed “as is common practice at the end of every presidency.” The second bust, he says, is still in the White House residence.
What a squid-like cloud of rhetoric these guys emit to try and confuse the issue. The issue remains that President Obama rejected the offer to keep the Oval Office bust and instead returned it to Britain, a move that I believe is driven by his deep hatred for Winston Churchill, as documented in my film.
Now the White House admits it got the facts wrong. And where the White House obtained the second bust is unknown. We also don’t know when the Obama team decided to make this other bust appear. Could it be when fears began to circulate that Obama’s anti-colonial roots are fully documented in the new film “2016” and the president is now “busted”?
The leftist media in America and Britain have gotten their knickers in a twist over the way Romney supposedly “insulted” the Brits during an interview with Brian Williams, because, through the experienced eyes of a former olympics organizer, he mentioned a few problems leading up to the games that the British and American media had been reporting:
Ironically, the media went back to reporting on problems at the Olympics just days after excoriating Romney for daring to do the same.
What they seem to forget, however, are the MULTIPLE times Obama has insulted and offended the British.
Feb 2009: Obama takes bust of Churchill out of the Oval Office
The Telegraph reported: “The rejection of the bust has left some British officials nervously reading the runes to see how much influence the UK can wield with the new regime in Washington.”
March 2009: Obama “too tired,” to properly host Prime Minister Gordon Brown
Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to visit the President at the White House, but the British press reported there was no “full-blown press conference” or “formal dinner,” as has been customary. The British Press reported that the President was “too tired” to properly host the Prime Minister because he was dealing with the economic crisis.
Even worse was this reported quote from an anonymous State Department official: “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”
March 2009: Obama gives Prime Minister Gordon Brown a box of DVD’s
While visiting the United States, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave the president a pen fashioned out of the same wood as the Resolute Desk. What did Obama give him in return?
“Barack Obama, the leader of the world’s richest country, gave the Prime Minister a box set of 25 classic American films – a gift about as exciting as a pair of socks,” reported the Telegraph.
What’s worse, the set of DVD’s was coded for the United States and unreadable by UK DVD players.
April 2009: Obama gives Queen Elizabeth an iPod
White visiting the Queen, the Obama family gave her an iPod,prompting raised eyebrows from the British Press. The MP3 player came pre-loaded with photos from President Obama’s inauguration and audio files of the president’s speech as a senator to the 2004 Democratic National Convention and his 2009 inauguration address.
The queen reportedly already had an iPod.
September 2009: Obama refuses private meeting with Prime Minister Gordon Brown during UN Summit
April 2009: First Lady Michelle Obama breaks protocol by touching the Queen’s back
January 2011: Obama calls France America’s ‘strongest ally’
While President Obama was visiting France, the British Press was particularly vexed when he told French President Nicolas Sarkozy that France was America’s strongest ally.
“The UK has lost nearly 350 troops in the war against the Taliban – seven times as many as France.” noted the Daily Mail.
May 2011: After toasting the Queen, Obama continues speaking as the band starts playing ‘God Save the Queen.’
This awkward moment had both countries wincing, as the President presumed to keep speaking even though the band started playing.
The BBC notes: According to protocol, however, he (Obama) should have stopped after the toast.
May 2011: Barack Obama signs wrong date in Westminster Abbey visitor’s book
President Obama visited Westminster Abbey in 2011, but signed the guestbook dating his entry as May 24, 2008.
“Mr. Obama could perhaps be forgiven for having fond memories of 2008, as that was the year he was elected to the Oval Office.” theTelegraph notes.
May 2011: Barack Obama snubs British scientists by refusing to receive Royal Society medal
The Telegraph reports: “Sources close to the state visit said members of the Royal Society were ‘deeply offended’ by the snub and had accused Mr Obama of being obsessed with his ‘street cred.’”
December 2011: President Obama refers to the British Embassy as the “English Embassy”
From the Daily Mail: In an interview yesterday, Mr Obama said: ‘All of us are deeply disturbed by the, err, crashing of, err, the English Embassy, err, the embassy of the United Kingdom.’
June 2012: President Obama refers to the Falkland Islands as ‘the Maldives’
This was a mistake on top of a gaffe, as the Maldives are actually in the Indian Ocean. Obama was trying to say “Malvinas” — the name given to the Falkland Islands by the Argentine government, a British possession which Argentina invaded in 1982. This was the British equivalent of suggesting that the U.S. hand Pearl Harbor over to the Japanese. As The Telegraph’s Nile Gardiner writes: “This is a position that Britain views as completely unacceptable, and with good reason.”
They just can’t help themselves, can they?
[O]ne large part of the opening ceremonies includes a celebration of something that many Americans – especially conservatives – would probably find nauseating:
[Organizer Danny] Boyle recruited real nurses working for the National Health Service to take part, a tribute to a treasured national institution that started in 1948 amid the ruins of war-devastated Britain. The state-funded NHS provides free health treatment to all Britons, and is embraced by all political parties. While grumbling about its perceived slow service is widespread – and planned government reforms are controversial – its egalitarian ethos is a matter of national pride. When U.S. Republicans criticized the NHS in 2009, a Twitter campaign in its defense became so popular it crashed the NHS website.
Yes, that’s right, all healthcare in the UK is socialized, and in case you’ve forgotten, they want you to know how proud they are of it. Below is the portion of the ceremony involving the dancing nurses. Be warned: It’s far weirder than you think.
View at The Blaze
So should the National Health Service be celebrated? Not so, says the Heritage Foundation:
To understand the dangers of a government takeover of health care, America should study Britain’s system, which exemplifies the shortcomings of heavily regulated, nationalized health care. A recent report by Robin Harris of the Heritage Foundation outlines the deterioration of Britain’s health care system due to years of liberal health policy marked by heavy concentration of power, higher taxes and the proliferation of rules and restrictions by the National Health Service (NHS).
Did each of those beds represent one of the 130,000 seniors they killed this year to make room for more patients? Or maybe they represented the patients doctors had to prescribe water for to make sure hospital staff didn’t let them die of simple dehydration.
Is it any wonder that the next part of the ceremony involved the children falling asleep in their hospital beds and villains haunting their dreams?
IOC President: No Moment Of Silence At Olympic Games To Honor Israelis Murdered By Terrorists In Munich
This is the 40th anniversary of the murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics by Palestinian terrorists. Both Romney and Obama have joined the global campaign calling for a moment of silence to honor the victims.
But because it was Jewish blood that was spilled, and the perpetrators are favorite pets of European anti-Semites, there will be no moment of silence to remember the victims.
In September 1972, the world watched in disbelief as 11 Israeli athletes were murdered by the Palestinian terrorist organization “Black September” at the Summer Olympic Games in Munich. The story, and Israel’s decade-long retaliation, have been captured in countless movies, books and miniseries.
Germany had planned to show a new face to the world. The 1972 games were to be the antithesis of Hitler’s Olympics. They were informally called “The Carefree Games.” As a result, security was decidedly lax. On Sept. 4, with the aid of unwitting Canadian athletes, the terrorists scaled the fence of the Olympic Village and raided the Israeli compound. Over the course of the next 36 hours, Black September held the world’s attention, demanding the release of 234 Palestinian prisoners. They attempted to flee to Egypt with their hostages. An unprepared German security force botched rescue efforts at several junctures, and ultimately 11 athletes and trainers perished at the hands of the terrorists.
The games went on at the insistence of the International Olympic Committee leader, Avery Brundage, a decision that, while generally supported at the time, ultimately marred his legacy. Many athletes opted out in solidarity. Mark Spitz, who had already competed in all of his events, left prior to the closing ceremony. A brief memorial service was held before a soccer match between Hungary and West Germany, in which Brundage spoke passionately about the integrity of the games and made little reference to the murdered Israelis. In addition, participating countries were invited, but not required, to fly their stadium flag at half staff.
This was the last time that the IOC commemorated the loss at an Olympic Games.
Over the past 40 years, the bereaved families have expectantly waited for expressions of remorse and responsibility from German officials. “If they would only say to us, ‘Look, we tried, we didn’t know what we were doing, we didn’t mean for what happened to happen, we’re sorry’ – that would be the end of it,” widow Ankie Spitzer told Aish.com. “But they’ve never even said that.”
The victims’ families have made one specific request of the Olympic Committee: To hold a moment of silence at the Opening Ceremonies. The purpose is to acknowledge that this horrific slaughter is grieved not by Israel alone, but by the entire community of nations.
“Silence is a fitting tribute,” says Spitzer. “Silence contains no statements, assumptions or beliefs, and requires no understanding of language to interpret.” People are welcome to reflect, pray, and remember the athletes in their own way.
This, the families say, would provide much-needed closure.
Soon after the massacre, Spitzer wrote her first letter to the Olympic Committee. She did not ask “if” a commemoration would be held at the 1976 Montreal Games, but rather “what.” She simply assumed that the Olympic Committee would be doing something.
The letter went unanswered.
Year after year, Spitzer pressed her case, attending every Summer Olympics (except Moscow 1980), never giving up. “I have no political or religious agenda. Our message is not one of hatred or revenge. It’s a positive message of remembrance and strengthening the Olympic ideals,”Spitzer says. “Forty years is long enough to wait.”
In recent months, the power of the Internet has spread the story and over 100,000 people from 155 different countries have signed a petition demanding this moment of silence. The U.S. Congress, Canadian Parliament, German Bundestag, Australian House of Representatives and others have all passed unanimous resolutions reiterating this very reasonable demand. President Barack Obama has joined the call as well. But the Olympic Committee has stubbornly refused – ostensibly on the grounds it would “politicize the Olympics.”
To his great credit, Bob Costas of NBC Sports, has promised his own “minute of silence” at the opening ceremonies – perhaps turning off his broadcasting microphone when the Israeli delegation enters.
And yet, with this very refusal the Olympics are being politicized. Olympic officials have said that if an official tribute were to take place, all Arab delegations (including those oil-rich states which provide Olympic funding) would quit the Olympics.
In other words, rather than raise the Olympic ideal above politics, the Olympic committee is capitulating to anti-Semitic forces. Just like another international body, the United Nations, the Olympic movement is being shamefully hijacked by a bloc of Arab, Muslim and dictatorial Third World forces who undermine the trust and goodwill upon which the Olympics has always stood.
Olympic officials told Spitzer that their “hands were tied” by these political considerations. “No,” Spitzer says she responded, “my husband’s hands were tied, not yours.”
Hijacking the Games
This is a crucial moment where the Olympic committee needs to stand up and prevent its descent into folly. This is not an internal Israeli matter, nor about political posturing or revenge. It is about doing justice to the memory of 11 men who came in peace and went home in coffins. The victims were killed not on the streets of Tel Aviv, nor accidental tourists at Munich. Rather they were members of the Olympic family, murdered inside the Olympic village as participants in the Games. It was an onslaught against the entire Olympic ideal.
I do not cast the charge of “anti-Semitism” lightly. If the slain athletes had been American, British, or Palestinian for that matter, does anyone doubt that the Olympic Committee would hold a fitting memorial tribute? Why did the opening ceremonies include mentions of the Bosnian War in 1996, and the 2002 Games opened with a minute of silence for victims of 9/11? Why, when it comes to Israel, does all the talk about “brotherhood” and “unity” seem to fall by the wayside?
Says Spitzer: “After listening to all the lame excuses for 40 years, I can only come to one conclusion: It is anti-Israel, anti-Jewish discrimination.”
The Olympic committee has a longstanding reputation for hypocrisy and corruption. It was this same Avery Brundage who exhibited anti-Semitism the previous time the Olympics were held on German soil. Two years prior to the 1936 Berlin Games, Brundage traveled to meet with German government officials to discuss protocol at the Games. Upon his return, he reported: “I was given positive assurance… that there will be no discrimination against Jews. You can’t ask more than that and I think the guarantee will be fulfilled.” Yet when push came to shove, it was Brundage himself who appeased Hitler and removed the two Jewish athletes from the American lineup.
In recent years we’ve seen this “tolerance for anti-Semitism” as well: At the 2004 Olympics (Athens) and 2008 (Beijing), Iran ordered its athletes not to compete against Israelis. The Olympic Committee’s disciplinary response? Nothing.
The nightmare of Munich affected me deeply. Four years later, the 1976 Summer Olympics were held in Montreal, not far from my home in western New York. In a dream come true, my parents took me to an Olympic soccer match featuring the Israeli national team. We cheered wildly for our “home team.” But things could never be the same.
When the Israeli team entered Montreal stadium for those Opening Ceremonies, the Israeli national flag was adorned with a black ribbon. To me, that black ribbon represented more than the memory of the Munich 11. It spoke of the stark reality of the world’s repeated failure to stand up when Jews are being threatened. Whether a refusal to bomb the railroad tracks to Auschwitz; a reluctance to stop the Iranian nuclear program; the utter failure to protect Israeli athletes when Jewish blood was shed once again on German soil; the inability to muster even one minute of silence in their memory.
For 2,000 years of exile, the Jewish people have suffered repeated disdain in the eyes of the nations. How apt that the opening ceremonies in London will be taking place this Friday night – on Tisha B’Av, the very day in Jewish history which marks the destruction of our unifying focus, the Holy Temple in Jerusalem.
Some things never change. For we are the eternal nation… that dwells alone.
David Berger (weightlifter)
Ze’ev Friedman (weightlifter)
Yossef Gutfreund (wrestling referee)
Eliezer Halfin (wrestler)
Yossef Romano (weightlifter)
Amitzur Shapira (track coach)
Kehat Shorr (shooting coach)
Mark Slavin (wrestler)
Andre Spitzer (fencing coach)
Yakov Springer (weightlifting judge)
Moshe Weinberg (wrestling coach)
It’s time for the International Olympic Committee to reverse a 40-year mistake.
It’s time to honor the memories of those murdered at Munich during the ’72 Games with a minute of silence Friday night at these Opening Ceremonies.
And it’s time to stop treating this like a political statement, and call it for what it is: a solemn observance of the loss of 11 men, athletes and coaches who went to Germany in the spirit of competition and left in boxes.
[...] “The families of the Munich 11 need this. We all need this. But every four years we have received a different excuse,” Gold said. “There are world leaders asking for this. There are 100,000 people from every religion and nationality. No one can understand how the IOC can be so stubborn.”
Actually, it’s easy to understand anyone’s actions when money is involved. For years, the IOC’s refusal to commemorate the Munich 11 was assumed to be based on pressure from Arab nations, a huge financier of the Games. ESPN found the proof, in the form of minutes from a meeting of the 2000 Sydney planning committee, that said the IOC received boycott threats “from several Arab Olympic committees” if the Israeli dead were honored in any manner.
Rogge has offered nothing but platitudes and dodges, such as this one from Tuesday:
“We feel that the opening ceremony is an atmosphere that is not fit to remember such a tragic incident,” he said.
In other words, it can’t happen when anyone is actually paying attention, so the IOC president had his own moment of silence at the Olympic village with — this is no joke — about 100 people in the room.
I am not ashamed to admit to being scared to cover this Olympics for security reasons. The UK has had its share of homegrown terrorists, has had very publicized problems with producing adequate security personnel (so much so that extra British military members have been summoned), and then came news via Sunday’s paper in London that “a terrorist believed to have been involved in a horrendous suicide bomb attack in Bulgaria last week has emerged as one of the biggest security threats to the Olympics.” And with that, it is impossible not to think back 40 years, to Munich.
[...] Fear has become an Olympic sport nowadays. The Olympic Village and Olympic Park look like what I imagine the Green Zone in Iraq looks like, a series of gates and strongholds and walls meant to minimize the loss of life if the worst should happen. There are snipers on the tops of buildings and bomb-sniffing dogs and so many things that do not fit with the atmosphere Rogge envisions for an Olympics.
This is not how things should be. This is how they are. And yet into this ugly reality the Israeli delegation will march Friday, helping give the opening ceremony the festive feel Rogge says supercedes a minute of silence there. There are 38 of them with courage enough to come to London, to represent their country even through they most surely are targets, even though some countries will withdraw from events rather than compete against them, even after what happened 40 years ago to their fellow countrymen.
Their courage does not deserve Rogge’s cowardice, or ours. The very least we can give them in return is a minute on the world’s biggest stage.
What a mess! I know people complain about our two-party system, but at least we don’t have to deal with this kind of electoral chaos!
Greece is today starting a three-day race against time to form a viable coalition government which could ultimately decide the fate of the euro.
The centre-right New Democracy party will try to ally itself with other parties backing the international bailout after a narrow election victory over the left eased fears of a sudden exit from the single currency.
The euro rose and European stocks opened higher after yesterday’s vote.
[...] New Democracy party leader Antonis Samaras pledged to move swiftly to form a government, telling supporters: ‘There is no time to waste’.
The once-mighty Socialist PASOK party, now reduced to third place, indicated it would support Samaras but had not yet decided whether to join the government or just offer parliamentary backing.
‘The people spoke yesterday and gave a clear mandate to pro-European parties to co-operate and fight the battle to keep the country in the euro,’ the daily Kathimerini, Greece’s biggest daily newspaper, said today.
‘By tomorrow, the country needs to have a government of the widest possible acceptance with politicians and technocrats. PASOK must support such a government,’ it added.
In deep recession, crushed under its huge public debt and facing rising social tensions, Greece faces a daunting struggle to restore its battered economy and the new government may face a renewed wave of protests once it takes office.
The radical left SYRIZA bloc, which had promised to tear up the bailout deal signed in March with the European Union and International Monetary Fund, scored strongly in the election and promised to continue its opposition to the painful austerity measures demanded of Greece.
Welcome to the real-world consequences of the Socialist Welfare State: eventually, you run out of other people’s money and collapse under the weight of astronomical debt and unsustainable demands.
In Greece, there hasn’t been a run on the banks….yet. But Greek citizens who are still lucky enough to have money left have taken to withdrawing all their cash and either stashing it at home (where they’re at risk of being robbed) or in a safety deposit box (where a failed bank may shut down and refuse customers access).
Already one in 10 Greeks is dependent on shelters and soup kitchens. Millions more are dependent on friends, relatives, and the overburdened welfare state. Thousands of Greek children have been abandoned by parents who can no longer afford to feed them.
And this is all BEFORE the stuff REALLY hits the fan.
A day before the Greek D-Day, which was unexpectedly punctuated with a surprising last-minute Greek victory in Euro2012 over Russia, sending the country into the elimination rounds (a Greece vs Germany game would be quite interesting) which may have rekindled patriotic spirits just enough to boost Syriza’s chance that little bit more, the Greek bank trot, which was a jog some days ago, has surprisingly not metastazied into a full blown sprint. And with an all too real possibility that Greece may leave the Eurozone in as little as 24 hours, this is somewhat unexpected: after all taking physical possession of electronic money is merely a free put on the return to the Drachma, and currency (and debt) devaluation. On Monday it may simply be too late. Surely, most locals have figured this out.
Spiegel reports: “Joanna Stavropoulos is not proud of what she has done. “I had a guilty conscience when I withdrew my money from Greece,” says the 43-year-old. Of course she knew what would happen if everybody does the same: Greece’s banks would be threatened with collapse. But she says she had to think of her two-month-old daughter, Josephina, who is currently asleep on Joanna’s shoulder. Increasing numbers of Greeks are following Joanna Stavropoulos’ example and emptying their accounts. They are afraid that Greece may leave the euro zone and return to the drachma…. Stavropoulos is one of the few people who know very well what this scenario would look like in concrete terms.. She has also lived in Zimbabwe, where three-digit inflation destroyed the currency. Joanna is sure that Greece could face the same thing if it returns to the drachma. “My country is going downhill,” she says.” And yet instead of taking the cash and converting it into something of real value, what has happened is that the €50 billion now hidden in various homes has led to a surge in home burglaries. As a result, Greeks are forced to worry not only about their currency returning, but about being robbed. End result: take the cash, but park it back at your bank: “Many customers have left their money in the bank itself, Christiana says — but in a safe deposit box rather than in their accounts. “It’s currently impossible to find a free safe deposit box in a Greek bank,” she says.” We wonder what happens when these same people try to access their “safe deposit boxes” should the entire banking system collapse. Then again, nobody said a currency union disintegrating was a logical, rational and orderly process…
[...] In retrospect, the threat of robbery may pale in comparison with the consequences of a coordinated global bank holiday:
Even a cosmopolitan woman like Joanna Stavropoulous has been overwhelmed in her attempts to come up with the right strategy. In 2010, as the signs of Greece’s economic crash intensified, she moved her savings to a Spanish bank. Then Spain’s economy got into trouble. She moved her money back to Greece — until the next bout of bad news. She has paid more than €100 ($125) in bank fees alone, she says, due to the constant movement of her money.
When her daughter was born, Stavropoulos paid €12,000 for the birth, a sum that is not considered unusual in private Greek clinics. Now, she has barely any money left. She has now invested the last of her savings in foreign currency, hoping that they will hold their value if Greece returns to the drachma.
Yet the most ironic moment in the Greek denouement will come when fractional reserve lending collapses onto itself:
Stavropoulos and her friends have a new strategy to deal with their daily expenses. “We charge everything to our credit cards,” she says. If the Greek banks fail, they won’t be able to collect the outstanding debts, she argues. “If they want to mess me around, I will do the same to them.”
In other words, Greece is now America, where the vast majority of people also live on credit alone, and have taken up the following motto when dealing with banks: “you pretend to be solvent, we pretend to have money.”
At the end of the day, it is all just one big global monetary circle jerk, only this time in reverse, as the snake of fractional reserve banking has finally started to eat its own tail. With people spending money they don’t have, and in debt to their eyeballs to a banking system that itself is just as insolvent, is there any wonder that nobody really panics any more over daily threats the grand reset is finally coming?
European leaders are preparing to prevent the movement of people or money once Greece leaves the Euro – essentially declaring a lock down. Europeans are now faced with the very real threat of their money becoming worthless as they lose their freedom entirely.
This is where Socialist policies ALWAYS eventually lead – a totalitarian police state – and we are headed down the same road!
As the possibility of a Greek exit becomes more likely, leaders in the European Union are seeking legal advice from the European Commission on how to shift money and keep people within borders, the Associated Press reports.
“European finance officials have discussed limiting the size of withdrawals from ATM machines, imposing border checks and introducing euro zone capital controls as a worst-case scenario should Athens decide to leave the euro,” Reuters reports.
E.U. spokesman Olivier Bailly said Tuesday that, legally, the EU can limit the movement of people and money across national borders “if it’s necessary to protect public order or public security.”
“There is a possibility for member states to restrict movement of capital in specific cases relating to public order and public security,” Bailly told reporters.
Yes, you read that right. The EU can legally limit the movement of people and capital if it deems it a “safety issue.”
Bailly added that the EU cannot restrict the movement of people or money if it’s for “economic reasons.” But who gets to define what’s a “safety issue” and what’s an economic issue? The same people who thought it was a good idea to let Greece into the eurzone?
Pay close attention, America. This is the kind of insanity you get when global warming hysteria meets socialized medicine.
Relationships, freedom to choose, the health of the patient, individual liberty…all are considered of secondary importance and are subverted for the “collective good,” determined by an impersonal, tyrannical bureaucracy that shuffles people through the system like cattle.
Avril Mulcahy, 83, was told to address the “green travelling issues” over her journeys from her home in Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex, to the West Road Surgery. The surgery wrote to Mrs Mulcahy, telling her to register with a new GP within 28 days.
The letter said: “Our greatest concern is for your health and convenience but also taking into consideration green travelling issues. Re: Carbon footprints and winter weather conditions, we feel it would be advisable for patients to register at surgeries nearer to where they live.
“We would be very grateful if you could make the necessary arrangements to re-register at another practice.”
Mrs Mulcahy, a grandmother, believes the decision was made because she complained about a doctor.
“When I read through the letter, I found it absolutely ridiculous they were saying the reason was to decrease their carbon footprint,” she said. “I have been a patient at the practice for 30 years now, and there has never been any problem.
What on earth???
The Prime Minister said the US President offered him use of his bed on the plane as the pair flew back to Washington after watching a basketball match in Dayton, Ohio last week.
Mr Cameron said: “On the way back, it was about 4 o’clock in the morning UK time, so he said ‘David, why don’t you use my bed and put your feet up’.
“So I duly did and Barack went to the back of the plane and explained to my private secretary and the team, he said ‘Don’t worry, the British Prime Minister is fine, I’ve just tucked him up in bed’.
“I don’t think that’s happened before.”
Speaking at a business awards ceremony in his Oxfordshire constituency filmed by Witney TV, Mr Cameron likened the anecdote to amusing situations Sir Winston Churchill and Baroness Thatcher experienced alongside their US counterparts.
He said: “I think all Prime Ministers and Presidents like to think they bring something to the special relationship … a special anecdote.
Like we didn’t already know Obama has serious boundary issues. Something he learned as a boy from the Imams at his Indonesian Madrassa, perhaps?