Hodjanernes Blog

7 maj 2007

Gitte Seeberg og SF

Gitte Seeberg var ugens gæst hos Claus Hagen Petersen i DR-P1 ‘Ugen der gik’ den 24. marts 2006:

GS: “Det er bekymrende, at folk stemmer på Dansk Folkeparti”

CHP: “Det er ikke bekymrende, at folk stemmer på Socialdemokratiet og SF”?

GS: “Nej”

Og her er der en anden, der gerne vil være bonkammerat med Seeberg (22. marts 2006):

Kamal Qureshi: Jeg kan jo konstatere, at hvis vi kigger på den værdikamp, som regeringen jo har sagt er meget vigtigt for regeringen – den værdikamp regeringen fører med Dansk Folkeparti, jeg deler, med det globale syn jeg har, værdierne med Gitte Seeberg…..

Og Seeberg er først udtrådt af de Konservative idag! Det burde være sket for længe siden. Hvor mange skabs-SF’ere gemmer der mon sig rundt om i de borgerlige partier?

Burkalisten vokser

Som årvågne politiske iagttagere for længst havde gættet, var Asmaa Abdol-Hamids indpakning kun begyndelsen på et nyt socialistisk fremstød.

I anledning af diskussionen om den burka-klædte plejemor fra Odense er Enheds listen atter trådt i  karakter som de undertryktes værner.

Det kan godt være, at Bendt Bendtsen og Anders Fogh Rasmussen ikke bryder sig om totalindpakkede kvinder, men i Enhedslisten er det slet ikke noget problem, meddeler folketingsmedlem Frank Aaen, som i det hele taget aldrig har haft problemer med noget, der lugtede af diktatur.

Til Nyhedsavisen siger den gamle stalinist, at burka-klædte kvinder skal være velkomne både som medlemmer og som folketingskandidater. Han anser det dog ikke sandsynligt, at de skulle blive opstillet, men man skal aldrig sige aldrig. For få år siden var der heller ikke mange, der ville have spået, at sultens slavehær ville lade sig repræsentere af den yndige islamist Asmaa.

Groft sagt forudser tværtimod, at Aaens forstående holdning vil animere adskillige kvinder til at tage teltet over hovedet og prøve lykken på den yderste venstrefløj – eller at deres ejere vil sørge for at melde dem til.

Lars Hedegaard i Berlingske Groftt Sagt 7. maj 2007.

Assma får en bil af partiet hvis hun kommer i Folketinget


Islamobil 2007. V6. Halal versionen.

Viden om islam


Hvorfor f….. er det egentlig kommet dertil, at man skal vide den slags?



Flere omrokeringer

Filed under: Enhedslisten, Feminisme, Kendte, Politik, Tørklæde, Venstrefløjen — Hodja @ 10:19

Politik er inde i turbulente vande.

En af venstrefløjens og kvindekampens markante skikkelser, Hanne Reintoft, bryder med Enhedslisten efter opstillingen af tørklædeklædte Asmaa Abdol-Hamid til Folketinget.

Mere på TV2. Tip: JensH

Den konservative EU-parlamentariker Gitte Seeberg vil skifte til Naser Khader og Anders Samuelsens nye parti.

Naser Khader vil forlade de radikale

Filed under: Partier, Politik, Radikale — Hodja @ 08:01

Folketingsmedlemmerne Naser Khader og Anders Samuelsen vil forlade Det Radikale Venstre og starte et helt nyt parti.

Mere på Jyllands-Posten

The Trouble With Islam: Af en forhenværende islamist

Sadly, mainstream Muslim teaching accepts and promotes violence.

Non-Muslim priests of enlightenment in the West have come, actively and passively, to the Islamists’ defense.

These “progressives” frequently cite the need to examine “root causes.” In this they are correct: Terrorism is only the manifestation of a disease and not the disease itself. But the root-causes are quite different from what they think. As a former member of Jemaah Islamiya, a group led by al Qaeda’s second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, I know firsthand that the inhumane teaching in Islamist ideology can transform a young, benevolent mind into that of a terrorist. Without confronting the ideological roots of radical Islam it will be impossible to combat it. While there are many ideological “rootlets” of Islamism, the main tap root has a name–Salafism, or Salafi Islam, a violent, ultra-conservative version of the religion.

It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence.

Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals–who unceasingly claim to support human rights–have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah’s inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel.

Politicians and scholars in the West have taken up the chant that Islamic extremism is caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. This analysis cannot convince any rational person that the Islamist murder of over 150,000 innocent people in Algeria–which happened in the last few decades–or their slaying of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or the brutal violence between Sunni and Shia in Iraq could have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to self-criticism further obstructs reformation in Islam. Americans demonstrate against the war in Iraq, yet decline to demonstrate against the terrorists who kidnap innocent people and behead them. Similarly, after the Madrid train bombings, millions of Spanish citizens demonstrated against their separatist organization, ETA. But once the demonstrators realized that Muslims were behind the terror attacks they suspended the demonstrations. This example sent a message to radical Islamists to continue their violent methods.

Western appeasement of their Muslim communities has exacerbated the problem. During the four-month period after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in a Danish magazine, there were comparatively few violent demonstrations by Muslims. Within a few days of the Danish magazine’s formal apology, riots erupted throughout the world. The apology had been perceived by Islamists as weakness and concession.

Worst of all, perhaps, is the anti-Americanism among many Westerners. It is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to morally support America’s enemies.

Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless. Participants must demand–but so far haven’t–that Muslim organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be considered “moderates.”

All of this makes the efforts of Muslim reformers more difficult. When Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually endangers the lives of reformers and in many cases has the effect of suppressing their voices.

Dr. Hamid, a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, is a medical doctor and Muslim reformer living in the West.

Mere på Opinion Journal /Limewoody

Den ikke eksisterende forbindelse mellem Irak og Al-Qaeda

Melanie Phillips skriver om den forhenværende CIA-direktør George Tenets bog ‘At the Centre of the Storm’.

“There is already a huge amount of evidence that has been published, in various books (by Laurie Mylroie, for example, or Stephen F Hayes) and by the Weekly Standard itself, strongly suggesting a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. None of this has been reported by the mainstream western media. These revelations by George Tenet — who has no reason to make them up since they detract from his attempt to hole Bush below the water-line— have been ignored by the mainstream media. That is because the line that there was never a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda is one of the structural supports for the Big Lie disseminated by the mainstream media that we were taken to war on a lie. If they were forced to acknowledge the evidence for such a connection, the whole story they have constructed about Iraq would crumble, and the prism through which they have consistently distorted the presentation of the Iraq crisis — which has done so much to aid the Islamist enemy — would be shattered along with their own stellar reputations.

They therefore simply air-brush all the evidence for this connection out of public consciousness altogether. But it exists. Even George Tenet acknowledges it. And one day history will judge just who has been on the wrong side of it.”

Melanie Phillips / Limewoody

Den Hollandske kronprins støtter islam

Filed under: Demografi, Europa, Holland, Immigration, Islam, Politisk korrekte — Hodja @ 00:12

Crown Prince Willem-Alexander is worried about the sharp tone that some politicians use on integration of immigrants in Dutch society.

He considers this unnecessarily polarises the debate.

In the interview, the prince said he is worried about “people who are basically acting destructively.” He appeared to be referring to Party for Freedom (PVV) leader Geert Wilders, who unsuccessfully demanded earlier this year that Justice State Secretary Nebahat Albayrak give up her Turkish passport.

Mere på MilitantislamMonitor /Limewoody

Will Britain one day be Muslim?

Will we continue to allow the politically-correct lunatics to stay in charge of what is becoming an asylum?

I’m one of those old-fashioned immigrants to this country who feels passionately grateful, is proudly British (as well as Irish – having been born in Dublin), and believes that immigrants have more duties than rights.

And, further, that one of those is to adjust to British society rather than expecting it to adjust to them.

However, one aspect of contemporary British society which I refuse to adjust to is its weakness in the face of the enemy within.

When we look starkly at the demographic statistics, the wimpishness of our Establishment in the face of the threat, the perversions perpetrated by political correctness and our own passivity, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that within a couple of generations, Islam will be in control in Europe.

And before anyone says that there would be nothing wrong if this happened, since the vast majority of Muslims are tolerant people who would not dream of interfering with our way of life, it’s necessary to point out that in Muslim countries, it’s usually the radicals and extremist mullahs – who regard tolerance as a vice – who make the running.

This occurs too in microcosm in Muslim ghettoes around Europe: we saw the frightening fundamentalist fringe of Islam marching, threatening and perpetrating violence over the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammed in Denmark while the majority of Muslims – who, yes, of course, are tolerant and decent – kept their mouths shut and stayed at home.

Yes, Islam may be a great religion. But in its fundamentalist version, some of its values are antipathetic to ours, and if they triumph in Europe, they will threaten our values such as freedom of thought and speech and the spirit of intellectual inquiry that made European civilisation great and prosperous.

The danger of ending up like those poor, despotic and medieval Islamic states in which millions live miserably is a prospect that Christians, Hindus, moderate Muslims and non-believers should be uniting to prevent. But the truth is that we are doing little to stop it.

Consider first at a few chilling statistics. Europeans are failing to reproduce. Just to keep the population steady, you need 2.1 live births per woman.

However, in 2005, the European average was 1.38. In Ireland it was 1.9, France 1.89, Germany 1.35 and Italy 1.23. Britain scored in the middle of this range with 1.6, but that was because – like France – we have a large Muslim population with a high birth rate. Indeed, Muslims are outbreeding non-Muslims throughout Europe.

“Just look at the development within Europe,” said a triumphant Norwegian imam a few months ago, “where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children. Our way of thinking will prove more powerful than yours.”

The big question this poses is: why are we not reproducing? There are many reasons, but probably the most important are the decline of religion and the liberation of women.


Despite these social forces, even in the UK, devout Muslims and orthodox Jews obey instructions to have large families.

Confronted with this demographic-revolution and official statistics which showed there were too few young people to support an ageing population, European governments decided to embrace immigration as an inherent good without giving any thought to the consequences.

As a result, politicians and businessmen assured us that we had to have economic growth in order to prop up ever greater public spending and that it could be provided only by importing large numbers of workers from abroad.

But why wasn’t there a national debate about whether it was wise to mortgage our cultural future for the sake of a mess of financial pottage?

Where were the politicians arguing against the doctrine of multiculturalism which holds that upholding majority values is somehow illegitimate?

Who among the liberal elite’s commentariat were challenging the moral relativism that flew in the face of sense and sensibility by insisting that the culture of Shakespeare, the King James Bible, Keats’s poetry, Turner’s paintings and Elgar’s music was no more important than – and probably morally inferior to – the cultures of other imported, minorities?

We know the answer all too well. Cries of racism drowned out rational argument – not just here, but throughout old Europe.

As one gloomster put it: “Political correctness, which is to thought what sentimentality is to compassion, means that the intelligentsia of the West has disarmed itself in advance of any possible struggle.”

The result of all this, as recent events have made tragically clear, was that British culture was undermined and social cohesion severely damaged.

Separated from mainstream society by geographical and cultural apartheid, which has been fostered by multiculturalism, many immigrants were denied the chance to integrate.

And, instead of being told by the host community that if they didn’t want to adhere to the values of a liberal, pluralistic democracy, they should return home, they were asked how they would like Britain to conform to their values.

The story was much the same throughout Europe.

The robust American political commentator, Mark Steyn, a disillusioned Anglophile, has already written us off.

The thesis of his blackly comic book, America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It, is that the US will survive because the religious Right are confident and reproduce, but that Europe is finished.

It’s not just demographic decline, he says, it’s also the unsustainability of the modern welfare state in which we depend so much on the State rather than on our own individual resources.

We are also, he believes, suffering from ‘civilisational exhaustion’: cultural disintegration brought about by big government which has fatally destroyed our sense of self-reliance.

Meanwhile, we are importing large numbers of unemployed youths from abroad in order to maintain our standard of living, yet many of these newcomers have nothing but contempt for our way of life and some even wish to destroy it.

Steyn sees this as a civil war which Europe is too timid even to acknowledge, let alone win. He says: “Islam has youth and will, Europe has age and welfare.”

It’s hard not to agree with Mark Steyn, especially as every day seems to bring more evidence that as a society we are terminally mad.

The sharp-suited, soft-spoken undercover agents of the Muslim Brotherhood (the banned Egyptian group whose former members include Osama Bin Laden) understand that power is best secured by stealth – by infiltrating institutions and seducing the media.

Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi once exemplified this policy. He said: “There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe – without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”

Above all, it is time the blunt truth was told about the dangers posed by radical Islam. We wring our hands over Iraq and blame Bush and Blair, but Al Qaeda was engaged on its murderous mission and Omar Bakri was preaching violent jihad in Britain years ago, in the days of Clinton and Major.

Right across the world, fundamentalist Muslims are fighting people of all religions as well as non-believers, because they are trying to impose their will through violence.

But where is the resistance to this? In Britain, we have a consensus imposed by political correctness where such threats are not discussed. In other words, dissenting voices are censored.

The Tories are scared to talk about immigration. Worse still, they’re shutting their eyes tight when it comes to confronting the Islamist threat within our midst and the need for Britain to face the threat to its cultural survival and deal with it resolutely.

Yes, the vast majority of Muslims in Britain are tolerant and law-abiding but this is no time for timidity. The enemy may be a minority but he is within, armed and dangerous and we have to deal with him.

Læs det hele på Daily Mail. /Limewoody

Det her skal meget langt ud. Der er alt for få, der fatter det endnu.