What is the bloodiest story in history?

The Islamic conquest of India
... according to historian Will Durant (1885 - 1981).

Acid Jihad

Mumbai: Muslims Attack Hindu Girls, Throwing Acid in their Faces

Few protesters in the Middle East connect rising food prices to U.S. monetary policy. But central bankers do...

WSJ: The Federal Reserve Is Causing Turmoil Abroad

In accounts of the political unrest sweeping through the Middle East, one factor, inflation, deserves more attention. Nothing can be more demoralizing to people at the low end of the income scale—where great masses in that region reside—than increases in the cost of basic necessities like food and fuel. It brings them out into the streets to protest government policies, especially in places where mass protests are the only means available to shake the existing power structure.

The consumer-price index in Egypt rose to more than 18% annually in 2009 from 5% in 2006, a more normal year. In Iran, the rate went to 25% in 2009 from 13% in 2006. In both cases the rate subsided in 2010 but remained in double digits.

Egyptians were able to overthrow the dictatorial Hosni Mubarak. Their efforts to fashion a more responsive regime may or may not succeed. Iranians are taking far greater risks in tackling the vicious Revolutionary Guards to try to unseat the ruling ayatollahs.

Probably few of the protesters in the streets connect their economic travail to Washington. But central bankers do. They complain, most recently at last week's G-20 meeting in Paris, that the U.S. is exporting inflation.

China and India blame the U.S. Federal Reserve for their difficulties in maintaining stable prices. The International Monetary Fund and the United Nations, always responsive to the complaints of developing nations, are suggesting alternatives to the dollar as the pre-eminent international currency. . .

Read more

World's Youngest Yoga Teacher

World's youngest yoga teacher, six, hailed as a miracle at Indian ashram

The best I ever felt was the eight years I did Iyengar Yoga with my teacher Anna Delury from the late 1980's through the 1990's. At one point Jerry Seinfeld, Michael Richards, and Annette Bening were in Anna's class.

Mumbai's workforce discovers what Americans already know: Obama costs you a lot of money, dude!

Obama's just a fancy pants gigolo with a big wide smile, empty words and a hand always in your pockets...he's just another grifter who put one over on the American people.

His visit may appear to be popular among Indian people, but much of Mumbai's workforce can't wait for Barack Obama to leave.

Taxi drivers, street vendors and fishermen have complained they can barely afford to eat after the city was turned into a fortress for the state visit.

All major roads have been blocked in India's financial capital - leaving taxi drivers without work for five days.

Sandeep Jaiswal, 22, said he had earned just £2 in five days - compared with £21 on a normal day.

'We have been left out of business. Because of him we are sitting idle for days now.

'First of all I was excited the American President was coming to my city but now I request him to leave us as soon as possible so that we could earn our bread and butter.'

Diwali disco fever: Reluctant President Obama joins in with school children's dance floor celebrations

Over...and out.

Is Obama moving the White House to India?

We-the-People have completed Phase One of restoring OUR Republic–taking back the US House of Representatives. Next, we must focus on the US Senate and its Marxist abject election fraud machine. However, it may be time to address the Executive Branch.

Adoniram Judson: 2/19/1812

The groans of a dying man kept him awake in the little inn outside New York, but he was hardened to the cries because a college friend at Brown University had persuaded him to be an atheist. The next morning he learned the man who died in the night was none other than his college friend. This rude awakening led him to become America's first foreign missionary.

His name was Adoniram Judson, born in Massachusetts, August 9, 1788. At age 23, Adoniram Judson, and his wife, Ann, age 22, set sail from New England on FEBRUARY 19, 1812. Arriving in Calcutta, India, the British East India Tea Company did not want missionaries evangelizing Hindus as it might hurt their business, so the Judsons were ordered to Rangoon, Burma. They learned to speak Burmese, translated Scriptures and started schools.

Adoniram was imprisoned during the Burmese War, but eventually gained respect from Burmese and British officials for having translated an English-Burmese Dictionary and the Bible. By Adonirum's death, there were 63 churches, 123 ministers and over 7,000 baptized Christians in Burma.

Adoniram Judson wrote: "How do Christians discharge this trust committed to them? They let three fourths of the world sleep the sleep of death, ignorant of the simple truth that a Savior died for them."

American Minute with Bill Federer

If you can’t understand conceptually why a Cap and Trade system is such a bad deal, how about a concrete example?

"...crippling the economies of the Western Democracies for the benefit of the “developing world” (read: China and India) is precisely the intent of Cap and Trade."

To summarize: Cap and trade is a scheme that would impose heavy carbon taxes and allowances on U.S. industries, which would then have an incentive to move overseas themselves, or to sell those allowances to overseas companies that could use them to become more competitive against U.S. companies. Like the 1,700 Brits at Redcar, American workers would be the big losers.

How Cap and Trade Plans to Cripple Our Economy

WSJ: Rarely has a Presidential speech been so immediately and transparently divorced from reality as Mr. Obama's in Prague

The truth is that Mr. Obama's nuclear vision has reality exactly backward. To the extent that the U.S. has maintained a large and credible nuclear arsenal, it has prevented war, defeated the Soviet Union, shored up our alliances and created an umbrella that persuaded other nations that they don't need a bomb to defend themselves.

The most dangerous proliferation in the last 50 years has come outside the U.S. umbrella on the South Asian subcontinent, where India and Pakistan want to deter each other. No treaty stopped A.Q. Khan. Meanwhile, the world's most conspicuous antiproliferation victories in recent decades were the Israeli strike against Saddam Hussein's nuclear plant at Osirak, and the U.S. toppling of Saddam and the way it impressed Libya's Moammar Ghadafi.

All of which means that any serious effort at nonproliferation has to begin with North Korea and Iran. They are the urgent threat to nuclear peace, the focus of years of great-power diplomacy and sanctions. U.N. resolutions have formally barred both countries from developing an atomic bomb and the missiles to deliver them. If Iran acquires a bomb or North Korea retains one despite this attempt to stop them, then the world will conclude that there is no such thing as an enforceable antinuclear order. It will be every nation for itself.

Read the whole thing!

Obama's like a bull in a china shop

If Obama's colonialistic fumbling first gestures towards India is any indiciation of what's to come, we are in a shit-load of trouble, folks! This is what happens when you put an amateur in charge of the world. Nice job.

Holbrooke and India

MUMBAI: The real truth about what happened!

Many put the blame for the attack on years of Indian-Pakistani hostility and tension. In fact, relations between the two countries have never been warmer...

This is precisely what the terrorists don’t want, of course. It’s the fact that tensions over Kashmir are diminishing that prompted them to attack on the November 28 — just as al-Qaeda blew up Samarra’s Golden Mosque in Iraq back in 2006 in order to keep Shias and Sunnis hating and killing each other. The illusion that formal agreements between peoples and governments — whether between India and Pakistan or Israel and the Palestinian Authority — can somehow defuse the terrorist problem was the among the first casualties in Mumbai. Terrorists see it the other way around: the relaxation of tensions is a problem requiring bloodshed.

Islamic terrorists don’t want justice or respect for their beliefs, or restoration of some imaginary homeland. They want violence and death. The duty of every government is to make sure that terrorists get them before they can deal them out. Pakistanis will never know peace, or peace with their neighbors in Afghanistan and India, until they finally and ruthlessly root out the terrorists in their midst.

The same goes for India. That was the second illusion that died in Mumbai: that democratic nations can somehow opt out of the war on terror.

Read more

Jimmy Carter Is Wrong: Bush Popular Worldwide

by Doug Wead
Monday, May 21, 2007

Presidential historian Doug Wead returns from an around-the-world trip and finds to his surprise that U.S. President George W. Bush is more popular worldwide than the United States is led to believe.

Wead shares his thoughts on this most recent trip and his insights on comments made by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter about the public relations image of Bush and the United States among foreign nations.

You have just returned from your third round-the-world trip in 10 months and you say that George W. Bush is actually more popular worldwide than the public perception.

Yes, George W. Bush and his whole family are very respected, even popular, with the man on the street in China. It is a country he visited as a teenager and a country that respects both he and his father. China is the largest nation on earth, population 1.3 billion.

India is the second most populous nation on earth, with 1 billion, and George W. Bush may be the most popular American president ever in that country. I have made many visits to India over the years and written a book about it. His respect among the majority Hindu population runs very deep. They see him as the first Western leader to understand the threat of militant Islam.

This administration is widely respected in Eastern Europe, very popular in Poland, for example, and Slovenia. I just came back from Saratov, Russia, my third trip in a year to that country, Bush is respected by Russians everywhere who see him as a gutsy guy, a leader, and they like that.

And yet Jimmy Carter describes this administration as the worse ever for public relations around the world.

[On May 19, 2007, Carter told the Arkansas-Democrat Gazette, "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history."]

Well, there is that perception, but it isn't technically true. I have nothing against President Carter, I have met with him on numerous occasions and always respected him, but in this case his criticism plays to a widely held perception in America and Western Europe that is not accurate.

So why does the idea persist that Bush is so hated? Is this a Western European thing?

Yes, his unpopularity in Western Europe is wider and deeper than it may have ever been there. If Carter were talking only about Europe he may have been right. When I give a speech in Sweden and mention his name the audience will snicker.

And then part of the perception comes because he is unpopular with some pockets that have been traditionally pro-American. Gaullists in France, for example, or whites in South Africa. There is a shifting of sympathies and attitudes taking place and it is very complex, different for each country.

I suppose it is primarily dictated by the war with militant Islam.

That's a big part. But even that is far more complicated than it appears. For example last November, Indonesia, the fourth largest nation on earth and the largest Muslim nation in the world, offered to send peace keeping troops to Iraq, to take a stand against terrorism.

Some see Sarkozy's election in France as an example of latent pro Americanism.

Sarkozy's election was not a referendum on America, nor was it a rejection of a woman candidate, as some are saying here. Actually, Segolene Royal was a remarkable candidate. Rather, this election was a rethinking of French immigration policy, which some people in France see as creating an Islamic state within a state.

Remember, in the 1960s France had its own war with Islam over Algeria. They had bombs going off in Paris for a decade, with people blown out of department store windows and they learned the lesson that you cannot win a war with a religion. It is part of why they didn't help us in Iraq.

The Sarkozy election was an internal French recalibration, it wasn't about us.

How unprecedented is it for a former U.S. president to attack an administration in war?

I know that some historians are saying it is unprecedented. All I can say is that they are poor historians.

Theodore Roosevelt criticized Woodrow Wilson during World War I.

Buchanan, Tyler, and Fillmore criticized Lincoln during the Civil War (Tyler during the period leading up to the war.)

Adams criticized Madison during the War of 1812.

It is not unprecedented but then, keep this in mind, in 1979 Jimmy Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran, who was pro-American and had the backing of the three most powerful generals in that country, and the whole slide into Islamic militancy began. It has now spread around the world and we face a virulent Iran, a potential nuclear power that threatens the region and the world.

Doug Wead is a New York Times best-selling author and presidential historian who has interviewed 10 first ladies and presidents. Among his 30 books is "The Iran Crisis," which details the rise of Islamic militancy.


Reprinted from NewsMax.com
© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.