Friday, January 30, 2015

Global Urban Renewal

An unholy alliance between former president Al Gore, former Mexican president Felipe Calderon, and Britain’s Prince Charles, and the entire membership of the World Economic Forum, affectionately nicknamed by its lower echelon members, “The Chicken Little Society,” but sourly discouraged by senor members, has formed, and it has a plan for you. 

An article by Daniel Greenfield on FrontPage on January 28th put me onto the trail of another horrendous idea from the whirligig  mind of Al Gore, “Al Gore Wants to Spend $90 Trillion to Create a World Without Cars.”

If you ever wanted to live in a giant slum with no way to get anywhere except by waiting on the poorly operated local public transit system in hock to municipal systems, you can have it for just $90 trillion. Come on. That’s pocket change. And just think, you’ll be able to live in a horrible futuristic nightmare.

(See either “Soylent Green,” “Logan’s Run,” “Metropolis,” “THX 1138,” or sunless, always-raining Los Angeles in “Blade Runner” for a foretaste of your future – if Gore’s fantasy gels into reality.)

“Former Vice President Al Gore and Mexican President Felipe Calderon proposed a $90 trillion plan to redesign every city on earth so that motor vehicles would become obsolete due to more dense populations.”

It is a scheme to relieve you of the time, expense, and bother of owning a car. And also of owning your own home, of having nice neighbors, of your privacy, of your career, and of living your own life. Gore and Calderon have better uses for your time on earth as a reckless and irresponsible occupant. Western Journalism reported:

“We cannot have these cities with low density, designed for the use of cars,” Calderon said. “We recommend those cities should have more density and more mass transportation.”

The better for you to be stamped, hole-punched, assigned a number, and bar-coded so you can be better managed, controlled, redirected, watched, and reduced to serfdom and dependency.
Remember that Calderon was president of a country that keeps sending hordes of illegal immigrants across our border to idle American workers or become welfare state “clients.”  It’s all for your own good. Don’t complain. Don’t you want a clean, safe, and healthy planet?

No, we can't have “low density” cities. They’ve got to be evacuated, emptied out, declared forbidden zones, and ploughed under for Mother Earth to reclaim in her own good time. Everyone now living in them should be forcibly moved to the giant, high-density slum where everyone and his mother is underfoot and in the way. In the 1930’s and 1940’s this was called compulsory “resettlement.”

When all cities are scoured of cars, and you have been dispossessed, you will be a displaced person until a walk-in closet has been assigned to you by your friendly government real estate agent or licensed and certified relocater. When your time to “move” comes, remember that you will be allowed to take only what will fit into a carry-on bag, or a back-pack. 

Gore and Calderon can always start with Tokyo, Japan, the city with the highest population in the world. People living in nice homes in the suburbs can be moved into their own shacks with tin roofs and plywood walls and no sewage and haphazard running water and electricity. You’ll be greeted by friendly neighborhood criminals who’d be happy to relieve you of your valuables. They won't be stealing hubcaps off your car, either, because you won't have a car. Cars, except for official ones, will be illegal. They'll settle for the food you're about to put into your mouth. The more efficient criminals will be hired by the government as roving "consumption cops" and “ration enforcement patrols.”

You won't be able to escape Gore Town or Calderon Ciudad except with a special travel pass and permit, but they'll be hard to come by because you’ll need to have a legitimate purpose for exiting the city. Your sick mother on the other side of the country just won’t qualify. She’ll need to take her cough medicine by herself. Bereavement leave will never be denied; just don’t have so many relatives who may die at any moment. Gore and Calderon will have taken a leaf from Maryland which taxes rainfall runoff from your property, and imposed a "breathing tax" for every cubic square foot of oxygen you inhale, and also tax your CO2 exhalents, to help control greenhouse gases. After all, plants have got to breathe, too. 

It’s all for the good of Mother Earth, you see. If you don’t buy the Global Warming mantra, then you must be a racist, or a bigot, or are certifiably “disturbed.” 

Business Insider asked Calderon where the $90 trillion was going to come from to finance this global urban renewal:

Business Insider spoke briefly with Calderon after the panel to ask him to explain where this $90 trillion was going to come from and how exactly one might persuade every city on earth to go along with it.

It turns out the $90 trillion is the total of infrastructure investment that is likely to be spent anyway building and upgrading cities. Gore and Calderon are arguing that it be spent more wisely, to produce cities that don't encourage people to burn fossil fuels just to get from A to B.

Not to be outdone by Al Gore and Felipe Calderon, and envious of the limelight being shined on them at Davos, Prince Charles has joined in a pact with them to make the earth safer…for the earth, and for the plants. Eager to display his stratospheric intellectual prowess and grasp of history, he has proposed that nations sign up for a “New Magna Carta for the Earth” to combat global warming. The Guardian, ever excited by any gossamer-like idea that wafts from the Prince’s head, quoted him in its January 26th article by Fiona Harvey, “Prince Charles: global pact on climate change could be Magna Carta for earth”: Sort of plagiarizing former Obama staffer and now mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel to “never let a serious crisis go to waste,” Charles solemnly offered his “thoughts”: 

A new global pact on climate change, due to be signed this year in Paris, should be a “Magna Carta for the Earth”, Prince Charles has urged.

He said this year marked potentially the “last chance” to save the world from the perils of global warming, with the Paris conference and the United Nations’ plan to replace the millennium development goals with a new set of sustainable development targets. “We simply cannot let this opportunity go to waste. There is just too much at stake, and has been for far too long.”

He told a meeting of forestry and climate experts in London: “In the 800th anniversary year of the Magna Carta, perhaps this year’s agreement of the new sustainable development goals and a new climate agreement in Paris should be seen as a new Magna Carta for the Earth, and humanity’s relationship with it.”

Global warming! Also known as “climate change.” Weather forecasters have been arm-wrestling with “climate change” ever since the invention of television, and have generally made a poor showing. But Charles has the problem licked. He’s a college graduate, you know. He went to Cambridge. The savant has spoken. 

Of course, Al Gore, Prince Charles, and Felipe Calderon and others of the elite won't be your next-door neighbors. They’ll be living across town in triple-gated enclaves and sanctuaries with guards armed with .50 caliber machine guns fixed with night scopes to deter intrusive burglaries, or resting from their labors in their similarly secured mansions in the countryside. They’ll be far away from the noise and ordure of the general population, planning more population engineering controls.

They’re saviors of mankind, even though they'll have sentenced it to grinding and perilous poverty. But, after all, isn’t life nasty, brutish, and short, for every one of us, except for occasional episodes of numbness? Why would you want to prolong it? 

Our and the planet’s saviors, of course, will experience the joy of remaking the world in their own minds. You and countless other minions will be but tiny, insignificant elements of a megalopolis tree house world.  Still, our saviors will expect to be swamped with expressions of gratitude.

Excess population issues will be referred to death panels which will order malcontents, recidivists, and other useless people to “joy camps,” where they will be relieved of the grimy burden of living and as charges upon the planet and society. These panels will be dubbed “Compassionate Human Recycling Referral Committees.”  As long as the hoi polloi is controlled, managed, redirected, kept busy, and in everyone’s way, and where they can be exploited to the best advantage, Gore and their World Economic Forum ilk will have achieved their goal of a “well-balanced and contended populace.” And of a happy planet.

Every city can begin to “de-auto” by contracting with new companies that are converting retired shipping containers into housing units.  While not as commodious or attractive as a Frank Lloyd Wright’s pre-fab Usonian House or even a mobile home in a trailer park – trailer parks??  Those are right out, they require cars! – they may prove to be an economic solution to stacking people on top of each other as high as the ozone layer.  PFNC Global Communities will await government contracts for starter kits. 

 With operations in New Mexico, PFNC has built a prototype 320-square-foot home.  The home, although small, has room for a kitchen, bath, toilet, and sleeping areas.  It also has windows for natural ventilation, electrical and water systems, and hookups for air conditioning. 

But no room for a library, pool table, pictures, or kids. IQ Container Homes will also be in queue for the filthy subsidy lucre, as well.

Here is a tiny home built out of a recycled shipping container that is a great example of just how easy it is to create a comfortable and functional home using one of these awesome building blocks. The home was ingeniously designed by Brenda Kelly of IQ Container Homes, and built from a single 20-foot shipping container.

Brenda has been a fan of cargotecture for a while now, and she has now used all she learned in her career to design her tiny home. The house measures just 107 square feet, and she kept it this small so that she did not require a council building permit.

Neither Brenda nor anyone else will be able to perform a pas de deux in one of these walled zoo cages, but who will want to dance after being shoe-horned into one’s new high-density home? What did you need with all that other space for anyway? To indulge your personal preferences at the expense of the earth? How selfish of you! Remember! The rule is: To each according to his abilities (or value to society), to each according to his spatial needs. Dissenters in our high-density world of tomorrow will have their mouths duct-taped.

There will be controls on noise pollution, too! So, watch what you say! Speech monitors, incognito, like “secret shoppers,” with the authority to arrest, will be riding those natural gas-powered buses solar-powered elevated trains, and windmill-powered subways in a wonderful mass transportation system, on the alert for careless dissatisfaction.  Clean energy will mean clean minds and clean speech! You’ll be expected to be an enthusiastic citizen of your of your high-density community, and carry banners proclaiming that and other truths in parades. A lack of enthusiasm will be frowned upon with deleterious consequences.

So, welcome to the Megalopolis conceived of by that triumvirate of visionaries, Gore, Calderon, and Charles. “Home, Sweet Home” will never sound the same again.

You won't be saying it much.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

The Muslim’s Conundrum

One of the most succinctly put conundrums facing “moderate,” passive, non-violent Muslims was cogently put by Saba E. Demian in his Gatestone article of January 25th, “Europe's Civil War: The Politics of Separateness.” In it he states:

One unanswered question is whether Islam is a religion of peace. First, the Arabic word Islam does not mean "peace" but an act of subjugation to God (Allah) and His will. Second, the basis and teaching of Islam is understood universally to consider non-Muslims as infidels. Third, infidels have to be wiped out [or compelled to submit to Islam and pay jizya or the protection tax] There is no gainsaying the word of Allah in the Koran, the hadith of the Prophet Muhammad and the shari'a. Thus, Muslims by birth or conversion, regardless of whether they are ultraconservative, moderates or secularists, are trapped in this vise-grip of enforcing the will of Allah on everyone, non-Muslim or Muslim, if they veer away from the straight and narrow. [Brackets mine]

Or attempt to veer away from the contentious, violence-sanctioning elements of Islam, or to renounce Islam, or to repudiate it.

And there you have it: Muslims of whatever stripe are stuck between a rock and a hard place – between the totalitarian nature of Islam, and its absolute, non-negotiable imperatives of Islamic dogma. Demian is one of the very few analysts and critics of Islam who clearly, correctly, and honestly dissects Islam’s comprehensive character without reservations or qualifications about “benign,” non-violent Muslims.  There is nothing in Demian’s statement that suggests: “Oh, not all Muslims are bad people. Many wouldn’t harm a fly,” or, “There are nice Muslims who want to reform Islam to make it compatible with Western culture.”

Except that Islam can’t be reformed without killing it. The violent verses in the Koran are the principal sources of any power it might have. Remove them, or concoct pretzel-like explanations of what they don’t mean, and what you’d have left is an unstructured mishmash of banal homilies and exhortations to be a “good” Muslim, whatever that might mean. “Kill the Jew hiding behind a tree” doesn’t mean “kill him with Seinfeld jokes,” and “by your right hand possess” doesn’t mean embracing a woman’s waist during a ballroom dance.

And your friendly Muslim next door may regard you as less than a fly and eminently swatable.

As Saudi Imam Issa Assiri recently lectured his congregation in Jeddah earlier this month about the Charlie Hebdo massacre by devout Muslims on January 7th:

“When someone curses or mocks the Prophet Muhammad – what should be his punishment? Cursing or mocking the Prophet is an act of apostasy, as all scholars concur, whether it is done seriously or in jest. Anyone who does this, Muslim or infidel, must be killed, even if he repents.”
The violent verses in Islam’s sacred texts, whether they’re read in Arabic or in English or any other translation, are quite clear and unambiguous.  Because they are supposedly Allah’s own words, one must take those verses literally, and not attempt to “interpret” them or quote them out of the context, as Allah’s words as supposedly whispered into Mohammad’s ear are unalterable and exempt from correction, emendation, and line-editing. They mean what they mean. Period. For example, in the Shi’ite view of the rape of women capture by jihadists, Koran 4.24 says:

“And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.”

This applies especially if the captured spouse of the married woman has been beheaded or otherwise slain. Married one moment, widowed the next. And then the Muslim warrior can do with her what he wishes.      

The verse does not imply that the jihadist (or Muslim) will set up house with his captive and live in permanent marital bliss. “Temporary” means a one-night stand for both the Muslim, who may already be married, and the woman. Or it can mean the immediate or eventual rape of a captured woman. The Religion of Peace site focuses on this aspect of sex slavery or “temporary” marriages or permanent and involuntary concubinage. To wit:

Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee"  This is one of several personal-sounding verses "from Allah" narrated by Muhammad - in this case allowing himself a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners.  Other Muslims are restrained to four wives, but, following the example of their prophet, may also have sex with any number of slaves, as the following verse make clear:

Qur'an (23:5-6) - "..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess..."   This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex with his slaves.  See also Qur'an (70:29-30).  The Quran is a small book, so if Allah used valuable space to repeat the same point four times, then sex slavery must be very important to him.

Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."  Even sex with married slaves is permissible.

Qur'an (8:69) - "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good"  A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part.  The Muslim slave master may enjoy his "catch" because (according to verse 71) "Allah gave you mastery over them."

It’s not an issue of having your cake and eating it, too. It’s an issue that Muslims must eat the whole cake, and not what is convenient for them to consume, or of what is palatable from individual Muslim to individual Muslim, for otherwise they will have no authentic Islamic identity. They must wage jihad (internally as a chronic anxiety, or externally by violence against infidels or Muslims of another sect). If it is only by internally wracking one’s brains about whether or not one’s submission to Allah is sincere, with no visible actions taken against the infidel or to advance the conquest of the West, and developing a neurosis about it, only then can one be called a conscientious Muslim. Otherwise, he is a MINO, or a Muslim in name only.

The alternative is to wage violent jihad against everyone and everything that is not by definition or is not perceived by Muslims as Islamic. This requires the jihadist to prefer death and “martyrdom” to life.

Reading the Koran and the Hadith, both of which were works-in-progress for centuries, one naturally gets the sense that they were being made up as the interpreters and scholars went along.

What's to stop them from realizing their desire for death? What stops conscientious Muslims from jumping off Brooklyn Bridge or slitting their wrists in bathtub? The knowledge that they can't take everyone who loves life with them; they want to hear us scream before we die. They won't be satisfied until they know that no one is left alive who loves life. On one hand, Muslims are the meek who want to inherit the earth. On the other hand, if the meek can’t inherit the earth, if they are arrested in a kind of Islamic stasis, then they want to ensure that the living who love life won’t inherit it, either.

An earth cleansed of all infidels and Jews would be an Islamic earth: desolate and inhabitable except for the Muslim manqués and the semi-zombies of the faithful. That is the Islamic vision of existence. Heads, it’s death. Tails, it’s death.  Islam is not a “religion of peace,” but a death cult that worships and preaches a living death, or literal death.

That is nihilism with a capital N. This is what more Americans and Westerners must grasp, and ignore the blandishments and excuses and evasions of our corrupted, ostrich-like political, academic, and media establishment, which is more a peril to the West than is Islam itself.  

If the establishment will not countenance or tolerate any words or images that might “offend” Muslims, then there is no defense against the stealthy and incremental Islamic incursions into Western culture, and the jihadists will be free to say or do what they please. The jihadists near and far – from London to Dearborn to Stockholm to Mosul to Karachi – know this, and say and do what they please.

This is not a conundrum or conflict we Westerners need to wrestle with. The problem is wholly the Muslim’s own.

Saturday, January 24, 2015

Crying for Argentina

But shed not a tear for King Abdullah
Argentina is a lovely country if you forget all the dictators, juntas, strongmen, and assorted socialists, fascists, and communists who have run the country ragged, or that Fidel Castro’s favorite killer, Che Guevara, was an Argentine. It’s a far nicer country than is Saudi Arabia. I have been to Argentina, stayed in Buenos Aires and visited the  Alpine-like resort town of San Carlos de Barilochi on Nahuel Huapi Lake in the west near the Chilean border.

Argentina is a country settled and populated by people from a variety of European countries: Italy, Germany, England, Ireland, Spain, Russia, Scandinavia, and by Jews from the same nations. It is as nearly a “melting pot” as is the U.S.  From the late 19th century until the early 20th Argentina was an industrial nation that rivaled the U.S. and Great Britain in GNP and productivity and wealth. Then, around 1930, it caught the European collectivist/nationalist disease that was half Fascism and half Marxism, spiced with Latin American passion, and it has been in decline ever since.

But then the U.S. caught the same bug just a little earlier than that.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is an arid, hot country. Or is it an inflated tribal fiefdom in thrall to a Wahhabist theocracy? Was the Vito Corleone crime family ever recognized as a nation? Go figure. I would never set foot in Saudi Arabia even had I been forgiven all the critical things I’ve written about Islam. Saudi Arabia is a country that thrives on loot extorted from industrialized nations. It has been doing so since the end of WWI.  

Saudi Arabia is not a “melting pot” populated by people from other nations. It is overwhelmingly Arab in population. Immigration to the place is severely limited, if not outright prohibited. Non-Muslim foreign nationals residing there, such as diplomats, engineers, and the like, are there on sufferance, and are restricted in where they can go and what they can do, confined to kaffir ghettoes. Freedom of speech does not exist there.  The slightest squawk about Islam or the slightest infraction of Sharia law earns one horrific punishments. The 1,000 lashes “earned” by Raif Badawi, a Saudi blogger who offended the theocrats on the Internet, is a measure of the utter irrationality and barbarity of Islamic “justice.” It hangs gays, amputates the hands of thieves, and strives to keep women under wraps, literally, not to be seen, nor even heard.

Saudi Arabia is not a “republic,” nor a “democracy,” nor even a “people’s state.” It is Saudi property, lock, stock and barrel.

It is a nominally “socialized” country in which all Saudis are guaranteed an income.  It builds white-elephant skyscrapers and funds terrorism against the West and also mosques and schools around the world that preach the Sunni Wahhabist brand of Islam. There are dozens of such mosques and Muslim “cultural centers” in the U.S. and the U.K., and in Europe.

Last week two men died: King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, on January 23rd, at age 90, with a net worth of $17 billion.  I could introduce some levity here about this paragon of morbid obesity, but the man was such a disgusting, useless, pig of a creature I can’t be bothered composing it.

The other man was Alberto Nisman, age 51, an Argentine prosecutor who had collected and was about to deliver damning evidence of the corruption of the Cristina Kirchner regime in that otherwise wonderful country.

Abdullah was born in Riyadh in 1924, one of the dozens of sons of Saudi Arabia's founder, King Abdul-Aziz Al Saud. I mention the elder Saud in my detective novel, The Black Stone, set in 1930 San Francisco, and my suspense novel, We Three Kings. It may come as a surprise to most people that the elder Saud, during WWI, did not fight the Ottoman Turks on the Arabian Peninsula, and was not an ally of T.E. “Lawrence of Arabia.” He sat out the war sipping tea with the British. When other Muslim high-muck-a-mucks beat the Turks (with British military aid), he consolidated his power, nudged his rival aside, and claimed all of the Peninsula as his own kingdom. See my column from January 2014, on the true historical background of the epic film, “Lawrence of Arabia.”

However, what is even more disgusting today are the verbal wreaths of praise from Western heads of state on the occasion of the Saudi obscenity’s overdue passing.  Fox News lists several American statements of condolences, to wit:

In a written statement issued shortly after the announcement of Abdullah's death, President Obama expressed condolences and said, " I always valued King Abdullah's perspective and appreciated our genuine and warm friendship. As a leader, he was always candid and had the courage of his convictions….”

Secretary of State John Kerry, who was in London for a meeting of the coalition fighting Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, called Abdullah "a brave partner in fighting violent extremism who proved just as important as a proponent of peace."

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called the king "a powerful voice for tolerance, moderation and peace -- in the Islamic world and across the globe."

Read the other tawdry, off-the-shelf statements at your own risk. In the past George W. Bush held hands with Abdullah in Texas, and he was praised by Bush’s Secretaries of State and Defense. There are more of these testaments to Abdullah’s alleged wisdom and deceitful friendship on the Fox News link. Ronald Reagan, GW’s father HW, Jimmy Carter, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and many other politicos in the past lavished Abdullah with adulation . See the link here for all the Americans who have held Abdullah in high esteem.

The mainstream media also shed tears for the passing of the caricature of this allegedly benevolent despot. For example, S. Rob Sobhani  of The Washington Times, in his article, “Why Saudi King Abdullah Mattered, aspirated  this wildly craven encomium and vomitus about the late king:

The world lost a leader of consequence this past Friday. King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia was unique among world leaders. He was a pious man whose word was his bond. The sixth king of this long-time American ally held the keys to the world’s largest oil reserves but never used this enormous power as a weapon against others. He was the custodian of Islam’s two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, but preached moderation, tolerance and interfaith dialogue among peoples of faith. He stood up against religious extremists and called them out for what they are. This past Friday the people of Saudi Arabia lost their father-figure and the world lost one of the main pillars of global stability.

I first met King Abdullah five years ago in Riyadh. Beyond his gentle smile and fatherly presence, what caught my attention was the twinkle in his eyes when he spoke of the love he had for his people. Our meeting was brief but he captured the essence of his vision for Saudi Arabia and the world by quoting from the Koran: “God cannot change a nation unless they change themselves.”
Concerning the settlements in Europe (and also in America) by Muslims in large numbers and at the invitation of Europe’s governments (and of our own), one argument I’ve heard is too bizarre to even credit: That these governments will eventually persecute Muslims and put them in concentration camps.

I counter that at the rate that European governments are surrendering to Islam and requiring their non-Muslim populations to surrender and defer to Islam, too, and at  the rate by which Muslims are accruing political power, i.e., getting elected or appointed to office, winning concessions from government, building mosques, and by factoring in the rate of immigration into Europe, and the expanding demographics and birth rates of Muslims throughout the continent, it's more likely that it will be Muslims who'll adopt some form of fascism, and they won't be building concentration camps for Muslims. Europe may resemble in the near future, in many particulars, Weimar Germany when the Nazis and other fascists and communists waged ongoing urban warfare under the  nose of an anemic, helpless government, except that the warfare will be between Muslim gangs and non-Muslim gangs.

This is why I have a jaundiced view of organizations such as Germany's PEGIDA. Do its movers and shakers have a wider perspective on the crisis? Do they in France? The Swedish government has given Muslims carte blanche to do whatever they want. Denmark and Norway aren't far behind. Britain is practically lost, as well, with the least criticism of Islam and Muslims automatically branded as “hate speech” and inviting one to an “interview” with the authorities. Finland one doesn’t hear much about, but Muslims have settled there, too.

So, I don't see European  Muslims imprisoning other Muslims, not even Muslims from rival sects (e.g., Sunnis vs. Shi'ites).

On that note, and in apparent acknowledgement that the true monarch of Great Britain is not Elizabeth II, but any Saudi royal who happens to succeed a deceased one, the British government ordered British flags lowered to half-mast to mark King Abdullah’s passing.

The second man, Alberto Nisman, was an Argentine prosecutor who claimed he found evidence of a Buenos Aires-Tehran deal to cover up responsibility for the Hezbollah bombing of a Jewish community center in 1994. He died on January 17th (or perhaps after midnight on the 18th), allegedly by a self-inflicted gunshot wound, but now apparently was murdered by someone’s bunglers. Cristina Elisabet Fernández de Kirchner, president of Argentina and widow and successor of the late president, Néstor Kirchner, at first claimed that Nisman had committed suicide, but then, when the evidence indicated murder, back-pedaled and claimed that his murder was an attempt by “right-wingers” to “defame” and discredit her and her administration.

Daniel Greenfield has written extensively on FrontPage about the growing transparency of a plot to silence Nisman, one incompetently executed by either Iran, by Kirchner, or by a partnership of both. In three probing FrontPage articles he excoriates Kirchner and her Obama-style administration. On January 17th article, “Prosecutor in Iran Bombing Found Dead Before Testifying Against Argentine President,” he wrote:

President Cristina Kirchner’s regime always looked dirty, but now it suddenly looks like a whole other kind of dirty.

The Argentinean prosecutor investigating the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires was found dead in his apartment on Sunday night with a gunshot wound to the head, hours before he was set to testify before lawmakers on his accusations of a cover-up by his country’s president in the case.

Argentinian media reported early Monday that Alberto Nisman, 51, was found in a pool of blood in the bathroom of his home in the capital’s Puerto Madero district. Police were investigating and Argentinian media reported that they had initially ruled the death a likely suicide.

Sure. Like those suicides that keep happening in Russia.
And then the plot thickens. On January 22nd, in his article “Argentina Gov Plotted to Blame Islamic Terror Attack on Jews on ‘Right Wing’,” Greenfield wrote:

That would be the transcripts cited by the prosecutor who “committed suicide” without leaving any gunpowder on his hands hours before he was supposed to testify against the president and her apparatchiks. Intercepted conversations between representatives of the Iranian and Argentine governments point to a long pattern of secret negotiations to reach a deal in which Argentina would receive oil in exchange for shielding Iranian officials from charges that they orchestrated the bombing of a Jewish community center in 1994….

The transcripts were made public by an Argentine judge on Tuesday night, as part of a 289-page criminal complaint written by Alberto Nisman, the special prosecutor investigating the attack. Mr. Nisman was found dead in his luxury apartment on Sunday, the night before he was to present his findings to Congress….

The attempt to exonerate Hezbollah and Iran of any responsibility for the bombing, in which 85 people died, was hush-hush but apparently not hush enough.  Nisman charged that:

….the effort seemed to begin with a secret meeting in Aleppo, Syria, in January 2011 between Héctor Timerman, Argentina’s foreign minister, and Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran’s former foreign minister. At the meeting, the complaint contends, Mr. Timerman informed his Iranian counterpart that Argentina was no longer interested in supporting the investigation into Iran’s possible role in the attack. Instead, Argentina initiated steps toward a détente, with an eye on improving trade between the two countries….

Mr. Nisman said the negotiators, including intelligence agents, were given the task of “constructing a false hypothesis, based on invented evidence, to incriminate new authors” of the 1994 bomb attack.

Greenfield concludes this article with: “The rock has been lifted and the bugs are scurrying.”

In his article of January 23rd, “Murdered Prosecutor: ‘In Case Someone Murders Me, All the Data is Saved’,” Greenfield begins with:

It’s always awkward when you murder a prosecutor, fake his suicide, just before he was supposed to testify, and not only did he back up the data, but you didn’t even bother putting his hands on the gun to leave gunpowder residue.

No wonder President Kirchner’s government is going bankrupt. It’s not only evil. It’s also incompetent.

Greenfield quotes The Jewish Press:

Just days before Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman was found dead in his Buenos Aires apartment on Jan. 19, 2015, he took measures to make sure his research into the Jewish Center bombing and high-level conspiracy didn’t disappear with him, according to a Makor Rishon report. Nisman sent an email to three friends with a backup of his research and report.
It was the last email that Israeli-Argentine writer and educator, Gustavo Daniel Perednik, received from Nisman. A few days later Nisman was found with a bullet in his head. A month before, Perednik met with Nisman in a cafe, where Nisman told him about what he was working on. Nisman told Perednik, “In case someone murders me, all the data is saved.”

And President Kirchner? She first put her foot in her mouth claiming that Nisman committed suicide, then, when the evidence indicated a botched fake suicide and murder, she made like Porky Pig:

Kirchner, after flip-flopping on the suicide theory, is now trying to convince the public that Nisman was duped by people whom he wrongfully thought were intelligence agents and who gave him false information.

That’s all, folks! said Kirchner. Nisman participated in his own murder just to make her look bad. Who’s aspirating vomitus now?

Shed no tears for the passing of a useless parasite, King Abdullah. But spare a few for a man who sought justice and who was murdered by  los parásitos inútiles of Argentina and Iran.