The Highest of Stakes -- On Bush, Kerry, and Islamism

Sometimes an outsider can see a problem and its solutions better than those that are embroiled in the fray. British historian, Paul Johnson has clearly and succinctly compared Bush and Kerry, giving six reasons why Kerry SHOULD NOT be elected.

Kerry is untrustworthy for six reasons:

1. Kerry seems to have no strong convictions about what he would do if given office and power. I have waited for Kerry to tell us what he would do, to explain his plans. Instead he regales us with attacks on Bush and promises to do better, to be more efficient, to plan better, to make up with our "allies," and so on. What is your plan, sir? He could not be hired at a firm with so little conviction as to what he could do for them. Nor would a business or government agency accept a bid for a project that doesn't give specificity. If he were to appear on Donald Trump's "The Apprentice" television show, the Donald would soon give him the "You're fired" treatment for failing to come up with a credible plan. Why should the American people expect any less?
2. Kerry&'s personal character, so far, has appeared in a bad light. He is fundamentally dishonest about a variety of subjects, including his background. He is not Irish nor a Boston Catholic but of Germanic Judaism, ironic in that Anti-Semitism is on the rise again in Europe where Kerry seems to be the darling of the European elite and that Islam disdains all things Jewish! An example is that Kerry's religious views reflect a Leftist flavor that he showed when answering the question on abortion. It is hard to tell whether or not Kerry believes in God. Many Americans don't seem to care whether or not they do. They would prefer that a candidate has religious beliefs, but they want to be to tell IF the candidate has a belief, and with Kerry you can't.
3. Kerry has a long record of contradictions and uncertainties as a senator and his apparent inability to pursue a consistent policy on major issues. Indeed there is Kerry's twenty-year paltry senate record, really disgraceful for such a long career. Not only is he missing a track record, his voting record is contradictory. The accusation of flip-flopping on issues is valid.
4. Posturing on his military record. Kerry made his record an issue and continues to hide some of the paperwork. Some people find distasteful his self-promotion while in the service. Others see his behavior after the war as disgraceful or worse. Apparently he believed that Americans would take ANY veteran of a shooting war over one that merely serviced in the National Guard, and he believed that thirty years would erase the memories of those vets that served in that theater. One wonders what the serving military think of all of this. Could they actually serve under a commander-in-chief with such a controversial record?
5...his disturbing lifestyle, combining liberal--”even radical"--politics with being husband, in succession, of two heiresses, one worth $300 million and the other $1 billion. As both Bush and Kerry are sons of America's elite, it is not surprising that Kerry would rub shoulders and marry within his social class. However, the lifestyle of the Kerrys is buttressed by the usual team of lawyers and financial advisors to provide the best methods of tax avoidance. (my emphasis) I find this alone to be disgraceful and hypocritical on Kerry's part repeatedly has complained about the fact that wealthy Americans have benefited from the Bush tax break. Furthermore, although he legally can't use his wife's funds in his campaign, he benefits from her enormous wealth in other ways. Additionally, Teresa Heinz has refused to disclose her own financial statements, nor has it been explained if or how her funds would be set up in a blind trust as have the assets of all previous presidents and first ladies. THIS IS TROUBLING. Teresa Heinz could continue to wield enormous power if she keeps control of her assets and manages her foundations during the period she serves as First Lady. While complaining about the environment and the wastefulness of Americans, the Kerry's cavalierly continue to maintain five palatial homes, drive large cars, fly private jets and vacation using personal motor craft, at the least an hypocrisy.
6. is the Kerry team: who seem to combine considerable skills in electioneering with a variety of opinions on all key issues. <.i> We are judged by the company we keep and by the choice of our spouse. We can start with John Edwards, a trial lawyer who has been characterized as "an ambulance chaser." The unsuitability of this choice screams as the issue of the lack of and the high cost of health care is one that is hammered home by the Kerry team. John Edwards has become very wealthy by any standard by suing doctors, obstetricians. Medical doctors are fleeing the profession and refusing to perform certain procedures because they can no longer afford high malpractice insurance. Costs for the public are rising. Could it be that John Edwards and his pals in the trial lawyer association are partly responsible. As of yet, I haven't heard either Kerry or Edwards tell us what they plan to do about the lawyers!
George Soros is another very troubling influence. FrontPage Magazine online has a thorough two part expose´ of Soros. Although it is a lengthy sixty-two pages, it is well worth the effort to become familiar with the man that very well could run the monetary policy of the United States should Kerry be elected. Here is what Johnson has to say about Soros:

George Soros, a man who made billions through the kind of unscrupulous manipulations that (in Marxist folklore) characterize "finanance capitalism." This is the man who did everything in his power to wreck the currency of Britain, America's principal ally, during the EU exchange-rate crisis--not out of conviction but simply to make vast sums of money. He has also used his immense resources to interfere in the domestic affairs of half a dozen other countries, some of them small enough for serious meddling to be hard to resist.

Johnson asks the same question as do I: Why is a man like Soros so eager to see Kerry in the White House? The question is especially pertinent since he is not alone among the superrich wishing to see Bush beaten. There are several other huge fortunes backing Kerry. (my emphasis)

We always expect that the American Left would oppose Bush and showbiz types are lining up in droves. It is troubling that some, if not many Americans that don't know anything about the issues will vote for one candidate or the other simply because of the endorsement of their favorite performer. For this reason, the tyranny of the ignorant masses, our forefathers wisely created the Electoral College. I thank them for the insightfulness.

More troubling are the intellectuals on the Left, here in America and overseas, especially in Europe, that have lined up against Bush. The Bush-haters cover a wide spectrum. Last week I read of a British columnist that wrote a column advocating paying an assassin to take out Bush. Others are those we expect: Chirac of France, many intellectuals that have backed left-wing causes, and the "superbureacrats of Brussels"of the E.U.!" Although not alone in his observation, Johnson has noticed that "Anti-Americanism, like anti-Semitism, is not, of course, a rational reflex. It is, rather, a mental disease, and the Continentals are currently suffering from a virulent spasm of the infection, as always happens when America exerts strong and unbending leadership.(my emphasis)

And the last of Johnson's villains are the elements of the anarchy and unrest in the Middle East and Muslim Asia and Africa that are clamoring and praying for a Kerry victory.(my emphasis) These are those that will stand to profit in some way politically, financially, and emotionally from the breakdown of order, the eclipse of democracy, and the defeat of the rule of law. They want to see Bush replaced.

This is the Jihad connection. The terrorists are not only those that strap on the bombs and maim and kill. The terror enablers are those that send them out, that financiers that will make a bundle in manipulating the price of oil during a period of crisis, that manufacture and sell arms and munitions to all sides, that house and comfort the bombers, and the clerics that fill their heads with Koranic passages and make the Jihadis heroes in the eyes of the Islamic masses. "It is only business; It is our religion;" the justification of the terror enablers. Some of THESE terrorists are even on our shores, walking among us.

A Lot of New Stuff Just Published to Our Website

Check out the new stuff on 6th Column Against Jihad.

What Do Al Qaeda and All the Other Terror Organizations Want to Happen on November 2?

What they want is very simple. You can give them the object of their desire, or not.

It is a universally understood matter, for a variety of reasons, that al Qaida seeks a political defeat of President Bush, particularly because of his aggressive policy of preemption, which has so successfully undermined terrorism and its funding throughout the broader Middle East. The Jihadists do not necessarily prefer John Kerry or his Party. They want Bush out of the White House so that a transition would take place in the Administration, followed by the shaping of new policy (especially different policy in Iraq) with at least 18 months of strategic inaction.

So the War for Iraq Is Equivalent to the Bay of Pigs and John F. Kerry is Another John F. Kennedy?
From chilled to boiling hot. Kerry gives me that visceral reaction. This time he is comparing the War in Iraq to the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1962. Believe me, the only comparison he can make is that they were both done for the purpose of freeing people from tyrannical dictators.

The battle to free Iraq is nothing like the hapless Bay of Pigs invasion was not one of America's shining moments. At the last moment the planned landing site was changed from a lightly fortified to a heavily fortified beach and the promised air back up was not delivered.

John Kerry must believe that Americans don't know the difference nor do the Iraqis. However the disillusioned and betrayed Cubans exiles of Miami do.

If Kerry wants to compare himself to the other JFK, that's all right with me. With his overblown hype, I never thought much of the other either.

Would 'Inaction' by Kerry Give a Freehand to the New World Order?
Fresh after reading FrontPageand Part II I began to wonder what part John Kerry might actually play as he is adverse to taking action.
Every action and spoken has an effect as do the things that we DON'T do. John Kerry, the good "alter boy" should remember the concept of sin from his Cathecism. Especially egregious is the sin of Omission. Sitting on your hands while evil goes forward is indeed a sin. Keeping company with evil fellows and allowing them to go forward with their nefarious deeds during your watch is indeed a grevious sin.
We are judged by our actions AND by the company we keep. That also includes our choice of spouse. Oh my, John!

Is United States Sovereignty About to Be SUBMERGED into a New World Open Society?


A Kingmaker. I thought about Cardinal Richelieu, Prime Minister of France, 1565-1642 or even Otto von Bismark , the 19th century German chancellor that united various principalities into the cohesive nation that is today known as Germany. The kings that Richeleiu and von Bismark backed up were hereditary monarchs. They didn't make the kings, they made the nations. Both men were principally interested working to spread the power and interests of their respective countries.

Is spreading the power and influence of the United States the principle objective of the man behind John Kerry, George Soros. The wealth of Teresa Heinz pales next to that of George Soros, a man that "meddles" in the affairs of countries to change regimes, buying power and influence, who is, in his own words a "marxist plutocrat" that is intent on creating an open society in which NO country would have sovereignty or be in charge of its own economy, not even the United States. Instead, all the world's citizens would benefit from the redistribution of wealth financed by taxes on financial transactions, principally those from the world's present wealthy countries "to be distributed where the new world government sees fit."

This man has spent tens of millions of dollars to get John Kerry elected so that he could, in his own words, "advise Kerry from time to time."

My blood ran cold after reading this lengthy article.

The Man Who Would Be Kingmaker, Part 1

The Man Who Would Be Kingmaker, Part 2

The Myth of U.S. Isolation
The U.S. is NOT alone in it war against Islamo-fascism as the Kerry cabal has charged. The families of those that have died must feel insulted by the way that the Kerryites have dismissed their sacrifice. When Kerry says that America is "fighting alone" in Iraq, he means that France, Germany, and Russia have decided to stay on the sidelines. Obviously those that are serving with our troops are being dismissed as insignificant and unimportant players. Some contributions and sacrifice are obviously more equal the others, on the par with the notion of a type of class warfare among nations! Shame on the Democrats and shame on the American press for making a distinction!

Oh, my. France, Germany, and Russia have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar in the U.N.'s "Oil for Food Scandal." Obviously they all wanted to continue remain on the take with funds subsidized partially BY THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER, among others, while laughing all the way to the bank as Iraqi women and children suffered under the U.N. mandated sanctions. Saddam buit his garrish pleasure palaces and gassed and threw helpless Iraqis off roofs and put living prisoners into woodchippers while the group of mostly Europeans raked in the cash.

The alliances that have been formed have been denigrated by those same three countries, and STUPIDLY by the American mainstream press. I would ask the Democrats AND the press: How does it serve your country to constantly make it look bad not only in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of your own people and to denigrate the efforts of allies in the fight against the Islamo-fascists?

Ross Mackenzie: On the dismaying egregiousness of John Kerry

On the dismaying egregiousness of John Kerry, by Ross Mackenzie, October 28, 2004

There is a rabidness about Kerry supporters. Where I live, they "key" cars, destroy yard signs, and vandalize Republican campaign headquarters if any of these show support for Bush-Cheney. I have been watching election processes for about half a century now, and there is only one other time that I have seen this phenomenon--the 1968 Democrat Convention riots in Chicago. What Democrat thugs do out my way, they are doing all over the country.

Kerry is so unfit for the presidency, yet his supporters so violently crave power that they support an unworthy candidate and try to silence the opposition.. It is difficult for me to imagine anyone being an undecided potential voter at this point. It is almost as difficult to imagine anyone actually supporting Kerry. However, if you are undecided or if you are a Kerry supporter whose mind has not been locked shut, consider these points from Ross Mackenzie's article about Kerry (read the article for all of the points):

1. One searches in vain for the word "apology" in the Kerry lexicon. He and his running mate refuse to apologize for shabbily seeking to set Cheney fille against Cheney fils. He refuses to apologize (a) to American veterans who fought in Vietnam for terming them all war criminals in his 1971 remarks before a congressional committee, and (b) to American POWs, as even Jane Fonda has done, for extending their time in Hanoi by two years. And he refuses to demand that Dan Rather apologize to the president for rushing onto the air - and to judgment - with forged memos about the president's service in the Air National Guard.

2. What's more, Kerry refuses to authorize the release - as only he can - of all his military records by signing the Pentagon's Standard Form 180. Such release might explain, for instance:

3. Why Kerry's honorable discharge from the military is dated March 2001, though his service obligation should have ended July 1, 1972, and he was discharged from the Naval Reserve in February 1978.

4. It also would be helpful to know why - as a member of the Naval Reserve - Kerry apparently could violate the law without prosecution by (a) meeting with the North Vietnamese Communists in Paris, (b) attending (even organizing), while simultaneously a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, peacenik rallies where the American flag was desecrated and the Viet Cong flag displayed, (c) condemning the United States and lying about its military, and (d) apparently being present at a meeting whose attendees voted on assassinating members of the Senate.

5. "I spent a lot of time before the vote looking at this issue. I went up to the United Nations at the request of some friends. And I met with the entire Security Council in a room just like this at a table like this. I spent two hours with them - just me and the Security Council, asking them questions." The Washington Times reported Monday, Oct. 25, that such a meeting never occurred.

6. Repeatedly, including in the debates, Kerry rejects the liberal label - saying that in today's political vocabulary, labels are inaccurate and meaningless. Then he deftly moves to redefine himself as a moderate. Yet labels do mean something, particularly regarding Kerry's history as a peacenik and his 20-year record of voting consistently against not only major weapons systems, but major military and foreign-policy initiatives. Liberal ratings groups rate him the Senate's most liberal member.

7. And the liberal Marty Peretz, editor of the liberal New Republic magazine, says this about the egregiously liberal John Kerry: "There seems to be some personal anxiety underlying almost everything Kerry thinks about U.S. foreign policy. He craves the approval of Europeans, as if he were some American 'arriviste' right out of a Henry James novel. (Teresa is a different kind of James character.) Early on in the campaign, he claimed that he had met with foreign leaders, and they had told him they preferred him to Bush - as if that were a bona fide to American voters. I can't count how many times I've heard Kerry people - not Kerry - tell me that the Germans and the French, the Swedes, and all of the Arabs dislike Bush and want Kerry to win. So what! Or, on the other hand, maybe it is really quite telling that the Arabs so much prefer Kerry."

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am not a Republican. I find MANY flaws within G. W. Bush. However, I have no problems with his CHARACTER. Even though I think he could do a much better job fighting jihad (his War on Terror), I do not doubt that he will fight to protect America.

There is something seriously wrong with John Kerry. I question his character, his patriotism, his history, and I seriously doubt his willingness or ability to defend America. If he is elected, he will damage America severely. He is a man who is a total opportunist who lies so much that he cannot tell truth from non-truth. If you vote for him, and if you elect him, you will be in the same peril I would be. However, I would know that I did not ask for or permit it. Do not make this mistake.

Would This Would Be Funny if It's Wasn't So Sad?

In Saturday's Guardian, a British newspaper, Charlie Brooker concluded his column about the American presidential election with: "On November 2, the entire civilized world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. - where are you now that we need you?" Yes, that's it, a columnist in a mainstream British newspaper actually called for the assassination of the President of the United States! Later that week, the Guardian thought again on what Mr. Brooker wrote and issued an apology. However, once said, embarassing words to that effect can not be taken back that could have consequences on both side of the Atlantic.

Journalistic stupidity is not confined just to the American press. It seems that the most Leftist European press got a kick out of Mr. Brooker's column, especially as they know that he was referring to them as the "entire civilized world." They are so civilized that they forgotten how to defend themselves as most of them have forgone keeping an effective military, an expense they don't want shoulder, preferring to use the military of the U.S. in a pinch to beef up NATO, although France has a much better force since they pulled out of NATO.

What they mean by "civilized" is a society that would eschew war by talking the enemy to death, hoping that the diplomats will die of old age before the first shot is fired and affecting no change. The Islamo-fascists know this and have milked their system so that now the Europeans are in peril of merging with them to be a full-fledged member of the Caliphate that could appear at any moment.

The big, bad, cowboy Americans prefer action to words. This infuriates the talking heads of Europe. And speaking of heads. Unfortunately various Europeans heads have rolled and a few more have been grabbed up because the Islamists understand that Europeans are very squeamish and public policy can be influenced by even the thought of a beheading.

Video beheadings are quite the rage in Britain, putting pressure on Tony Blair not to help out by increasing British presence in the Sunni Triangle. Various politicians have made irresponsible statements that sound remarkably like apeasement, giving the Islamists hope that they can actually affect British policy by making a few heads roll, a gruesome thought I know.

Is this the media's fault? Only partly so as irresponsible politicians can't seem to keep their mouth's shut. All they can seem to do is talk and not solve anything.

But, if this is the best the "civilised world" can do - maudlin sentimentality and ironic jests - then it's in big trouble. Both modes are a pose and a detachment from reality. Brooker and the Guardian seem to be protesting no, don't worry, we were just talking the talk, there's nothing we're prepared to walk the walk for. That's the problem.

What Would Patton Say and Do About the Present War?
by Victor David Hanson
(A paraphrase)

General of the Army, George Patton had superior insight. Time and space have overcome the dressing down and firing he received from President Truman after WWII. He was a great tactician, understanding "far more about strategy and global politics than either (Generals) Eisenhower and Bradley." He projected into future and instinctively sensed what enemy armies were about to do. A possible dyslexic, he didn't pull the information for his decisions from thin air, but "listened nightly to the BBC, read Rommel,the memoirs of Napoleon and Caesar's Gallic Wars," read passable French, and "based his opinions on studies of European history, news reports, and meetings with those that worked with the allies, even the "odious Russians."

Patton didn't always get what he wanted: the Allies didn't push on to Berlin to bring all of Germany behind the Anglo-American lines, a mistake later regretted by the West. He saw paying billion of dollars to the Soviets after the war a "forced matter of practicality” that smacked of naiveté of which he wanted no part as “all decisions made in 1945 would alter the future security of the U.S.,” and he was right! However, he believed that the soldier’s duty was to create an atmosphere in which U.S. diplomats and politicians could deal from a position of strength --- beat the enemy first, and then negotiate, not the reverse.

Patton’s tactics could be applied to today’s situation.

…Patton, who understood the hold of a radically triumphalist Nazism on a previously demoralized German people, would have the intellectual honesty to realize that we are at war with Islamic fascists, mostly from the Middle East, who have played on the frustrations of mostly male, unemployed young people, whose autocratic governments can't provide the conditions for decent employment and family life. A small group of Islamists appeals to the angst of the disaffected through a nostalgic and reactionary turn to a mythical Caliphate, in which religious purity trumps the material advantages of a decadent West and protects Islamic youth from the contamination of foreign gadgetry and pernicious ideas. In some ways, Hitler had created the same pathology in Germany in the 1930s.

Today’s enemy is far more sophisticated than were the Nazis during World War II because of the internet and globalization. They are both attracted and repelled by the success, wealth, and personal freedom of the West, and have created a “mythical solution in lieu of real social, political and economic reform that in short order would doom the power of the patriarch, mullah and autocrat” that have failed them miserably: “Blame the imperialist Americans and the Zionists Israelis who caused this self-induced misery.” Other Muslims are happy to see us take the fall as long as they don’t suffer, but when they do, we are also held accountable.

Would Patton approve of Bush’s program of reconstruction in Iraq? Yes and No. Yes, “helping the defeated re-build under democratic auspices would allow real reform.” No, because the enemy needed to be soundly defeated before re-building should commence. The insurgency should be soundly defeated to give Bush leverage against both the Europeans and the tyrannical Middle East “to prove to both friends and enemies alike the consequences and advantages of American power.”

Patton taught many lessons and gave advice that seems to have been forgotten by both the military and political classes. Among them, the lesson about public support is most appropriate: the American soldier and the American public are restless, with a short attention span. To be successful, a campaign must always be on the move. He seemed inconsistent, but we are an inconsistent people and this is an inconsistent war.

Read and contemplate the lessons of a military genuis. Patton, we need you now!

FIFTH COLUMN REPORT: Ignorance at the State Department Runs (Down) Policy, Again

State Department Slams US-Run Radio in Arab World,by Dr. Walid Phares,FrontPageMagazine.com,October 26, 2004

I really do not know if America can survive its government. So few people know anything about Islam, and even fewer know anything about Arab culture. Every foreign policy action and war that I can remember since the end of World War 2 have been conducted in an "idea-free" zone. In fact, watching Iraq, and particularly the role of the State Department, I must conclude that anyone with ideas was given the pink slip a very long time ago. It dismays me to say so, but Colin Powell represents the State Department so well since he has the idealessness and unvalues resembling the actions of the lava lamp. By no means is he the worst. It is just that he is so representative.

Dr. Walid Phares has published the following article indicating the latest malintended bumbling of the State Department. Quite correctly, he points out that punditry programs, lectures, and other crude attempts at "spreading ideas" via radio do not work well with young people in Iraq. These kids want the music, as obnoxious as elders such as myself find it. The young are still young enough to want to experience life in a culture almost devoid of the feelings of life.

Dr. Phares makes some terrific statements, and this article is worth getting and reading:

"...Radio SAWA and its sister TV station al Hurra are more about the future of Middle Easterners than the future of politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, DC. Radio Free Middle East, the real function of SAWA, is not about who will next occupy the White House, but about how to free the oppressed people in a region that has produced lethal terrorist ideologies."

"...[M]usic is itself a tool of liberation. The Taliban, the Wahhabi and the Khumeinists are the enemies of songs and human emotions."

None of the choreographed attack is accidental. Dr. Phares opens this article with these words: "Here’s how a coordinated attack against Middle East democratization debuts in America: On October 13, the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler writes on page A12 that "an Arab-language pop music and news station funded by the U.S. government and touted by the Bush administration as a success in reaching out to the Arab world . . . has failed to meet its mandate of promoting democracy and pro-American attitudes. In one sentence, three powerful bullets: 1) The US is funding Radio SAWA, supposed to promote Democracy and pro-American attitudes, 2) the Bush Administration is projecting it as an achievement, and 3) it has failed to meet its mandate."

This is pure fifth column evil at work. These fifth columnists infest organizations like the State Department, work assiduously to undercut the efficacy of the elected officials as crude politicking for Kerry, and work hand in glove with the fifth columnists in the journalistic media.

We must purge these fifth columns or perish.

Kosovo: The War Democrats Love -- How the Worm Has Turned!

Reading Don Feder's Cold Steel Caucus Report, a sense of anger and regret came over me. I had been deceived into believing that the world would be better off without Milosevic and Serbs in Serbia, that the KLA weren't jihadists, but "freedom fighters," that Serbs were not fighting in self-defense, and that the removal of Christian Serbs wasn't "ethnic cleansing." How stupid of me.

That's what the Clinton White House told us. They went to war without the express approval Congress or of the U.N., but that was o.k. NATO and the French approved, so it was o.k., that's what we were told. Now, George Bush hass gone to war WITH the approval of Congress and with a U.N. resolution, but that's not o.k. I'm confused!

Mon dieu, but of course! I DIDN'T have Michael Moore to explain Clinton's war to me. But that's o.k.

Islam Flinches at Modern Western Values

Gee, I flinch and become disturbed when thinking about the values that are depicted in both Britain and America, but is this reason to maim and poison us? If you don't want your kids to see American images in movies and television, don't show them, block the signal with v-chips or other censoring devices, don't buy the CDs and DVDs, turn off the radio. No one is forcing Muslims, or even Americans, to consume objectionable material.

Don't buy the media and the distributors will go out of business. Don't watch the shows and the advertisers will withdraw their support, don't patronize the movie theaters or listen to radio and t.v. stations that broadcast material of which you don't approve, the market will close them down for they are out to make a profit, but for heaven's sake, don't muder us.

Many in the West agree with you on this subject and deplore how society has changed, but beheading and blowing people up won't reverse what has happened.

Both Islam and the West need reforming, but not in the same way. We in the West must fix what's wrong with our culture as well.

Michael Moore Will Cover the Elections for the BBC?????

Look who else the BBC has lined up for election eve coverage. If we didn't know that the BBC is Left wing, we know it now!

France Eyes 'New Alliance with White House Baded on Mutual Respect, Which Is Not Allegiance?

Huh? Since which has the French government respected ANYONE? How can we even use the terms French and respect in the same sentence without laughing? Just ask any of the former French colonies whether their French masters RESPECTED them.

Could the Liberation be talking about themselves? A "handful of ideologues hungry for adventure by deaf to the planet..?" Come on. Refer back to paragraphh one. France, who do you respect? No one in Europe, or anywhere else in the world, feels your respect.

The Left-wing newspaper Libération yesterday said that victory for Mr Bush would maintain America as an arrogant, imperialistic super-power guided by "a handful of ideologues hungry for adventure but deaf to the planet". Putting Mr Kerry in the White House would "perhaps" mean a more multilateral approach.

Will Mr. Kerry go hat in hand looking for the "respect of the French?" They are under the impression that he will.

Read the original

The New American Fascism

Personal and political rage is manisfested everywhere we look. Take a sobering look at the re-emergence of fascism in the American political landscape. The "Thought Police" and enforced PC attitudes coupled with violence and corruption are the beginning stages of what might be a very unfortunate period in American history. I hope I'm wrong.

"A Rich, Spoiled Brat"

Disapproving of the rich and famous is an American passtime. Many wonder what it would be like to have several houses, fancy cars, and servants at our beck and call. The truth is that many wealthy citizens became that way because they worked darned hard for their money and they work just as hard to keep it. Sometimes some of them even work hard at giving it away. The motives are various.

Many wealthy parents worry that their children will grow up with the wrong attitude about money and will use wealth in the wrong way. They go out of their way to teach their children about philanthropy and the value of a dollar, sometimes living a Spartan existence as an example for their children. Not all wealthy people are materialists, spoiled in the pursuit of the acquisition of things and the collection of people to massage their egoes.

Public service for the wealthy had been encouraged as a way to pay for one's good fortune as wealth is sometimes tied with the dispensiing of God's grace. Others use their wealth as a naked grasp for power, and yet others disguise their ambition for power in the guise of philanthropy.

How will we characterize Teresa Heinz Kerry, the "eccentric" second wife of Senator John Kerry, candidate for President of the United States. The kindest thing that I can say about her is that she is a "rich, spoiled brat." You will have to draw your own conclusions about her character and ambition or if she fits in with any of the categories mentioned above.

Should such a person be First Lady of the United States? I think not. But the bigger question is whether or not a man with such a wife should occupy the White House.

How Should We Define the Islamist Challenge to U.S. Security?

Frank J. Gaffney, the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., lists five principles of challenge to America's security in order to counter the pernicious influence of Islamism. Most them deal with the Islamist challenge of violent Jihad, homeland security, and relations with both friends, allies, and enemies that are located OUTSIDE U.S. territorial borders. Indeed the principles and problems he lists are strategic and important to the security of the United States.

As do many others, Mr. Gaffney limits his definition of security challenges to those topics that have rivited the attention of the American public for more than two years: threats of violence, WMDs, the economy, war, politics, and diplomacy, overlooking and failing to see the slow, insidious attempts at change of American civil and constitutional law and institutions that could be more dangerous than terrorism.

A for instance: Is the country more secure when public school children are exposed to curricula that deconstructs American values, that puts hating America first while ridiculing America's founding fathers and founding ideas? Can America continue as America if school children no longer value America's ideals that are being co-opted and twisted by hostile and unfriendly movements.

Our attention has been fixed on the most immediate problems that have to do with security from violence so much that we haven't recognized danger by the teaming of the Left that has teamed up with Islamo-fascism to overthrow freedom and liberty in the United States. This tag team has worked silently in small steps, entering universities, large corporations, government agencies, public school systems, the military and border patrols, as well as the halls of power in Congress and has made attempts at the Oval Office itself. While we were looking at the forest of terrorism, we failed to see individuals that are affecting quiet and pervasive changes that are not in the best interest of the United States, all done in the name of tolerance and a variety of "isms," including that of multiculturalism and post-modern, deconstructivism, and relativistic philosophies, all very suprising as the totalitarianism Lefitst-Marxism and Islamist extremism tolerate neither multiculturalim nor relativism.

Security is not oobtained only through prevention of war and terrorism. Secure people are able to live in manner that allows them to persue their objectives in a cooperative manner with their neighbors. The trick is to convince your neighbors that your objectives are best for them. Post-moden multicultural Lefists and Islamo-fascists have slowly and quietly been working to convince us that their agenda is best for America. Clearly it is not.

Read this before you vote: An Excellent Thought Piece from Britain

I want to make a correction to this October 24 post with new information I acquired 25 October 2004. I am reposting with the current date and time.

I had said on this post originally: A new friend who lives "over there" understands what is going on regarding Islam and Europe. So far, so good.

However, our new friend is English with an affection for America. Because of having to deal with these absurd jihadists, I not try not to identify persons who share the same fight against jihad and for freedom. In this case, our friend is new, and in so many ways, writes like an American thinks, that I made an incorrect assumption. The "whilst" and "colour" should have tipped me off. It is a pleasure to correct this aspect of his identity and to enjoy it.

Otherwise, what I said stands.

He can and will speak to what is going on over there, with England, the EU, France, Turkey, etc., and he will be able to tell us the plain truth instead of leftist agenda presenting. He sent this article, and it is rather good.

At times, it is easy to lose patience and perhaps hope even with the English. Maybe they are like us: some 45% of us think Kerry and all of the associated "thinking" is good. Maybe that percentage in England is equally off their trolleys. Let us not throw the fine people away with the chaff. Afterall, Britain, like Australia, stands with us, despite a large percentage of Britains running free instead of being committed to the asylums.


If Bush loses, the winner won't be Kerry: it will be Zarqawi
By Charles Moore(Filed: 23/10/2004), The Telegraph

Earlier in the week, I was talking to a brisk, amusing, Toryish member of the Great and the Good. It had recently fallen to her to give away some prizes at a ceremony to do with helping the environment. Gripped with the desire to liven things up a bit, she said, she had dropped into her speech an aside about the "greatest human threat to the planet - Bush's re-election". There followed a moment's silence, and then a weird noise that it took her a second to recognise was tumultuous, orgasmic applause.

On the way home, she told me, she thought things over and felt uncomfortable. She did not repent of her dislike of the President of the United States, but she worried a little that people should feel so passionately, so certainly. I think we should worry a lot.

One of the criticisms thrown at George W Bush is that he is a menace because he believes that God is telling him what to do. A moral equivalence is set up, in which Osama bin Laden and Bush are presented as two sides of a fundamentalist coin. On Wednesday, a television programme tried to equate the Muslim Brotherhood, which advocates the violent destruction of all societies that do not conform to sharia law, with the American neo-conservative intellectuals who taught that people should revive their interest in Plato and the civilisation of the ancient Greeks. This is about as accurate as saying that the Nazi party and the Labour Party are the same, because both arose from the discontents of the working classes.

It is the critics themselves who are suffering from pseudo-religious certainty and superstition. Isn't there something self-righteous, slightly crazed, about directing such overwhelming anger at the man whose job it is to pick up the pieces of September 11 on behalf of the free world?

George W Bush as we see him today is a response to disorder, not its cause. Four years ago, he was the same as 99.9 per cent of Western politicians. He inherited the economic health and mental torpor of the Clinton years, when many people really had come to believe that the Western way of life was like a children's slide magically moving upwards towards ever greater pleasure and peace, in permanent defiance of the laws of political gravity. To the extent that Bush campaigned on foreign policy at all in 2000, his selling-point was that he didn't have one.

After some 2,500 Americans died in a day, he had to get one fast, so fast that he made some big mistakes. He resisted the idea of "nation-building", even as his policies of military intervention made it inevitable. Having had the maturity to choose able lieutenants, probably more intelligent than himself, in Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, he did not clearly adjudicate between their different versions of what ought to be done in post-war Iraq.

Understandably exasperated by the feeble multilateralism that had permitted genocide in Bosnia in the 1990s and hampered effective war in Kosovo, he did not see that determined unilateralism requires more, not less diplomacy. And whereas some conservative leaders resonate internationally (Margaret Thatcher was the patron saint of taxi drivers in six continents), George W Bush doesn't travel, literally or metaphorically.

But he has got the big idea. There is a global problem with Islamism. There is a problem of alliances between bad states and terror organisations that reach beyond state boundaries. There is an almost universal rottenness in the politics of the Arab world. There is an atrocious weakness or, as the UN oil-for-food scandal shows, worse than weakness, in many of the Western nations and international organisations that are supposed to help guarantee our security. And it is the duty of the most powerful nation on earth to do something about it.

The only big free country that has retained the untrammelled capacity to decide for itself has been decisive. The greatest terrorist hope about America - that it was not serious - has gone. And a huge, partly covert programme has begun to catch our foes and make us safer. It tempts fate to say it, but it is not mere chance that neither Britain nor America has suffered terrorist attack since 2001.

I don't understand what John Kerry or Jacques Chirac think should be done about terrorism. Or rather, I think they think nothing much should be done. Kerry compares terrorism to prostitution - a permanent affliction that can be mitigated, but no more. You can move a few tarts off the street, introduce more clap clinics, insist on curtains in the red light district, but in the end, the oldest profession regroups. It's a very French attitude, and it reflects a truth about human nature. But prostitutes, unlike Islamist terrorists, are not determined to destroy our way of life (in fact, they have strong conservative motives for keeping it ticking along). You can't say to Osama bin Laden, as you might to Madame Claude: "You're entitled to your little ways, but just be discreet about it, will you?" His little ways are death, our death. It's him or us.

So who gains if Bush loses? The Labour Left, of course, and the political power of the European Union, the Guardian readers who have been writing magnificently counterproductive anti-Bush letters to the voters of Clark County, Ohio, and every twerp who says with a trembling lip that Mr Bush and Mr Blair have "blood on their hands"; not to mention every corrupt, undemocratic, "pragmatic" government in the Middle East that longs for a return to stasis.

But some rather more fearsome people gain too, such as the man who said of Americans in a document discovered earlier this year "Šthese are the biggest cowards of the lot, and we ask God to allow us to kill, and detain them, so that we can exchange them with our arrested sheikhs and brothers". He is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and it is probably he who killed Ken Bigley. Such men believe they have already changed the government in Spain; they will claim at once that they have done the same in the United States. They will be right.

And who loses? Iraqis about to have real elections of their own for the first time, Afghans who have already voted with more than expected success, Iranians trying to assert their own democracy against its clerical corruptions. And us. What one can see in each twist of the Iraq story - don't send the US Marines into Fallujah, don't send the Black Watch to help the Americans, do give in to Ken Bigley's kidnappers - is exactly what is meant by defeatism, an actual longing to lose. Whatever you think of the war, why would you want that?

John Howard, who joined in the war, won again in Australia this month. I think that Tony Blair will do the same. And I suspect, though it is close, that George W Bush will win, too. Like them or not, all three have put themselves on the right side of a battle that has to be won.

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2004. Terms & Conditions of reading.Commercial information. Privacy and Cookie Policy.

The Pen IS Mightier Than the Sword

The pen is mightier than the sword and in the war of ideas, arming soldiers in the conviction that they can do good things for their country that don't follow the Islamist line is sufficient reason for their humiliation and subsequent execution, for the human mind is the most dangerous weapon ever devised. If this wasn't so, Muslims would not have contrived and developed Islam so that it a thorough, totalitarian mind-control ideology.

The goal of the Islamists in Iraq is to same as that of the Islamists in Nigeria, Korea, Bali, Australia, United Kingdom, E.U., and the United States and Canada, as well as in the hearts of every single Muslim, living and dead: to create a world free of all other belief systems, making Islam triumphant regardless of the desires and beliefs of other human beings.

Islam must defeat those that champion freedom in Iraq even if they must kill every single Iraqi man, woman, and child. Even if they must raze every building, destroy every oil well, or turn over the sands of the deserts in their spite and vengeance in order to destroy any vestige of resistance to Islam and Sha’ria that might exist within the hearts of even one Iraqi. Such is their vehemence of their rage against freedom of thought. Why else would they have tortured and executed fifty Iraqi soldiers of the new force?

As America is attempting to help Iraqis to determine their own futures, free from an enslaving Sha'ria, all things American, including those acting there to alleviate the suffering of decades under Saddam's brutality, must be destroyed in such a manner as to demonstrate that resistance to Islam is not only futile but deserving of a death accompanied by horror and true pain and suffering .

Will there be anything left of Iraq besides ashes once the Jihadists have their way? Perhaps this is the plan: to use Iraq as an object lesson, to show, as did the Romans when they plowed over Carthage with salt, that resistance to Islam will only bring total destruction. The world should note this possibility: Islam will destroy you completely if action is not taken.

Some good places to start when looking for news about Islam, thanks again to Ali Dashti and Jihad Watch

Jihad Watch: Al-Qa'ida Internet Magazine Sawt Al-Jihad Calls to Intensify Fighting During Ramadan- 'the Month of Jihad'


Some good places to start when looking for news about Islam:

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=661

http://news.yahoo.com/

http://news.google.com/

http://edition.cnn.com/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

http://www.foxnews.com/

http://www.alertnet.org/

http://www.reuters.com/

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/world/

http://www.voanews.com/

http://www.insideworldnews.com/

http://news.nabou.com/world/

http://www.economist.com/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

http://www.time.com/

http://www.iht.com/

http://www.worldtribune.com/

http://www.topix.net/religion/islam

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/newsfeed/?name=Islamic+News

http://islam.newstrove.com/

http://www.terrorism.com/

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

http://www.drudgereport.com/

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/

http://www.theatlantic.com/

http://www.pressdigest.net/tocnews.html

http://www.pressdigest.org/english.html

http://www.rocketnews.com/
(Just type "Muslim" and 0 days (today), and it will search out news)

http://www.centralasianews.net/about.php
(Look for news after region or country)

Posted by: Ali Dashti at October 23, 2004 10:15 AM

Islam Is Another Way of Saying Arab Nationalism

An excellent column in Slate describes how competely the identity Muslims and Arabs are wrapped up in Islam. After all, Islam was created on the Arabian Peninsula by Arabs for Arabs. Arabs spread Islam by the sword to neighboring territories along with all things Arab.

Arabs today are seen and revered as the first among Muslims for their role in bringing Islam to mankind. Bin Laden is a Muslim commander that has been lifted up to a place of prominence because of his "Arabness," and it's not a small thing that recently Abu Musab al-Zarqawi pledged allegiance to him and changed the name of his group to reflect his new allegiance.

It will be well for Westerners to become familiar with the concept of Pan-Islamism. The Islamic power base was centered on the Arabian Peninsula until it was grabbed away by the Ottoman Empire. And Arabia will always be the site of the three Mosques and sacred ground.

Muslims may fight among themselves to determine the center of Muslim power, but they are united in their determination to defeat and subdue the Infidel. That's us folks! They will use any means possible. We are all aware of their violent and dark side: bombings and beheadings. Employing the tactics of taqiyya and kitman Muslims will lie, flatter, bribe, or do whatever is necessary to achieve their goal: world domination with a triumphal Islam also known as the Caliphate, and Arab Muslims will be in the driver's seat! Imagine what will happen to the cost of a barrel of oil if this comes to pass!

When you read the rest of the original Slate article, "It's an Arab Nationalist Thing," be sure to follow the interesting links for further clarification.

John Kerry Leaves a Bad Taste--Let Me Count the Ways

John Kerry leaves a bad taste. I knew of many reasons, Victor Davis Hanson eloquently and succinctly lists six of them that “have everything to do with style, character, and judgment.” Hanson’s six reasons, as a friend reminded me, have nothing to do with Kerry’s abilities as his friends and family won’t be the leader of the free world, a point to consider. To add my two cents to Hanson’s hundred dollars, we are judged by the company we keep and the old saw, “actions speak louder than words.” Kerry’s actions and words and the people that surround him now are indicative of those that would advise him in his “kitchen” or unofficial cabinet and those “foreign leaders” and their friends and colleagues that certainly would not hold the best interest of the United States as their primary concern.

My grandmother’s homespun wisdom regarding pillow talk comes to mind when thinking about the creepy Teresa Heinz Kerry, the most unlikely candidate for First Lady in almost one hundred years, in comparison to both the remarkable and the less shining examples of recent first ladies, the elegant and refined Jackie Kennedy, the motherly Barbara Bush, as well as Lady Bird Johnson, Betty Ford, Pat Nixon, Nancy Reagan, Mamie Eisenhower, Bess Truman, the competent, though controversial Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the former school teacher-librarian, Laura Bush. Mrs. Heinz Kerry won’t be the leader of the United States, but there is no doubt in my mind that she will much to say and do about leading John Kerry if he becomes the leader. What’s more, Heinz Kerry is accustomed to getting her own way. Will it be wise to put such a headstrong individual in the halls of power to make her own mischief? I think not.

Kerry’s other choices of friends and companions give me pause. Michael Moore is not a person that is worthy to represent the United States in any function nor is the billionaire George Soros who doesn’t want a position in the government, but will be “glad to advise Kerry during his presidency.” What does the Left-winger Soros expect for those millions he shelled out to get Kerry elected as well as all those other Left-wing advisers that have pushed and pulled at his campaign and at our expense.

Will this be the year that the Left becomes triumphant in America? We hoped that with the fall of the Soviet Union we could have rid the world of all that Marxist-Leninist unpleasantness, but we were deceived. It has been transplanted to America through the willful assistance of our universities that have instilled that odious ideology into the minds of many, if not most, of our best and brightest minds. Pity that they are now spoiled for leadership in the best interest of America.

I fear that Kerry’s ascension to the American throne as leader of the Free World will unleash upon us the scourge of Leftist’ ideology that will bring down this country, weakening us in the one of the most dangerous moments in our collective history. Weakness that we can ill afford in view that there are forces that are patiently waiting in the wings with bombs and sharpened knives, ready to blow us up and dismember the residue.

Am I being overly dramatic? I think not. What the Islamists attempted to do on 9-11 will be repeated some day and could more easily succeed if we are weakened by a leader and his cabal that does not have the best interest of the United States ahead of his ambition.

ISLAM: After living in freedom in the West, who would want to be forced to live under totalitarian mind control?

Reading Sa'ud Bin Hamoud Al-Utaybi’s editorial certainly brings me closer to Islam knowing that Islamist fighters, jihadists, are striving to bring me closer to Allah. Of course I am being sarcastic. After living in freedom in the West, who would want to be forced to live under totalitarian mind control? Inviting Islam into our lives is equivalent to inviting Hitler's Brownshirts and all the others of the Nazi apparatus to inform and guide our lives.

Islamism and Nazism are the same in spirit and have the same goal: world domination. As Nazis used terror against European Jews and others in the 1930s, Islamists are using terror against the Jews and everyone else to create a climate of fear while they relentlessly dismantled European free institutions as well as in Africa and in Asia, replacing them with bureaucracies that stifled freedoms that we have traditionally enjoyed in the West.

The world and Europeans believed that they had freed themselves of Nazism forever at the end of WWII. Nazism as a political force was of course defeated, but the Nazi mentality remained behind in the minds of fringe elements of European society and in the minds of Anti-Semites, a traditional and unfortunate European mindset, as well as those that would come in contact with and be in league with North Africans and Middle Easterners, for the Nazi tradition had been transplanted to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood before Hitler’s death, and, like as the dangerous meme (mind virus) that it is, has infected the various and many Islamic resistance groups that have sprung up across today’s Muslim world.

Muslims need little to jump start them to use violence to accomplish their goal of world domination as the Koran, with its confusing collection of Sira, chapters, and “aya,” verses, and the ahadiths of the life of Mohammed give have abundant passages that exhort the Muslim to emulate the life of Mohammed, the “perfect man” that used tribalism, war and violence to spread the message of Islam. In contrast to Jesus, who preached a message of peace and non-violence, Mohammed encouraged and even exhorted Muslims to use the vehicle of war and deception to make Islam triumphant. Today extremists Muslims have gone back in time to revive the tradition of Mohammed as they have many times in the past. During thirteen hundred-fifty years, waves of Muslim aggression spread over the land, and sometimes were pushed back. Other times the invaders were successful, forcing populations to accept Allah at the point of a sword or at the prospect of living under the the condition of dhimmitude, enforced second-class citizenship.

To understand this point, non-Muslims MUST read history and procure and read these Koran, ahadiths, and other reference materials in order to form an informed opinion. Forming a correct opinion can be difficult for Islam does not permit dissent within its ranks and criticism or even questioning by non-Muslims is met with hostility, as both are capital offenses in the Muslim world. The Koran, a transcribed narrative depicting the stream of consciousness of Mohammed in conversation is confusing and difficult to understand as it is full of allusions to events of the Muslim world during the life of Mohammed, and information gleaned from the workings of Mohammed’s own mind, not the more straightforward teaching of the Torah and the Christian Bible.

Various Muslim scholars have had to interpret the even the text, and Muslims rely on these scholars to tell them what the Koran means. We all know that relying on others to tell us what something means is risky and unreliable at best as such opinions are often biased and fit an agenda. Muslims are required to read or memorize the Koran in Arabic even if they don’t understand Arabic, even if they are illiterate and can’t find out for themselves what the texts actually say. Translations of the Koran, ahadiths, and other texts, and explanations are available, but Muslims claim that they are not accurate, an absurd claim. How, then, would non-Arabic speakers and readers come to understand Islam? Muslims insist that they must take the word of Muslims that can speak and read Arabic for the inspiration.

The ahadiths are a compilation of the traditions and life of Mohammed collected and written down by various authors. “Each man has his own ahadith” speaks to their great numbers. As with sayings and events attributed to Jesus, conferences have been created to weed out those that seem less authentic. Even today there is controversy over what said and done and what it means. Today’s troubles are based on that controversy as Muslims bomb and maim each other in order to establish a dominant sect that will triumph over all other Muslims and the non-Muslim world in the name of Allah..

It is true that in the past Christians and Jews also have used war to spread and impose their faith, as we well know and as Islamists repeatedly remind us. That was then and this is now. Today’s world is far more dangerous. The spread of dangerous and lethal technologies has given extremists the power to do great harm to all mankind, not to solve the world’s problems, but to fulfill grudges and as revenge for real and perceived insults against groups and particular individuals.

Another point that is repeated is that America used atomic weapons at the end of World War II and have used nuclear weapons as a deterrent ever since. Nuclear weapons have become more than a deterrent. Our enemies see that America’s insistence that nuclear weapons not be made available for all as hypocrisy. However, America has not used nuclear weapons to spread an ideology of hate. They were used to check the totalitarian Soviets that had enslaved not only their own people but Eastern Europe and were threatening to move in on others as are the Islamists.

Today nuclear weapons are being used as potential blackmail in the hands of an apocalyptic ideology. There is no doubt in my mind that if Hitler had the bomb, he would not have used the bomb to end a war and to prevent further suffering. He would have used the bomb’s power to force us into slavery as his ideological successors, the Islamists and present-day European and American Leftists and surreptitious-Nazis, their collaborators, clearly will do.

If Islam is the “religion of peace,” why then do we find scores of influential Muslims spouting messages of hate across the Muslim world? Why aren’t they calling for Muslims to embrace peace and their non-Muslim neighbors in the spirit of brotherhood? There are Muslims that do, but it would be well to remember that for Islamists the term “peace” can’t be understood in the sense that we us it: the absence of war. For Islamists the term means “the absence of enemies.” To rid themselves of enemies, Islam requires that non-Muslims capitulate and swear allegiance to Islam whether or not they choose to adopt the faith and find themselves subdued as second-class citizens, dhimmis, with a list of prohibitions and responsibilities that would forever keep that status in front of their minds and those of their Muslims neighbors. If non-Muslims refuse to convert, or to become dhimmis, the other choice is death, for non-submission to Islam is a capital offense. For us in the West, this is no choice.

Muslims complain that the West keeps them down. The complaint is a red herring. Young Muslims are educated in the West and return home with all the knowledge and requisite skills to create viable industries to raise their standard of living. Billions of petro-dollars worth of oil have flowed into the accounts of wealthy Muslims around the world that could spend this money on creating industries and social services that would raise up the poverty-stricken millions of the world’s Muslims. Instead of improving the lives of the world’s Muslims, they choose to spend the money on themselves and on Islam, to make Islam triumphant over the world’s non-Muslims and as a vehicle for a power grab. Their leaders make the West and Israel the bad guy, a useful tool that they are using to keep the world’s Muslims agitated and focused on jihad rather than on them and on their bank accounts and lifestyles. As Iraq has shown us, there are certainly enough explosives and weapons in the Muslim world that could be used to overthrow corrupt governments if the people truly want something different.

It is obvious that the Islamists want something different and they will force the peoples of the Muslim world to want to accept extremism. The rhetoric of writers such as Sa'ud Bin Hamoud Al-Utaybi is an example of a move to create a theocracy run by clerics as if found in Iran, in their minds a “purer” and better government. The form and tone of the new society and government could go in different ways. To keep that which is created in the “purist mold,” Islam has always had checks and balances: Muslims must determine whether a thought or action is Muslim or non-Muslim through constant reflection, referring to an Imam for guidance, interminable rituals that inform and guide every aspect and imaginable behavior, last, but not least, prayer. There is nothing wrong with prayer, but being led in prayer five or six times a day and monitored attendance at services is over the top, the perfect mind-control mechanism. Extremism is Islam requires a return to the Muslim past of the Middle Ages that was super-puritanical, punitive, and invasive.

Americans experienced a similar social and religious tone to that which was developed in Europe and transplanted to America, that that created during in Colonial America a Christian totalitarianism sustained by thought and morality police and eventually died out and was replaced by modern Christian thought and expression. Puritanical Muslim societies such as Saudi Arabia and Iran have the thought and morality police today as do the Taliban that are re-emerging in Afghanistan.

Sa'ud Bin Hamoud Al-Utaybi’s editorial reflects the desire of Islamists the world over to affect world domination and the subjugation of all non-Muslims through jihad. His call may be for Middle Eastern Muslim consumption, but his words affect all of us whether we like it or not.

The Kerry Nightmare

The American Spectator

Chew on this!


The Kerry Nightmare
By William Tucker
Published 10/19/2004 12:09:28 AM


Last night I had the strangest dream. I guess it was a nightmare, really. I remember most of it, except how it ended.

First I dreamed Kerry won the election. That wasn't so bad in itself. He seemed Presidential enough for the job. He had a dignified bearing, spoke well, didn't mangle his phrases. People were weary after four years of uncertainty under George Bush and ready to try something new.

Kerry started off well. On January 22, in a burst of world optimism, he went to the U.N. and laid down his mea culpa. America had gone it alone too long, he said. We were ready to cooperate with the rest of the world. The General Assembly gave him a 15-minute standing ovation. His speech was cheered wildly in cities from Paris to Berlin to Peshawar. A new day had dawned. Peace was at hand.

The only concrete result that came out of his U.N. visit, however, was that Poland decided to accelerate its troop withdrawal, already scheduled for 2005. Other allies said that since Kerry was throwing in the towel, they were going to leave sooner than later as well. Everyone but Great Britain packed up and headed home. Meanwhile, Kerry visited France and Germany to hold long talks with President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder. The main outcome, however, was that they told him Iraq was his problem and wished him well. Meanwhile, terrorists in Iraq stepped up their operations.

By the time President Kerry got back from Europe, things had taken a turn for the worse. Both Sunni and Shi'ite leaders announced that, despite the January election of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, both now regarded his victory as illegitimate. Democracy was a foreign system that America was trying to impose on the Muslim world. Both recommended a return to the Ummah, with religious leaders at the helm. Since each sect claimed to the rightful heirs of Mohammed, each claimed the right to the position.

The opposition became bolder. Several suicide bombers penetrated the Green Zone and American casualties started to rise. With our allies pulling out, our soldiers were also required to take over key positions in the South. Suddenly we found ourselves stretched way too thin. Rioting broke out in several cities of the Sunni Triangle.

All the pretty plans of the campaign were evaporating and President Kerry now found himself facing the basic contradiction of his position. Was Iraq the wrong war at the wrong place and the wrong time? Or were we actually undermanned? For two long weeks, Kerry mulled the problem while fierce debate was waged in Congress. Half of Kerry's constituency called for a pullout and peace demonstrations took place in New York and Washington. Many Democrats in Congress said our troops were endangered, however, and call for a draft.

Kerry solved the problem by going to the United Nations. A high level conference was arranged in Baghdad with all sides attending. A truce was called and for three weeks an international panel debated the issue. Finally, it was decided that 140,000 American troops would be given safe passage out of the country. They would leave in an orderly fashion and then Iraqis would continue to meet under U.N. supervision to decide how they would govern themselves.

Like the Indians watching the British march out of Fort William Henry, however, once the terrorists saw their enemies defeated they could not restrain themselves. Before the American soldiers had even begun to pack their bags, they were under daily attack. General fighting broke out in several cities, even as the U.N. panel continued to meet. Then a suicide bomber rammed the home of Prime Minister Allawi and killed him. The elected government collapsed. Civil war broke out between Sunni and Shi'ite militias, both claiming religious authority, while the Kurds withdrew completely, declaring their own state..

Like so many a President before him, John Kerry found himself at the mercy of events. All the pretty plans of his election campaign -- the diplomacy, the conferences with our allies -- were forgotten. Suddenly he was a commander-in-chief trying to rescue a stranded army.

Events didn't wait. Now convinced that America was abandoning the Middle East and no longer content to watch Iran develop a nuclear weapon that in two years would be able to hit Jerusalem, the Israelis sent a fleet of F-16s to drop bunker-busting weapons on three nuclear complexes at Bushehr, Natanz, and Arak. Rioting broke out in every Middle Eastern capital. Terrorists streamed into Baghdad from every direction. Syrian and Egyptian armies prepared for a retaliatory attack against Israel.

That's when I woke up.

I've been walking around in a cold sweat all day thinking about these things. But that's silly, I suppose. After all, it was only a dream. The American people couldn't possibly elect John Kerry President, could they?


{William Tucker is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator and a contributing writer to the American Enterprise.}

A Book Worth Reading

The Dawning of a New Dark Age, A Collection of Essays on Islam, by Mark Alexander (1st Books, ISBN: 1-4107-9037-1, paperback; 2003)

I thought I knew almost all of the current books (past few years) about Islam. I had not encountered this book, however, until the author alerted me to it, for which I am grateful.

After reading the book, I can recommend it enthusiastically to readers new to Islam and its dangers, but I must offer a qualification to that recommendation.

First, the writing is excellent. The author’s style flows, with great grammar and syntax as well as thought formulation and progression, i.e., he is clear and easy to follow. I would love to see more writing from him.

The book is presented as a series of short essays. One may start at any point reading these and lose absolutely nothing by skipping about, as long as one reads the entire book. If you start reading from the beginning and proceed systematically to the end, you may notice repetitions, but probably not if you dip in and out until finished.

Second, and more importantly, his grasp of Islam meets many criteria of depth and breadth. He lived in Saudi Arabia long enough to come to terms with Islam, particularly the Saudi variety (Wahhabism), and Arabs. He knows the subject well and covers almost all of the concerns people should have about Islam. There is so very much I agree with that I almost had déjà vu. Some of the 47 chapters are more appealing to me than others, but these chapters are like 47 unique facets, each giving insight to this huge problem of Islamism. Someone beginning the work of studying Islam will find valuable nuggets of information in all 47 chapters.

Anyone unfamiliar with Islam will get a terrific education, delivered quickly and painlessly. It is such an easy introduction that I would put this book into the MUST READ category for those who want to understand why Islam is a threat to American culture and values, and who want a good place to start understanding the problems Islam creates for our civilization.

Third, the author is not just pro-Western culture, but he is unabashedly pro-American. He sees with objectivity about the threat that Islam poses to our country and the entire civilized world, and he minces no words presenting his thoughts fearlessly, without concessions made to the “sensitivities” of this or that person or group or nation. I greatly admire how he identifies multiculturalism and political correctness for the evils that they are, and identifies Islam and its evils for what they are. Since he spent significant time in school in England, he speaks to how the Brits have severely endangered themselves by being so obliging to the Muslims infesting their country. He also has excellent chapters on France and Turkey.

My sole complaint is that, for all of the author’s excellent qualities, he is not philosophically-oriented; I wish so much that he was. Were he so oriented, his case against Islam could be even stronger, perhaps unassailable. He wants very much to wake people up, to shake them out of their passive unconcern, to fill their minds with good information, and to neutralize the poison of relativism, multiculturalism, and political correctness, all of which are sustained by today’s wide-spread moral uncertainty among Americans. He is looking for answers in terms of guiding principles, and he comes close to finding them.

However, he relies on Western religion as a philosophical base, particularly Christianity, rather than philosophical principles, and this perspective just does not take him as far as he obviously wants to go. Religions have values which differ from religionist to religionist, and which separate religions from a strong system of philosophy. Rational, integrated philosophical principles complete the armamentaria, and take those who hold these principles the full distance.

What religionists and non-religionists have in common is a shared vision of the incredible danger Islam poses. We also support the Constitution, which guarantees our freedom of thought and Rights of Man. We must stand united and well-armed through the discipline of philosophy rather than distracted by differences in details of various belief systems.

[We discuss the philosophical elements of Islam and dealing with it within our website, 6th Column Against Jihad.]

Otherwise, I enjoyed this book very much, and I think it offers much of value to an intelligent reader who wants a good place to start to understanding Islam.

(Review by George Mason)

YES, YES, YES--->GETTING IT RIGHT!!!! Why to Vote for President Bush, by Harry Binswanger, from Capitalism Magazine

Vote for President Bush by Harry Binswanger -- Capitalism Magazine


I have been wanting to write a solid statement about why anyone who is remotely rational should re-elect George W. Bush. Life has been throwing many balls for this "juggler" right now, and I might not get to it until it is moot. Thankfully, Harry Binswanger has written one of the best critiques of Bush and Kerry and drawn elegant conclusions about why to re-elect Bush.

I read Mr. Binswanger's article today in Capitalism Magazine which is right up there with Front Page Magazine as one of the best on-line magazines. I can provide other details, but I cannot improve. So, read this article--and think.

To intice you, here is the article summary:

Summary: The nature of this campaign is set, and the meaning of this election is: independence vs. dependence. The Bush policies favor America retaining its sovereignty--cooperating with allies as and when they are willing--and America on the offensive. The Kerry program favors America surrendering that independence to curry favor with the bribed French and the America-hating despots at the United Nations.

More than third of U.S. Muslims see war on Islam

More than third of U.S. Muslims see war on Islam -- The Washington Times

"More than one-third of American Muslims believe that the U.S. war on terrorism is really a war on Islam, according to survey information released yesterday by researchers at Georgetown University."

Compare that to the C.A.I.R. survey published within the past two weeks that purports that 25% of Americans regard Muslims negatively.

The Islamic apologists whine petulantly while most of the rest of the media act like they do not know how to react to these data.

To me, these two surveys mean that we are making progress.

Prior to 9-11-2004, both of these surveys would have shown tiny percentages in the same categories. Despite the events of the 1990s, Americans remained obsequiously blind to Islam and its practitioners. Now, America is catching on: While not all Muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists are Muslims, and this is what the objective Muslims are saying (See the Middle East Media Research Institute publications).

Only now are better sorts of Muslims in America starting to stand up publicly to oppose the Islamic jihadists in theory and practice, over three years later.

Those who have overcome their own inertia and read any of the really outstanding books which tell the truth about Islam (see our recommendations on 6th Column Against Jihad), have learned that Islam is as it has always been. It has always been a philosophy of war masquerading as a religion (wolf in sheep's clothing). It preaches universal conquest and domination by Muslims against all non-Muslim peoples on the globe.

All over the world, MUSLIMS are killing, maiming, and destroying. All over the world, ISLAM'S JIHADISTS preach violent death to America and act out what they preach. WE--the USA--have been severely attacked. By Whom? By Muslims, jihadists, Islamists. WE--the USA--have had to war against these sand savages of the religion and philosophy of hate and nihilism.

What is behind all of this jihadic misery in the world? It is ISLAM, ISLAM, ISLAM! We-the USA--ARE at war with Islam, and only the cowardly politically correct are trying to evade this fact by calling the Islamic spade a non-spade (like "radical Islam" or "hijacked Islam").

Who practices ISLAM? It is MUSLIMS. What identifies almost every terrorist infesting the world? They are MUSLIMS.

These are the facts of reality. I did not make up any of this. A is A. Things are what they are, modern academia notwithstanding.

Muslims and Islam caused this mess, and they have been teaching us to fear and hate them, and teaching us to want to destroy them. It is THEIR FAULT, not ours. We did not start this--Muhammad did, some 1400 years ago.

Muslims need to stop crying in their cups. They need to reform Islam fundamentally, subordinating Islamic might to the Rights of Man. If necessary, they must destroy Islam, if it cannot be modernized. As it is, it is a deadly philosophy totally on a par with Nazism in principles and actions. American Muslims need to break up living on "reservations," and assimilate. And, while doing it, stand up for America, loudly and proudly and stop actively and passively supporting its destruction.

These figures of 38% and 25% are too low, but they represent progress. If Muslims do not heal themselves, these numbers must increase until we reach critical mass which will force Islam into the existential choice of REFORM or PERISH.

FIFTH COLUMN AT WORK: Disgusting Duke University

WorldNetDaily: Terror-harboring group recruits students at Duke
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40973, Monday, October 18, 2004,by Aaron Klein.

To begin appreciating how morally ugly is the event and its university sponsor are, start with the by-line:

HOMELAND INSECURITY
Terror-harboring group recruits students at Duke
University hosts organization that supports violent jihad operations

Then add, "Speakers at a controversial Duke University Palestinian solidarity conference, which concluded yesterday, recruited students to join a terrorist-harboring organization..."

Those who presented "...[W]ould not state their last names."

Some people, retaining sanity, went as spies and reported:

"This workshop, just as its title suggests, functioned as a recruiting session for the ISM, and ISM brochures and materials were distributed there," the Conservative Union member told WorldNetDaily.

Try these paragraphs on for size:

The conference at Duke was PSM's fourth national gathering, following previous events at Berkeley, Michigan and Ohio State. Some PSM critics have charged that those earlier events were hotbeds of anti-Semitism, with some attendees
shouting, "Kill the Jews," and "Death to Israel!"

As WorldNetDaily reported, this year's conference featured a host of other speakers who publicly support suicide bombings, including Fadi Kiblawi, who advocates killing Jews everywhere. He wrote in a University of Michigan publication of his desire to
"strap a bomb to one's chest and kill those racists ... The enemy is not just overseas. The enemy is also amongst us."

Typical of liberals, the President and administration of Duke either pleaded ignorance or proudly proclaimed that they could take no stand.

Some people have nutsy ideas about what constitutes "tolerance." Our Constitution provides for people to speak freely without governmental interference. It does not provide for the "right to be heard." Furthermore, Duke is a private university, so is even farther removed from governmental intervention. As someone said, the protections of the Constitution are not to become a "SUICIDE PACT."

Once some one or some group declares itself enough for its guiding principles and practices to be defined, tolerance stops when you find those principles and practices are aimed at the annihilation of you, your values, and the values of civilization. Once diagnosable as irrational, tolerance of a person or a group must end, in the name of reason, reality, and ethics based on these. If you do not end it, you become part of the problem rather than the solution.

Duke should be chastised and punished. The best people to do are its alumni, by ending donations and withdrawing all sanctions until the administration gets its principles screwed on correctly and vows never to repeat this or participate in other conferences with murderers. The rest of us should email and write letters to Duke, and publish blogs and articles which expose its behavior.

Websites by Ex-Muslims

Jihad Watch: Islam: A Totalitarian Ideology?


So much material is flowing in to be read and digested, and so many existential commitments are competing that we're in a bottleneck preparing and publishing blog material. However, this is a quick one but an excellent one.

Jihad Watch presents not only highly relevant articles from all over the globe in this war with Islam. If you are not going there daily, you are missing great stuff. Commentors add to articles, and some of these commentors are just outstanding. One is Ali Dashti.

Today, Ali Dashti has republished some links you might want to copy and refer to from time to time.

As always, the old list of websites by ex-Muslims:

http://www.secularislam.org/

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

http://www.middleastwomen.org/

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

http://www.mukto-mona.com/

http://www.homa.org/

http://www.ladeeni.net/english.htm

http://taslimanasrin.com/

http://www.muslimsandislamic.faithweb.com/

http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/

http://exmuslim.com/

http://www.islamreview.org/

http://www.shoebat.com/

http://www.noniedarwish.com/

http://www.murtadd.org/

http://www.webspawner.com/users/hfali1/

http://www.knowislam.info/

http://www.geocities.com/ibn_rushd2

http://www.ampbreia.com/


Posted by: Ali Dashti at October 18, 2004 09:40 AM

New Material on 6th Column Against Jihad Website

We are pleased to announce that we have added new material to our website, 6th Column Against Jihad, which is the companion site to this blog. Cubed has published Part II of her series on the role of American education as fifth column to the jihad--specifically in this part II, the History of American Education. We invite you to visit the site, and--if you would like to contribute something--please contact us at 6thcolumn@6thcolumnagainstjihad.com.

Hitler's Iraq

Hitler's Iraq, by Grant Jones, FrontPageMagazine.com, October 14, 2004.

Scratch a Nazi, find an Islamist. Scratch an Islamist, find a Nazi. Islam is much older than Nazism, but it is entirely sympatico with it. As Craig Winn points out in his recent book, Prophet of Doom, Hitler found Muhammad, Mohammedism, Islam entrancing, and he learned much from Islam. Likewise, the rise of Nazism was heralded with great favor in the Middle East, and it is still popular among Islamists.

Apologists will indicate that this article by Grant Jones addresses only the politics of the Ba'ath Party and its affection for Nazism and says little to nothing about Islam. Included in this effort to fog the issues, American lefties will echo the same. It is not true about this terrific article, and, besides, history makes liars of them all. Islam and politics are fused, as many have pointed out, including us in 6th Column Against Jihad. Islam and language are fused. Islam and culture are fused. "Secular" over there does not mean secular as we use it. Where do these secular dictators get their ideas, after all?

This article is as refreshing as it is well-written. I love it when someone tells the truth without a filter as does the author of this article: "Actually, those that are trying to re-establish the secular Baath dictatorship, or its Islamist equivalent, are pure evil."

Jones nails the situation over there with:

It is not surprising that both the secular Fascists of Syria and the medieval theocrats of Iran and Al Qaeda should unite in attacking those that would bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East. Nihilists united in hate recognize their common ambitions and enemies. Their purpose is to destroy what chance there is for democracy in Iraq, after which they will fight it out for power. A classic example of nihilists uniting to destroy freedom is the Enabling Act passed by the German Reichstag on 23 March 1933. This act made Hitler dictator of Germany by a vote of 444 to 84. On the surface it seems peculiar that Communists delegates would vote for such a measure along with the Nazis. But only on the surface, the Nazis and Communists were just two different gangs with a common enemy, the first democracy Germany ever had, the Weimar Republic.

Why is the Middle East the basket case of the world? Islam. Why is Islam so destructive? It, like our overglorified left in America, is nihilism.

Brownshirts on the March

Brownshirts on the March,Reprinted from NewsMax.com, Phil Brennan, Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2004

This article speaks for itself.

To Kerry supporters: Be careful what you ask for.

They were the thugs Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) used in their drive to power: beating up opponents; destroying polling booths; driving off opposition party voters at the polls; stealing ballot boxes; attacking and trashing opposition party headquarters; and generally brutalizing anybody who dared to oppose their beloved fuehrer.

The SA, or Sturmabteilung, also called 'Brownshirts' were Nazi terrorists in uniform dedicated to intimidating and brutalizing any groups or individuals who stood in their way.

They are of course long since dead, most having been butchered by Hitler's new corps of thugs, the SS, after the SA had outlived their usefulness.

In this election year of 2004 we are witnessing a rebirth of the same kind of political thuggery, this time acting in behalf of the National Socialist Democrat Abortion Party (the new NSDAP).

Consider: "Protesters ransack a Bush campaign headquarters in Orlando, Florida," wrote Wednesday on the Web columnist Kim Weissman. "Bush campaign workers are assaulted in Miami. Shots are fired into Bush campaign offices in Knoxville, Tennessee and Huntington, West Virginia. Republican headquarters in Bozeman, Montana are vandalized, for the second time in a week. The window of the Bush campaign headquarters in Bellevue, Washington is smashed, the office burglarized and computers containing campaign plans are stolen; cars with Bush bumper stickers are vandalized and campaign signs are painted with swastikas and burned."

This kind of unrestrained thuggery is going on all across the nation, and the thugs are all supporters of the new NSDAP - all of them acolytes of the Kerry/Edwards campaign, no matter how loudly the Democratic candidates disavow them.

Wrote Kim: "Scenes such as these used to be the stuff of evening news reports about elections in foreign nations struggling to achieve liberty and representative government; but thanks to the unending torrent of hatred spewed by Democrats and leftists and magnified by the media, these events are now taking place in our own neighborhoods."

Think about it - the mainstream media elite has not bothered to report on this widespread organized brutality. Imagine what their reaction would be if it was being carried out by supporters of George Bush and his Republican colleagues.

Kim Weissman put it this way:

"If such criminal violence had been directed against Kerry campaign offices and workers, the media would be in full-throated hysteria, Democrats would be screaming "hate crimes" and demanding investigations by the Justice Department, and they would also probably seek to involve the U.N. Civil Rights Commission, claiming this to be an organized civil rights violation designed to inhibit voter turnout (with more faith in non-democratic foreign organizations than in their own countrymen, Democrats have already succeeded in getting international monitors to supervise our upcoming election)."

Writing in National Review Online Stanley Kurtz revealed incidences of NSDAP neighborhood terrorism. "Plenty of folks told me that their cars had been keyed, dented, or had windows smashed in for carrying a Bush-Cheney bumper sticker. Nasty notes left on the windshield are common. And some drivers get cut off in traffic and flipped off by cars sporting Kerry bumper stickers. One fellow said a couple of young guys pulled up next to his 64-year-old mother's car and signaled her to roll the window down. When she did, they screamed, "Bush is a F***ing MORON!"

"Apparently, Bush-Cheney cars are routinely keyed in places like liberal Seattle. And liberal Bethesda, Md., has reportedly seen a rash of spray-paintings of Bush yard signs (with Kerry signs left intact). One pro-Bush family in liberal West L.A. had its yard sign stolen six times. Theft, spray paint, or just tearing to shreds are the weapons of choice against yard signs, but one Bush-Cheney sign was actually set on fire. Even in conservative Idaho, Bush-Cheney cars get keyed. And in conservative Houston, parking while visiting a friend in the liberal midtown section can mean a keyed car. Apparently, these attacks are so common that you can now buy a T-Shirt with a picture of a slashed-out Bush/Cheney logo and the legend, "A person of tolerance and diversity keyed my car."

At the root of all this is the almost total domination of the Democratic party by self-proclaimed "progressives," a code word for socialists once used by the members of Moscow's subservient American communist party to identify each other.

No matter how you describe it, Socialism is a coercive ideology that cannot survive without ultimately resorting to force to enforce its totalitarian doctrines.

Violence is socialism's ultimate weapon.

In its name, hundreds of millions of people were murdered by such socialist regimes as the Soviet Union, the Chinese communist government, Castro's Cuba and Hitler's National Socialist (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei - NAZI) party among others.

In their eyes, anyone opposing socialism is an enemy of progress and must be dealt with accordingly. The stronger the opposition the stronger must be the measures against it.

Mr. Kerry and his kewpie doll running mate would deny that they are socialists, but one quick look at their programs, or as Kerry puts it, their "plans," and you see they have got Karl Marx written all over them.

Their catalogue of plans is a litany of government programs. Individual businesses small and large do not provide jobs - in their administration they will (note how Saddam's socialist Ba'athist party did it - 60 percent of the working people of Iraq worked for the government).

You name it - health care, education, scientific research - no matter what the issue, their plan calls for the government to handle it. That sort of thing has a name - it's called socialism. It starts out as socialism lite. But it has been truly said that when you go socialist you have to go all the way - you can never be half-socialist any more than you can be half-pregnant. And history shows that sooner or later socialism lite becomes socialism heavy.

The Brownshirts are on the march, and the banner they carry is a Kerry/Edwards campaign poster - and that tells us plenty about what the new NSDAP is all about.

Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist who writes for NewsMax.com. He is editor & publisher of Wednesday on the Web (http://www.pvbr.com) and was Washington columnist for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He also served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska. He is also a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers.

He can be reached at phil@newsmax.com


102