"History is philosophy teaching by example." (Lord Bolingbroke)

New Email Address:

Monday, February 28, 2005

What in the Hell is Wrong with these People?

Fox News reports this morning that in Iraq a car bomb blew up in a crowd of people applying for jobs, and some 100 were killed.


Hank Hill of King of the Hill fame has a delightful southern expression which deserves paraphrasing right here: These people ain't right.

Why, in the name of sanity and preservation of life, are cars allowed in dense urban areas and any other areas which can serve as good targets?

If you know the answer, please contact us. The suspense is killing us.

FIFTH COLUMN ALERT: "How governments need to deal more effectively with their Muslim populations"

The subtitle for this article could be: "You do the work, and we'll reap the benefits."

What I am referring to is a very disappointing op-ed from Mansoor Ijaz, a brilliant man, born in America, to Muslim parents from Pakistan who became university scientists. He networks with consummate skill and finds out what is going on in the Islamic terror world long before most people do.

For some reason, Mansoor Ijaz has reissued his older op-ed piece, from April 25, 2004, originally published in the Los Angeles Times. What is in that op-ed cannot go unchallenged.

IJAZ: Muslim extremism's increasingly present face in Western societies is largely the result of a political failure of governments that are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of those who find the message of Al Qaeda's leaders more appealing than that of Tony Blair, George W. Bush or Spain's recently unseated prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar.

Disappointingly, the finger of blame points away from Muslims and Islam. It is back to impossible causes such as Blair, Bush, and Aznar. No, it isn't the fault of these heads of state. The fault lies right in the heart of the Muslim ghettos in America and the West. They preach Islam, a full philosophy devoted to nihilism. Young people quest for a philosophy to help them understand life. Islam gives them something they accept as an "understanding," but it serves to turn their impetuous youth into "killbots" solely to preserve, protect, and further Islam.

I am not lying or exaggerating. What I am saying about Islam, Islam says about itself. It is all there in Islamic core doctrines, easily available for purchase. I bought. I read. I concluded.

Unlike Muslims, I take responsibility for what is in my mind and how I behave. I have sought out and found proper philosophy for understanding and engaging life, and have spent a lifetime implementing it. Al Qaeda could not be more alien to me now or at the worst of my impetuous youth. Ideas move men. Men move cultures. Cultures move civilizations. Therefore, ideas create civilizations (or destroy them). It "ain't" hard to understand. Raphael Patai in his magnificent book, The Arab Mind, describes this mindset and thinking of Muslims to avoid any meaningful self-responsibility.

IJAZ: So why are Muslim citizens in Western countries hesitant to do more to help unearth extremists hidden in their communities? It's a combination of frustration, apathy, fear of overreaching authorities and a sense of helplessness to do anything about poorly crafted government policies..

IJAZ: In the United States, Muslim citizens who want to help rid their communities of extremist elements are afraid and increasingly angry. Those who venture into the nearest Federal Bureau of Investigation office to offer a helping hand are often met with suspicion about their motives. Also, their communities often brand them "Uncle Abdullahs" for betraying the Muslim cause.

Now, why would anyone feel distrust about Muslims? Could it be their dedication to hudna, taqiyya, kitman, and Muhammad's dictum regarding jihad, "War is deception"? Could it be that Muslims have an indelible track record of deceit and treachery, spanning more than 14 centuries? Could it be that Islam itself as doctrine has never changed from the beginning and encites Muslims to behave treacherously? Could it be that Muslims in America who supposedly support America sit on their hands and keep mum instead of voicing their support for America and castigating their own ne'er-do-wells? Could it be that the ones who do speak and write and have the fawning attention of the media are universally anti-American?

What's missing in Muslim communities is fortitude and integrity, if they want to shed the widely held opinion that Muslims are either overt jihadists or covert jihadists. They are like black communities terrorized by young thug blacks and too lacking in moral certainty to kick these thugs into the oblivion they deserve, so they suffer in self-sacrificial silence, just as Islam teaches them.

IJAZ: Political leadership is needed to put an end to this senseless cycle of mistrust. Some suggestions that can help:

• Invite Muslims into government. Appoint Muslims to sensitive defense,intelligence and foreign affairs postings. If threats are emanating from people who claim Islam as their religious guidance, who better to help gather and assess raw intelligence and formulate prudent policies than Muslim citizens?

• Improve community outreach. Mothers need to be asked to form local Muslim equivalents of the Rotary Clubs of America; teenagers and teachers need to work more closely with civic groups populated by other, non-Muslim, citizens to improve communication and integration. Imams need to be vetted by moderate Muslims to ensure they don't spew violence and hatred at prayer gatherings.

• Start Neighborhood Watch programs in Muslim areas run by willing community articipants. Muslim community leaders need to spend time with law enforcement officials, inviting them into mosques, homes, schools and businesses to gain a better understanding of Islam and its practices. Similarly, law enforcement needs to bring Muslims into its ranks and explain, in culturally and religiously sensitive terms, what help is being sought and what assistance can be offered.

All of these suggestions imply that it is up to us to do the changing. As a very typical American, I would care nothing about whether Abdullah is Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or atheist--as long as Abdullah respected my RIGHTS! Rights come from the nature of man, not some vile collection of alleged revelations called a Koran. Rights come from reality. Islam comes from evil epistemology and psychoepistemology of arch-conservative power-mad fiends. Islam is not reality.

So, I am to change? NO! I won't. If these Muslims want to live in MY country, they can assimilate and become Americans. They can adopt our principles and follow our laws. If they want to kiss a rug five times a day, I could care less. I will not become them for hosts of very valid reasons. Nor will other Americans be willing to change. Change in this case means doing and becoming something we are not, and that something is wrong.

Until these Muslims show they can be trusted, they have no business in government, military, or any positions of trust.

For me to trust them, they must start by forsaking Islam. There can be no "moderate Islam" or "moderate Muslims" because of the completely philosophy of Islam.

I am not a Christian, I hasten to add, but I do not feel this way about Christians because their Christianity poses no existential threat to my values. Islam does.

IJAZ: Islam's lunatic fringe, embodied by Al Qaeda's message of hate and fear, has never respected state boundaries or the duties imposed by citizenship in free and democratic societies. It is time for European and American political leaders to redress this disconcerting trend by inspiring their Muslim citizens to join the fight against terror and extremism before more of our youth fall into the abyss of fanaticism.

It is time for the Mansoor Ijazs to do this. Political leaders are worthless. Muslims will listen to Muslims. Those who allege that they are "moderate" should get very public, very often. We should see Muslims getting off their dead prayer rugs and taking part in America properly. We must see Muslims declare publicly, often and individually, that they take responsbility for changing themselves. Their welfare is their responsibility. That is the way it is for us, and that is the way it must be for them.

Sunday, February 27, 2005

Where the Unholy Alliance Is Taking Us

I am reading The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, edited by Robert Spencer (Promethus Books, Amherst, NY; 2005; ISBN: 1-59102-249-5), and I have encountered many facts, outstanding thoughts, and some beautiful writing (none of the writing drops below good, so far). I started a new chapter by Bat Ye'Or, author of the new book coming out about Eurabia. The first two paragraphs absolutely grabbed me because they make past into living prologue, and they tell us what we are going to be if our intellectuals, politicians, and men-on-the-street do not wake up to the fact that we at war with Islam, not terrorism.

From chapter 6, DHIMMI PEOPLES, Oppressed Nations, pages 115 and 116:

There are peoples roaming the earth who no longer have a soul. Flight and exile have enfeebled their memories, dimmed their sight, and stifled their speech. In glancing through history textbooks, they smile in melancholy: today their nations no longer exist. Vanquished peoples,they have been rejected by history and have joined the anonymous mass of exploited peoples, who blood, tears, and sweat have helped to build the civilization of their oppressors. Thus they wander through the world, with neither roots nor memories, strangers, forgotten by time, atomized--bearing their nostalgia like a shackle.

When historians, peering into history through the conqueror's eyeglass,meet them at the turn of every century, eloquent in their gloomy silence, they deem "tolerant" the genocide that decimated these peoples, forgetting that the silence of nations is the same as that of the gulag. Some have survived,emaciated: these are the amaritans. Others resist, and when their struggle explodes into violence, the world remembers the meaning of bravery: these are the Maronites. Others fight alone in the name of independence: these are the Kurds. Others despair in exile: these are the Armenians and the Assyrian Christians. Some are resigned to their fate: these are the Copts. And others dig up, from their liberated land, the ruins of their ancient culture destroyed by the occupant: these are the Israelis. So numerous and diverse, all these nations have shared a common destiny for thirteen centuries: they have resisted to the limits of human endurance in order to survive.

This is why we must take on the enemy, Islam, and destroy it forever. It is not terrorism that is the enemy. Reread Bat Ye'or's magnificent description of overrun peoples who have been destroyed by Islam and its hoards.

It is Islam. It is Islam. It is Islam.

Saturday, February 26, 2005

GUEST BLOG from Isaiah Grant: The War On Terror Is A Misnomer

The War On Terror Is A Misnomer

by Isaiah Grant

The war on terror is a misnomer. Terror is a tactic employed by the terrorist to accomplish a poltical end.

Since September 11, 2001, the United States has been at war with an evil doctrine. This evil doctrine is fundamental Islam - Islam as revealed in Islamic scriptures.

These scriptures are comprised of the Qur'an (the immutable word of Allah revealed to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel) and Hadith/Sunnah (sayings, deeds, and traditions of Islam's lone prophet, Muhammad).

The oldest and most respected sources documenting Muhammad's creation include:
- Ibn Ishaq's Sira (biography)
- al-Tabari's Tar'ikh (history)
- Al-Bukhari's Hadith (The True Traditions)
- Muslim's Hadith Collections
- The Qur'an

Can you imagine, if during WW2, the United States was at war with 'blitzkrieg' rather than Nazism?

Political Correctness and moral equivalence have blinded politicians, bureaucrats, the clergy, academicians and the media. Most importantly, PC has blinded the populace in general.

We see the President of the United States calling Islam a "religion of peace" and welcoming Imams to the White House to confer. Most recently, President Bush - in his State Of the Union Address - praised several terrrorist nations/entities including: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the Palestinian Authority while scolding Iran and Syria. This is not only short sighted and hypocritical, but dangerous as well.

Until we can name identify the enemy of civilization clearly and without equivocation, we are all in jeopardy.

The term "Islam" means submission.
Islam is not a religion of peace.
The Qur'an is a terrorist manifesto.
The Hadith is a declaration of war against mankind.

Muhammad, Islam's lone prophet was a: genocidal murderer, war mongerer, liar, thief, pirate, pedophile, slave trader, misogynist and demagogue.

Fundamental Islam implicates itself. These are some quotations from Islamic scripture.

Noble Qur'an 2:190 Footnote: "Jihad is holy fighting in Allah's Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad, Islam is established, Allah's Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshipped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad, Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior postion: their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies a hypocrite."

Qur'an 47:4 "So when you clash with the unbelieving infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making them captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burderns. Thus you are commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam."

Ishaq: 327 "Allah said, 'A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion."

Qur'an 8:67 "It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisioners until he has made a great slaughter in the land."

Bukhari: V4B52N220 "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror."'

Tabari VIII: 141 "The battle cry of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah that night was: 'Kill, Kill, Kill!'"

Qur'an 5:33 "The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His prophet and make mischief in the land, is to murder them, crucify them, or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides... their doom is dreadful. They will not escape the fire, suffering constantly."

Qur'an 2:61 "Humiliation and wretchedness were stamped on the Jews and they were visited with Allah's wrath."

Ishaq: 240 "The Jews are a nation of liars...The Jews are a treacherous, lying, and evil people."

Qur'an 33:26 "Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before."

Qur'an 4:55 "Sufficient for the Jew is the Flaming Fire!"

Ishaq: 364 "Muslims, take not the Jews and Christians as friends. Whoever protects them becomes one of them, they become diseased, and will earn a similar fate."

The aforementioned quotes are but a smattering of what can be found in Islamic scripture.

Fundamental Islam is a vile doctrine.
Allah is not the same God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.
Allah is a satanic spirit.
Muhammad was a demonic man, possessed by the same spirt as Adolf Hitler.

Good Muslims who adhere to Islamic scripture are, by definition, terrorists. Muslims who do not adhere to Islamic Scripture are, by definition, hypocrites - and therefore face the same fate as infidels. There is no such entity as moderate Islam. Moderate Muslims do not exist (they are hypocrites if they are being sincere). To conceal the true nature of Muhammad and Islamic scripture is to whitewash evil incarnate and to deceive the masses.

Fundamental Islam is as hateful and dangerous- if not more so- than Nazism. To allow evil to proliferate and propagate in our midst is, in itself, evil and totally lacking in compassion, not to mention intelligence.

Deu: 18 commands us not to tolerate false teachings, false doctrines and false prophets. We are to be intolerant of that which is intolerable.

We must not allow the forces of political correctness, moral equivalence and moral relativism to obfuscate the reality of a deadly doctrine. To do so is suicidal.

"Isaiah Grant," exclusive to, is a Pulmonary/Critical Care Physican who lives in the Southwest United States. He is an ardent Zionist and wholehearedly supports Israel. Isaiah believes the Israeli government should design a constitution and have greater checks and balances. He can be reached at
Pro Israel Zionism

Friday, February 25, 2005

The Hudna

Hal Lindsey Oracle - Politically Incorrect - Prophetically Correct

Hal Lindsey is someone I seldom read because of his religiosity; however, he has some useful things to say about Islam. It is not too hard to shuck his religious polemics and propaganda from the kernels of truth he offers. It would be throwing away the baby with the bath water to reject him out of hand just because he is religious, but one must read with mind in focus.

Here is the meat of what Mr. Lindsey has to tell us about "hudna" or sort of peace declaration or "promise," another one of the nefarious mindsets and behaviors of Muslims. He is right on, and we need to keep this lesson in mind at all times when we deal with Muslims.

As everyone applauds the "valiant efforts" of Mahmoud Abbas to secure a "cease-fire" from a bunch of terrorist gangs that have sworn they will never have a permanent peace with Israel, it is time to review the sacred Muslim concept of "hudna."

It began with Islam's most revered founder, Muhammad. He declared a 10-year "hudna" with the Quraysh tribe that controlled Mecca. Two years into the hudna, Muhammad had acquired enough troops and arms to abrogate the hudna and conquer Mecca – decimating the Quraysh in the process.

This became known as the "Quraysh Model," which defines the meaning of a hudna. When you are militarily at a disadvantage, declare a "hudna" until you are militarily strong enough to discard it and win the war. This is a Muslim tactic that has been used over and over again throughout history with devastating success.

[Permanent peace] with Muslims is a self-deception for those who ignore the history of the Quraysh-Hudna Muslim tactic. To the followers of the Quran, this is just a tactical interlude in a long-term strategy for ...the return of what they view as sacred Muslim soil to its rightful owner – Allah.

We of the Western world think in terms of about a 10-year historical context for our decision making. Muslims think in terms of a couple of centuries as the context for present-day strategic planning.

In the case of land previously conquered by Muslims, now under the control of "infidels," [or lands coveted by Muslims] there is no time limit for the obligation of true Muslims to take it back for Allah. It never means a permanent peace. It is only a tactical interlude in which Muslims rearm for a successful jihad. So beware of the "hudna."

What amazes me is how easily Westerners get sucked into arrangements of trust with Muslims. What facilitates this for the Muslims and makes Westerners such enormous suckers is Westerner ignorance of Islam. God forbid, so to speak, that someone in government, politics, journalism, or the man on the street read something crystal clear and truthful, such as Mark Alexander's The Dawning of a New Dark Age. Ignorance forces people to learn the hard way, and I do mean "hard."

All the victimhoodism coming from Muslim sources within America plays up racism, bias, prejudice, hatred, etc., against this "poor picked on, totally innocent group of believers." And, like cows answering the dinner bell, many Americans head to the trough to partake what Muslim propagandists and polemicists are dishing out, and change their behavior instead of demanding that Muslims get real. Even cows ruminate, but not many Americans either learn or think.

This is a correctible situation. For a few dollars, one's mind can be stoked with facts and a truthful perspective. Then, when Muslims comes bearing hudnas, Americans stop buying them. Then we will have gained critical strength.

Thursday, February 24, 2005

FIFTH COLUMN ALERT: Rangel: Don't Call it 'Islamic Terrorism' Inside Cover Story,

Liberalism and Left have become synonymous. While fusing, these positions have added another important dimension, namely ignorance. Ignoring the old saying about having two ears and two eyes but just one mouth, the Left usually speak and write BEFORE engaging their brains. The result? Here is an archtypical example.

The most positive thing that could be said about Congressman Rangel's remarks would be ignorance. The alternative would be malice and aiding and abetting the enemy. He has incorporated into his being the worst of the civil rights wranglers who have turned a struggle for equality under the law into special privilege and benefits industry. Such tripe trips from his tongue without summons. You can see it in these recent remarks.

Apparently unaware of any information about the nature and content of Islam, Mr. Rangel "spake":

Top House Democrat Charlie Rangel said Tuesday that it was an act of discrimination to label groups like Hezbollah "Islamic terrorists."

Asked about the refusal by some European governments to declare Hezbollah an Islamic terror group, Rangel told WWRL's Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter, "To call it Islamic terror is discriminating, it's bigoted, it is not the right thing to say."

Rangel even questioned whether, in fact, a worldwide Islamic terrorist movement even existed, saying, "We just take for granted that there is an Islamic terror movement because we do have some fanatic people who come from Islamic countries."
The Harlem Democrat complained: "When we had the Ku Klux Klan we didn't call them Baptist terrorists. When Hitler was killing Jews, we didn't call it Christian terrorists."

Rangel said Americans needed to realize "that a lot of countries may be poor, but they still have pride. And that is one thing that we completely ignore."

Mr. Rangel never seems to embarrass himself. Perhaps he is incapable.

For the rest of America, Mr. Rangel is a danger. He equates jihadist activity with "pride" and Islam with being just another religion, like being a Baptist. He seeks to shut down awareness of and criticism of Islam. His comments indicate he is either ignorant about Islam, or he is working for them. That makes him a "useful idiot" or anti-American.

His stock answer to the latter always is to throw up his service with the army in Korea. Does that make him a Manchurian Candidate?

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Getting into Their Minds: Hizbullah Leader Hassan (from MEMRI)

MEMRI: Speccial Dispatch Series - No. 867, February 22, 2005

We keep saying, read and listen to the jihadists; they reveal all.

Hizbullah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said the following on Al-Manar TV on February 18 and 19, 2005. (Click the MEMRI link to read the entire Special Dispatch.)

Hassan Nasrallah:"How can death become joyous? How can death become happiness? When Al-Hussein asked his nephew Al-Qassem, when he had not yet reached puberty: 'How do you like the taste of death, son?' He answered that it was sweeter than honey. How can the foul taste of death become sweeter than honey? Only through conviction, ideology, and faith, through belief, and devotion.

"We do not want to live merely in order to eat, drink, and enjoy life's pleasures, and leave our homeland to Israel so it will slaughter it upon the altar of its aspirations, desires, hate, and historic vendettas. Therefore, we are not interested in our own personal security. On the contrary, each of us lives his days and nights hoping more than anything to be killed for the sake of Allah.

"The most honorable death is to be killed, as the Leader Imam Al-Khamenei said when 'Abbas [Musawi] was martyred. He said: 'Congratulations to 'Abbas, congratulations to 'Abbas.' The most honorable death is death by killing, and the most honorable killing and the most glorious martyrdom is when a man is killed for the sake of Allah, by the enemies of Allah, the murderers of the prophets [i.e. the Jews]."

(Emphases mine)
What more do you need to know?

Oh, yes, I remember now. Some need to know that this thinking applies broadly to Muslims. After all, these may be just the radical few.

The words quoted are absolutely Qur'anic. The quotes are identical in meaning to those alleged to have come from Allah and Muhammad. This is Islamic orthodoxy. It has always been thus.

The difference is whether or not Muslims act on these dicta. They are under severe religious and social pressure to obey, to submit to the "will of Allah." They are like explosives waiting for the detonator, and no one can easily predict when they will detonate and become overt jihadists. They are always covert jihadists.

The big question for those who continue this pathological denial and cow before pressure groups like C.A.I.R. is whether they will recognize reality or continue the denial. Remember: reality always wins in the end.

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

We Lose Our Schools, We Lose Our Children, We Lose Our Future

at February 22, 2005 11:31 AM

How many of us saw the bit on Fox News this morning that told us about the sixth graders in a New York school who sent one of our soldiers in Iraq some classic Leftist anti-American hate mail? Keep your eye on Fox; there's bound to be some followup. This disgusting situation is just the latest of many; please read Rubisco's articles on 6th Column Against Jihad and my articles (under "cubed") at the same site (more to follow in time--the current ones deal with the American school system, while the next ones will begin to deal with the Muslim system).

For all of you who think that Kantian nihilism is just the concern of some old guys in tweed jackets with leather elbow patches shut away somewhere in a dusty, book-filled room in the philosophy department of some overly-endowed Ivy League university, look again.

If the nihilists (via Kant and other [primarily] German philosophers) hadn't begun their attempt to destroy this country by around 1810, during the lifetimes of our very first three presidents, barely after our country had been designed and implemented by the Founders, we wouldn't be in the extraordinarily dangerous situation we are in today.

The schools were among the destroyers' first targets, along with politics and the media. With those three professions in their pockets, and with unremitting energy, they have thoroughly paved the way for their fellow travelers of Islam to take us out. "They" even have our "conservative" radio talk show hosts in their pockets; listen to the rejection they spew forth whenever they have a caller from Jihad Watch etc. who calls and cites one of Robert Spencer's works.

Horace Mann, a product of the German philosophers, was the virtual creator of our government school system, and it was among his original goals to create a population compliant and submissive to government.

His effort was strongly supported by a couple of socialists named Robert Owen and Frances Wright, who said that government schools should have the children 24 hours a day, year around, from the ages 2 to 16, and that they should be treated utterly equally with respect to food, clothing, and curriculum; the curriculum they wanted was one that they hoped would achieve all their goals for society, including government-enforced equalization of property and income. And this was WAY before the Soviet Union, folks; collectivism has a history that goes WAY back.

That was too extreme for most, but by the mid-1800s, when the government school system was up and running, the principles Owen and Wright espoused had been largely adopted by the Progressive "educationists." Today, we have schools that have before and after school-care programs, broad-based medical programs, activity programs, and in many other ways resemble the Owen and Wright ideal.

The curriculum also resembles their ideal; it's goal is to "dumb down" the students so they don't know anything and even worse, don't care that they don't know, and to infuse them with their collectivist philosophy that has so intensely opposed the philosophy of the Founders.

If you don't believe that one of the goals of our government is to "dumb down" our kids, please read "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America" by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt; Iserbyt took her inspiration from the late congressman John Ashbrook, whose work in the 60s and 70s helped expose the plans to internationalize and dumb down American education. Iserbyt collected actual documents where government policy makers discussed their destructive ambitions, and then fled her government position in order to publish them for all of us to see.

This traiterous policy has successfully blocked any attempts any of us have to insert into curricula the means to counter their efforts. The entire textbook industry is under their thumbs, and it explains why our children can't get the straight skinny on Islam. PC, multiculturalism, "one worldism" and "diversity" are all products of the Kantian Left.

The reason "everyone around the world hates America" is because America is the last place on earth that still has a small residuum of the Aristotelian philosophy that jump-started the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Age that enabled slavery and other gross injustices to come to an end. Aristotle is humankind's friend, but the enemy of Kant, his ilk, and Islam.

The reason we remain the most successful, prosperous, and happy nation on earth (except for the chronic whiners, the Kantian Left, which has evolved into today's Postmodern nihilists) is because even though we have been prevented from access to philosophy in our schools, the tiny spark of Aristotelian thinking that gave birth to our nation remains with us today as "The Great American Subconscious." We continue to thrive on the tiny shred of our founding philosophy that remains. Unfortunately, many of us see even this slowly slipping away, and see that the loss is tragically unopposed by a population that consists of many school generations deliberately rendered ignorant of its importance.

Folks, we must take the destruction of our schools seriously. We will never be able to change the system as it exists now; it is entrenched via a huge behemoth of a bureaucracy and in the psyches of most of its graduates as well. We must instead establish our own schools, formulate a rational Aristotelian curruculum, and see to it that our kids know reality and how to think about it.

If you need some convincing that a private school system actually has "the right stuff" to lead the way out from under the thumb of the Kantian Left's massive, powerful government school system, please also read Andrew Coulson's "Market Education."

We can do it. It's really not terribly difficult.

Parents, Citizens: Take Back Your Schools!


Postmodernism is killing America by killing our children's minds. To the extent we put up with it, we are condoning it and egging it on. The old saw says, If you like what you are getting, keep doing what you are doing. It also says, If you do not like what you are doing, STOP doing what you are doing.

Well, here is a glaring, revolting example of what Americans are letting happen to their children and to the future of America. Here is what domestic intellectual terrorism looks like:

February 21, 2005 -- An American soldier overseas is fuming over letters he received from Brooklyn middle-school children accusing GIs of destroying mosques and killing civilians in Iraq.

Pfc. Rob Jacobs of New Jersey said he was initially ecstatic to get a package of letters from sixth-graders at JHS 51 in Park Slope last month at his base 10 miles from the North Korea border.

That changed when he opened the envelope and found missives strewn with politically charged rhetoric, vicious accusations and demoralizing predictions that only a handful of soldiers would leave the Iraq war alive.

"It's hard enough for soldiers to deal with being away from their families, they don't need to be getting letters like this," Jacobs, 20, said in a phone interview from his base at Camp Casey.

"If they don't have anything nice to say, they might as well not say anything at all."

One Muslim boy wrote: "Even thoe [sic] you are risking your life for our country, have you seen how many civilians you or some other soldier killed?"

His letter, which was stamped with a smiley face, went on: "I know your [sic] trying to save our country and kill the terrorists but you are also destroying holy places like Mosques."

Most of the 21 letters Jacobs provided to The Post mentioned some support for the armed forces, if not the Iraq war, and thanked him for his service. But nine of the students made clear their distaste for the president or the war.

The letters were written as a social-studies assignment.

The JHS 51 teacher, Alex Kunhardt, did not return phone calls, but the school principal, Xavier Costello, responded with a statement:

"While we would never censor anything that our children write, we sincerely apologize for forwarding letters that were in any way inappropriate to Pfc. Jacobs. This assignment was not intended to be insensitive, but to be supportive of the men and women in service to our nation."

Monday, February 21, 2005

Have You Ever Heard of the BRICS Alliance? Well You Should Pay Attention Now.

BRIC stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The purpose of this unfortunate alliance is to “muscle the United States out of global markets where possible.

An even more unfortunate turn of events is the entrance of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela into this group. Hugo is determined to pick up where Castro left off to thwart and check the U.S. at any cost. Turning Venezuela into his personal fiefdom, Chavez has the power at the pump to use as part of his arsenal.

At FrontPage, here is an overview of his ‘holistic aims’:

• Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, came together on February 14 to green light a series of agreements to develop joint projects in areas such as energy, petrochemicals, gas and mining, double taxation, agriculture, agrarian reform, fishing, science-and-technology, and communications. Furthermore, says China’s sympathetic Xinhua newspaper, the joint projects cover integration of two petrochemical companies and, tellingly, a state-run television station, Telesur, for broadcasting information mutually vetted by the two governments.
• U.S. State Department spokesman Lou Fintor recently voiced American concerns that 100,000 Kalashnikov guns and a number of helicopters due to be sold by Russia to Venezuela could find their way to neo-Marxist guerrillas in Colombia and elsewhere. Our friends in Russia, according to the Interfax news service, see U.S. concerns as unfounded, adding, “U.S. protests should be viewed as nothing but a dishonest form of competition and an attempt to squeeze Russian producers from the arms market.” Apart from this purchase, there are reports that Venezuela is also considering Russian MiG-29 fighters as possible replacements for its F-16s. These arms dealings suggest that Russia sees an opening in South America and that Venezuela is not coy about advertising it. This has been noticed by regional daily papers throughout the U.S., which are echoing this writer’s call to uphold the sanctity of the Monroe Doctrine and check this rogue state before things get worse. For his part, a defiant Chavez has echoed Moscow’s socialist line: he has claimed that the U.S. wouldn‘t be bothered by similar arms purchases from U.S. vendors, and that the U.S. is more concerned with market share than national security.
• With an expanding economy and an increased international presence, it is no wonder that the strength of the Venezuelan state is increasing. Bloomberg reports Venezuelan government spending soared by almost half in December from a year ago, as record oil prices triggered a surge in revenue. Spending for the year rose 61 percent from 2003, indicating that December is no aberration. The analysts cited in the Bloomberg piece warn that Venezuela is in clover for the foreseeable future: their read is that “anything over $35 is plenty for Venezuela” and that conditions will be favorable for Chavez’s fiefdom through 2006.
• Reports are that government officials are floating the idea of Venezuela selling its Citgo oil chain. It seems that President Chavez has grown weary of “subsidizing” America’s oil needs. The only thing holding up the sale, apparently, is logistical inconvenience. According to government officials, it will take two years to get the sale on track. Meanwhile, Russia’s Lukoil behemoth is making noise about entering the U.S. gas station sector by buying an existing property. Lukoil buying Citgo looks inevitable.

According to Gancarsky, Venezuela is on the move military, economically, and diplomatically because it ‘senses a changing of the guard globally. Chavez sees an opportunity to strengthen his position at the expense of Washington.” He is determined not to become another Castro, blocked and hemmed in by the U.S.

And to add to this mix, Russia, in a ‘new strategic alliance with China,’ is eager to form an alliance in BRICS.

But Americans shouldn’t fret. According to the writer at the India Times,

The cold war will not be similar to one between America and old Soviet Union…There will be cordial relations between China and America, India and America as well as Russia and America. The covert war will be in the area of trade, commerce and finance. That is where India and China stand out. Russian oil is a great factor. Russia-Venesuela [sic.]-Iran forms CRICS main oil and Gas resource.

Russia, Venezuela, and Iran – linked? That certainly would put the Bolivarian revolution into its proper context – as an usurping of power and as direct and deliberate sabotage of U.S. interests.

Such an alliance will give opportunities for terrorists and saboteurs to operate off the coast and to gain entrance to the United States. China has already created an economic alliance with many Western Hemisphere countries, including The Bahamas in which it has created the ‘world largest port’. China already has control of the Panama Canal and has been successful creating ‘trade alliances’ with various Caribbean nations.

Brazil’s Lula is no fan of the United States or Bush. and it is no surprise that Russia might want to check U.S. power in order to recreate a Soviet-style empire and tensions between the U.S. and Brazil will only rise now that Brazil and Venezuela have created a strategic alliance complete with an arms deal.

As stated in the India Times, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran are linked. Chavez is interested in using this as ‘an usurping of power and as direct and deliberate sabotage of U.S. interests.’

Russia has plans for Venezuelan oil. “LUKoil which produces a fifth of Russia’s oil, plans to secure about 3,000 U.S. retail outlets, up from more than 2,000 units now…It plans to raise oil shipments from Russia and Venezuela to the United States to produce fuel locally.” The next time you fill up it might be from “Russia With Love”! Not really. It’s for hard cash and influence within the United States.

Although the U.S. and India have common causeagainst terrorism, it’s participation as a member of BRICS makes India no friend of the United States. The relationship between the U.S. and India has been severely strained due to the concern of the U.S. over India’s development of nuclear weapons and tensions arising from problems with Pakistan over Kashmir, a province that both countries claim.

South Africa’s participation is harder to explain. Tension between the United States put South Africa on a list of violators of human rights. South Africa now sees a chance to ally itself with a group that perhaps plans to thwart, check, and blacklist the United States at some point in time.

The United States surrounded by hostility. The resurgence of Islamic extremism, the re-emergence of Russia under Putin, a resentful Europe, Mexico that is exporting its inconvenient and unmanageable population to the United States, and now the BRICS alliance. Why aren’t we paying attention and why is the U.S. allowing countries to violate more than the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine that warns away other powers from interfering in the Western Hemisphere? Could it be that George W. Bush,a fan of NAFTA, is setting a dangerous precedent with his ideas on free trade and free markets?

A Love Letter from an Englishman to America

BBC NEWS Programmes From Our Own Correspondent America leaves a lasting impression

My good friend in the U.K., Mark Alexander, alerted me to this article. He called it "Excellent!" I have learned to pay attention when he says that. He was right. It is beautiful and touching. It grabs hold of America's excellence in the spirit of a tone poem. But, enough from me. Read it for yourself and enjoy it.

And, to Rob Watson, thank you, more than you can ever know!


Rob Watson
BBC Washington correspondent

The arrival of President Bush in Europe this week may well bring the demonstrators out on the streets again, to protest about American action in Iraq and inaction over the Kyoto climate treaty. But not all Europeans find fault with the United States.

In these times of anti-Americanism this is by way of a love letter to the country where I have lived for a quarter of my life.

Like any relationship it has changed over time. From that first swooning sensation when the taxi took me towards the skyscrapers of lower Manhattan, the December day I arrived in America in 1994, to the deeper feelings I have now.

Ten years on after all, I have travelled much of the country, have got to know its people and I am proud to have a daughter as an American citizen, a rather beautiful one at that.

But as I am a bit out of practise at writing love letters, you are going to have to bear with me.

Like any love affair I will not deny there is an element of looks here. To me, America is stunning in both its beauty and diversity.

Fond memories

When I was living in New York, my favourite treat at the weekends was to head north to the neat New England villages of Connecticut and Massachussets to search for trout in summer, to gaze at the fiery reds and yellows in autumn and to ski clumsily in their quaint resorts in the snowy white winter.

On moving to Washington, the blue ridge mountains of Virginia became my escape of choice, where it is still possible to hear bluegrass music played with finger-numbing virtuosity, and where time appears to have stopped somewhere in the 1950s.

Its enduring appeal is the way it feels, its people and their attitude to life

Although the heat and humidity was shocking at first to my British sensibility, there is now nothing I like better than to be in a steamy southern town like Savannah in Georgia where only the cicadas seem to have any energy in the days of summer.

I have even come to love the flyover states, as they are often called, located in that chunk of America between New York and Los Angeles.

States like North Dakota where I drove down lonely highways, my only company being the combine harvesters which work the vast fields of crops night and day during harvest time.


The Declaration of Independence took place on 4 July 1776

But at the root of this love affair is personality.

Though I love the way America looks, its enduring appeal is the way it feels, its people and their attitude to life.

It may all go back to Thomas Jefferson's claim in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 that the pursuit of happiness is among life's unalienable rights.

Whether it is or not, I have no idea, but certainly most of the Americans I know are in hot pursuit of the happiness thing.

And most are pretty successful according to those surveys so beloved by the opinion pollsters, which suggest Americans are among the happiest people on the face of this earth.

As infectious as their happiness is their optimism and "can do" spirit, the sense that there is no problem which does not have a solution.

When covering the child sex abuse scandal surrounding the Roman Catholic church in Boston, I was stunned at the determination and belief of local catholics in their ability to reform their church rather than deciding to leave it, as often happened in the wake of similar cases in other countries.

What I found most refreshing here was the remarkable lack of envy in American society

As a reporter, who would not love this country where people trustingly invite you into their homes and lives, and where opinions are given so forcefully and freely.

I will never forget a lady in Arkansas who was asked, during the 2000 presidential campaign, whether she was leaning towards Bush or Gore. She replied that Al Gore was the kind of man who would rather climb a tree to tell a lie than stand on the ground to speak the truth.

I guess we know which way she voted.

As a European, what I found most refreshing here was the remarkable lack of envy in American society.

When Americans see someone doing well, they do not grumble about it being alright for some, instead they say, one day that could be me.

American dream

I have marvelled too at the country's ability to absorb so many immigrants, from so many different places, and at the ease with which Americans adapt to change.

George W Bush has begun his second term as US President.

Driving it all is the American dream, which still motivates immigrants and those born here alike. A belief that tomorrow is always a better day and that there is nothing you can not do if you really put your mind to it.

Of course many, maybe most, end up being disappointed, but the dream endures nonetheless.

I am not the only person living here who loves America, most Americans do too. This is what drives all that "God Bless America" music and flag waving that you see at the drop of a hat.

It is not the unhealthy nationalism of "our country is better than your country", after all most Americans have never stepped outside the place, but rather an expression of "life here is good, whoopee".

The rest of the world has far more to learn from you than it has to fear

Of course, this country has its detractors around the world, its foreign policy is strongly criticised and there are problems at home as well.

As a journalist I have spent most of the last five years broadcasting about them, that being the nature of the news business.

But a love letter is hardly the time to bring up past quarrels.

So thanks for everything America.

I know they say long distance relationships do not work out, but do not worry, my feelings will not change.

Until I return, I will not mind telling anyone that the rest of the world has far more to learn from you than it has to fear.

From Our Own Correspondent was broadcast on Saturday, 19 February, 2005, at 1130 GMT on BBC Radio 4. Please check the programme schedules for World Service transmission times.

Come back, Mr. Watson. You are one of us.

Sunday, February 20, 2005

Again and again and again

I have beat this drum before. I will beat it now. Doubtless, I will beat it again in days to come.

Iraqis are blowing up Iraqis by the trainload. If not exploding cars, then there are exploding suicidists. What in the hell are the Iraqis doing about it? The answer from my perch in the USA is: Nothing.

Years ago, Al Capp, creator of Li'l' Abner cartoons, created the Schmoo. This was a small animal that lived to sacrifice itself for others. It did people's bidding, including becoming their meals. It did so in total happiness because it was living its job description. The parody capitalized on the beliefs of the right and the left that self-sacrificial service to others was the moral ideal, and it addressed the fantasies of the right and left who think people should be ecstatic to be sacrificial lambs.

Iraqis act like Schmoos, but without any of their positives. They congregate to provide obliging targets, and they go on as though nothing happened when, say, 55 of them die because some other self-sacrificing Muslim blew himself up in their midst. Life seems to go on just as if nothing happened.

Why are they not providing their own equivalent of the Neighborhood Watches? Their vigilance could catch many of these perpetrators before detonation. Why are they not vigilant to strangers and all other of the nefarious in their midst? These bad guys do not exist in a vacuum. They are fellow countrymen--at least the ones the foreigners cull into being human bombs. Iraqis know Iraqis. Don't these people get pissed off at this stuff?

If people tried that crap over here, they would be in for untold misery. We would spy on them, rat them out, and take them out before the "authorities" could arrive. Bubbas in pickups with Confederate flags flying would become formidable. Only liberals would run either to appease and surrender or hide. (Their clustering together would increase their target value, I am afraid.)

If Iraqis were stupid, like Schmoos, then I could perhaps better understand. But, they are not. Without that damned Islam deforming their minds, they could be an entirely positive and productive Arab culture of the future, becoming rich on oil and manufacturing. They are just as intelligent as other humans.

But, why do they not get mad? I would be so mad that I would be ready to sandpaper my shins over this kind of stuff they just seem to take as though it had no significance. Other than the stuff Islam programs them to be enraged at, such as us, what do they get angry about? What does it take for them to turn on these "insurgents" and make them high-tail it back to Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran?

They are acting out an ethics of self-sacrifice of the most horrible kind. Of course, Islam teaches that ethic. That raises a big question in my mind: Are there independent minds any longer in Iraq, ones that can think outside the Islamic box?

Saturday, February 19, 2005

New Material on 6th Column Against Jihad Website

We have published lots of new stuff, articles, recommendations, etc. on 6th Column Against Jihad, and we invite you to visit.

Friday, February 18, 2005

MEMRI: Islam is Only Consummated through Jihad

MEMRI: Special Dispatch Series - No. 865,February 17, 2005 No.865: Top Wanted Kuwaiti Islamist: Islam is Only Consummated through Jihad; We Don't Have Any Ties to Al-Qa'ida; Al-'Anzi Was Executed upon American Orders

MEMRI is one of the most valuable sites available to anyone attempting to understand the Arab mind and that unique amalgam, the Arab-Islamic mind. MEMRI translates what these people say and puts what they say on their website. What you read once, you read over and over. The people making statements or writing articles change, and they come from all over Islamia. What they say repeats, repeats, repeats.

The only option for anyone who respects truth and seeks to learn it is to read what they say and compare it to their actions. Only in the halls of academe does truth not correspond to the facts of reality.

Here is a highly synopsized presentation of an interview, really just a snippet. To corroborate what has been selected and to read the entire interview, click the link to be taken to the MEMRI site.

The London-based organization "Islamic Media Watch" recently conducted an interview with Khaled Al-Dosari, the top wanted Kuwaiti Islamist who is charged with attempting to overthrow the government and of plotting car bomb attacks against American military convoys in Kuwait.

In the interview, Al-Dosari, who calls himself "a human rights activist and spokesman for the Association of Victims of Torture and Administrative Detention," claimed that the Kuwaiti authorities are after him because of his having revealed human rights violations in Kuwait.

The following are excerpts from the interview:

Question: "Are there any ties between you and the Al-Qa'ida organization?"

Al-Dosari: "There are no ties between us other than that we have the same blood and religion."

Question: "Would you turn yourself in to the authorities? Has anyone requested you to turn yourself in?"

Al-Dosari: "I love death more than [prison]... To whom should I turn myself in? To the oppressor so that he can oppress and torture me? I should turn myself in knowing that my fate would be like the fate of Sheikh 'Amer [Al-'Anzi]? If I knew that there was justice and respect for human rights, I would go of my own accord, but I am convinced that they want to kill me…"

Question: "What is your message to your people, your brethren, your friends, and the people at large?"

Al-Dosari: "I tell them that I stand firm in my principles. Their [the authorities'] threats to kill me will not turn me away from my religion. I don't mind dying a Muslim, even if I don't know where I am going [to Paradise or Hell]. Religion is only consummated in the Muslims' souls and among the people through Jihad for the sake of Allah, in all its forms. Religion can subjugate the evil of those who corrupt the land only through force, which will scare them, and only through Jihad, which will break their power. Without Jihad there would be perversion in the land and the mosques would be ruined. The struggle between truth and falsehood is a valid sunna [way of life]. The party of falsehood is always larger than the party of truth. They will be defeated, and their evil will be stopped only through Jihad. Many people only listen to the truth when the use of force pushes them to do so."

We cannot accept what this felon says on his terms, but we can analyze them by means of objectivity, something absent in his part of the world.

There are no ties between us other than that we have the same blood and religion.

What does this mean? To these people, who are tribalists, even in the 21st century, blood and religion are not only the sole ties, but they are complete ties. He is trying to make some simple Western mind think that these are trivial ties. He is, in fact, as bound to bin Laden as if joined at the hip.

I love death more than [prison]...

This is not some Islamic version of Give me liberty, or give me death! This means quite literally that his highest value in life is death. To die means his sole chance to hook up with Allah. If you look at how these people live, you can see that they put little store by life.

Their [the authorities'] threats to kill me will not turn me away from my religion. I don't mind dying a Muslim, even if I don't know where I am going [to Paradise or Hell].

If you are willing to believe in God or Allah, you will be willing to believe in anything. You will be forfeiting your mind and its tool, reason, so you will cling even to the belief in something that does not exist (God or Allah) and its software application, religion. You will ride the Titanic to the bottom before you will step into the lifeboat.

Religion is only consummated in the Muslims' souls and among the people through Jihad for the sake of Allah, in all its forms.

Now, what is this about Islam being a religion of peace? Do you think this murderer thinks that jihad is some dewy-eyed, quivering lipped liberal search for inner meaning? Or, is it cutting your head off and conquering your lands in order to destroy all?

The struggle between truth and falsehood is a valid sunna [way of life]. The party of falsehood is always larger than the party of truth. They will be defeated, and their evil will be stopped only through Jihad. Many people only listen to the truth when the use of force pushes them to do so

All religions are intrinsic systems, i.e., self-contained regarding all aspects of philosophy. If it ain't in the religion, it ain't. Truth = what Islam says it is. False = Anything else. Evil = non-Islam in any aspect. Think of this: If Islam is full of truth, why do people have to be forced "to the truth"? For people like this interviewee, reality has no meaning whatsoever. Truth comes solely from the Koran, Sunna, and the mouths of imams. Islam is a closed system, and everything else outside that closed system must be destroyed to eliminate all threats to Islam. What could threaten Islam? The independent mind, the mind that thinks for itself, the mind seeking truth as correspondence with the facts of reality. Before such a mind, Islam becomes nothing but falsehoods. All of Islam is a lie, and they will kill you before they will let you know that--if you give them even half a chance.

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

A New Big Stick to Use on the Fifth Column

New Website, by FrontPage Magazine, February 15, 2005

(From the announcement on today's Front Page Magazine)

DISCOVERTHENETWORK.ORG is David Horowitz's newest website, dedicated to exposing the interconnected web of left-wing activists, organizations, journalists, and financiers that wage political warfare against the United States and her founding ideals. This ever-growing database features encyclopedic profiles of the personalities, agendas, words, deeds, and ultimate goals of the Left. DiscoverTheNetwork has profiled and will continue to a wide-ranging number of left-wing extremists, from feminists to Islamists, from academics to agitators, and from environmental extremists to terrorist sympathizers. When one wishes to look up, say, Ward Churchill, one can search his name at DiscoverTheNetwork and find an in-depth account of his radicalism, as well as links and a diagram showing his connection to other leftists in the DTN database. We hope you will find this an invaluable research tool. The site will also house our new blog dedicated to tracking the day-by-day operations of the far-Left, Moonbat Central.

Monday, February 14, 2005

Valentine's Day Enrages Jihadists

Valentine's Day Enrages Jihadists, by Dr. Walid Phares.

We have unhesitatingly and often pointed out how Islam is anti-life, anti-human, and anti- well, just about anything positive. Its goal is death after squeezing the vitality and joy out of Muslim lives on earth. Liberals will not see Islam for the evil it is, nor will Conservatives. All of them either deny on the Left or distort on the Right in order to absolve Islam of just what it is: a totally evil integrated body of ideas, i.e., an evil philosophy. Its evil comes from its hatred and total destructiveness toward reality, life, and all things humans need to optimize their lives on earth. Annually, we are treated to excellent demonstrations of that evil through Islamic attacks on Valentine's Day.

Valentine's Day celebrates human love. To love is to value highly. In Islam, anything coming between the Muslim and death for Islam, Islamists hate.

Dr. Walid Phares has written a classic in this article. It is too good to synopsize, so here it is in full:

On Valentine's Day, it's important to note the emergence of an eternally verified reality: Love is the strongest human force fighting against terrorism and jihad.

"Al Gharam mamn’uh, al Gharam kufr," screamed the self-declared cleric in al-Ansar’s chat room this Friday. “Love is forbidden, love is infidel” -- said the online fatwa about the “legitimacy of loving and being in love.”

A weekend before Valentine's Day, jihadist souls were not questioning the “commercialization” of romance, but inquiring about the ban on “being in love.” The “scholars” said human love is evil. The simple feeling of being attracted to or in love with someone is a terrifying sin if it is committed outside of their religious dogma -- and it warrants serious punishment.

“Al Hub” (basic love) -- said one of the scholars online -- “is not permissible outside commitment to Jihad.” The subject of romantic love was new and overwhelming to the al-Qaeda sympathizers, who were busy dodging the “decadent feeling.” But it was too close chronologically, too well publicized, and too difficult to escape on the web.

Suddenly, a marquee rolled an ad for Valentine's Day in the room. The room shouted its objections, but the ideologue could not ignore reality. “Sometimes we’ll have to absorb our reaction and control ourselves. This Valentine Day is a dark day, it is poison, but by the will of Allah when the Caliphate will be established, Valentine will be smashed.”

But there was a concern: Valentines is “ravaging” the region, including under the most restrictive regimes. They are right to worry: the battle for love is as wide as the call for jihad.

In Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, girls were severely punished for not being escorted by male relatives, or for not wearing burqas. Chatting with someone from the other gender was a crime. Movies, mixed-schools, radios, music, and poetry were banned. Valentine's Day in Kabul was equated to Satan.

In Saudi Arabia, women still can’t drive or vote, much less date. Valentine's Day is illegal. In Iran, high school girls cannot hold hands with their boyfriends. Imitations exist in Iraq’s Zarqawi enclaves and in Beirut’s Hezbollah suburb.

But the revolution is rising. The "love guerrillas" are spreading on the street and on the internet. In liberated Afghanistan, transistor radios air love songs. In Iran, boys and girls have waged the revolt of “kissing in public.” Tracked by the militia, the teenagers perform the kiss-and-run tactic.

In Kuwait, tactics are evolving. In this oil-rich state, young Arabs buy two cell phones, and as they see the beloved driving by, they throw one of the mobiles in her car; then the telephonic romance can begin.

In West Jerusalem, young Palestinians who want to stroll freely with their girlfriends, walk up the Yehuda street speaking Hebrew. In Egypt, soap operas compete with their Mexican counterparts. Love warfare has become the boldest threat that can roll back jihad.

On the internet, Arab, Persian, Kurdish, Aramaic, and other love and music chat rooms attract ten times the al-Ansar-crowded rooms. There, you read and hear discussions of love; they seek, not decadence, but the early stages of a romantic revolution.

Lebanon’s TV has taken the freedom for love to sophisticated artistic expressions. With shows seen by millions, the LBCI has been shaking off the fundamentalist quarters of the region. On al Jazeera, clerics are horrified by the scenes. Their deepest nightmare is to see young Saudi men singing the beauty of human love, while their jihadist counterparts are assassinating young Iraqi women in Fallujah for not wearing the hijab.

This region has a massive and underreported potential to become a culture of romantic passion. We must remember that Adonis and Ashtarut, antiquity’s gods of love, were Phoenician legends. Cleopatra was an Egyptian Queen. The lovers of pre-Islamic Arabia, Antar and Ablah, were the precursors of Romeo and Juliet. And that the Sherazade of the one thousand and one nights and Omar were Persians.

From the twentieth century, let’s remember that Um Kalthum, the voice from Egypt, Said Akl, the poet from Lebanon, and Khalid, the rock singer from Algeria, have sculpted love in the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of these people.

The B-52s may have been successful in Tora Bora, but Radio SAWA and its sisters are triggering deeper instincts.

The followers of love have no weapon except human nature; it is the only one they need. Valentine's Day may be infidel in the eyes of the jihadists, but it has many more faithful followers among the peoples of this unlucky region. The terrorists are not intimidated by death, but they are terrorized by love.<>blockquote>

Sunday, February 13, 2005

We are becoming paralyzed to do what self-preservation demands

We are becoming paralyzed to do what self-preservation demands, By Rabbi Aryeh Spero.

Rabbi Spero's article is too good to try to synopsize. Here it is in full:

It appears that the binding and throat-slashing of an entire Christian family in Jersey City was a Koran-instructed " ritual murder" by American jihadists against someone who dared to express an opinion about the Koran unacceptable to home-grown Islamic cell-operatives here in New Jersey.

Hossan Armanious, a Coptic Christian, was threatened by participants in an internet chat room that if he continued to speak against Islamic practices: "We will hunt you down like a chicken and kill you." Radical Islam has shown that they are going to do here to "infidels" what they do back home.

Unlike other communities, the tight-knit Islamic neighborhood in New Jersey will probably not cough-up the perpetrators, so the police will have to embark on a comprehensive search within the community to find the murderers.

If the past is any guide, groups such as the A.C.L.U., Human Rights Watch, and Center For Constitutional Rights may attempt to thwart these necessary police efforts by claiming it constitutes "racial profiling" and "group harassment".

At every step in our battle to protect ourselves from jihadist terrorism these self-intoned "humanitarian" groups have done everything possible to block our efforts at protecting ourselves. Be it by railing against the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, calling for the court-martial of our soldiers on the ground and charging them as war criminals, and setting up legal barriers to our interrogation of terrorist detainees in Guantanamo Bay. They have been partially successful — even frightening the Bush administration — due to our fear of being labeled " racist" or "indifferent to international and constitutional laws". Their accusations are false and based entirely on interpretations they invent so as to stymie our anti-terrorism efforts.

These non-governmental, unelected ad hoc organizations are making it impossible for law-enforcement to uncover the murderous schemes the jihadists have planned against our citizenry. The upshot is that a handful of self-appointed "moral police" are now controlling the destiny of 300 million Americans and putting us more at risk.

One of the great themes of the Bible is to preserve life: "Therefore shall you choose life". "Choosing" Life commends to the individual and society that significant measures be taken to protect citizens. The measures used thus far by our law-enforcement and military — even the highly publicized ones — fall far within the standards allowed under the rubric of self-defense and protection of life. Because of our timidity and lack of understanding of concrete verities, our society has allowed itself to be brainwashed into believing that 'sensitivity" is a greater imperative than protecting life — even our own life.

Fanaticism is defined as being so attached and involved in one point as to be blind and indifferent to other countervailing needs and concerns. When will we, the American people, put a stop to this political-correct madness that values inane, warped liberal ideology over the physical survival of ourselves and children? When will we apprehend the Leftist ethos and agenda for what it truly is: national suicide. Who are these people that we need even listen to them?

What motivates these self-important, upper middle class "better than thou" fanatics? It certainly is not a deeper attachment to compassion given their ruthlessly noncompassionate drive to punish as a war criminal a frightened U.S .soldier who in self-defense shot a Najaf terrorist probably playing possum. The "understanding of the mitigating circumstances " they for decades demanded for hard-core criminals and terrorists is not offered by them when dealing with embattled U.S. soldiers on the fields of hell.

It certainly is not rooted in a greater regard for international law in light of their silence regarding the Castro atrocities and those endemic to Moslem societies. Who can give credence to "legal" judgments that in the same press-release juxtaposes the non-approved antics of a few individuals at Abu Ghraib with the prolonged, deliberate wholesale torture and ethnic cleansing of 70,000 at Darfur.

By now it should be obvious that the "humanitarian" groups are driven by an inner anti-Americanism, one that dislikes its own country as now constituted .In life, we generally excuse and provide justification for that and those we love while being critical of those and that which we dislike. Being that in most circumstances — foreign and domestic — this crowd is always there to blame and criticize America first while defending and finding rationales for terrorist and criminals, it is obvious where their sentiments and identification lie.

There is an old Talmudic observation that states: "Those who show compassion to perpetrators of evil will display indifference and cruelty to good people deserving compassion.". It is not merely a misdirection of energy but, as the Talmud confirms, a reflection of a core attitude that feels revulsion to the wholesome and hence an attraction to evil.

Many in the anti-American "civil liberties" brigade are graduates of schools and privileged communities that have spent the last forty years characterizing America and its people as the world's most racist, imperialistic, misogynist, and jingoistic . To a large extent, they have come to believe it! Thus their eagerness to impute unsavory "racist and illegal" motives to Americans wanting nothing more than to simply protect their children.

It is high-time Americans no longer be forced to "prove their innocence" to a group of people who themselves bear the sin of self-righteous bigotry against fellow citizens, let alone a sense of moral and intellectual superiority over we "cowboys". Why should self-respecting Americans feel answerable to a clique who admire "enlightened" Europeans more than fellow Americans and see themselves first and foremost as cosmopolitan internationalists.

Those faddists in most other parts of their life have, as expected, joined the anti-America chorus which is the fashion and rage in today's hot salons. Fortunately, most Americans prefer survival over avant garde acceptance. Truth be told, it is Peoria that is serious while Santa Monica remains frivolous, clinging to that sophomoric attitude that "Dissent" and "social activism" is virtuous only when directed at the Anglo-Saxon establishment — even when that establishment is trying to save your hide and that of your children.

The most foolish politically-correct assertion today is that if we do anything to terrorist detainees short of Club Med treatment or if we undertake procedures that C.A.I.R (Council for American Islamic Relations) calls "offensive" than "we are no better than the terrorists". To equate emotional trivialities with brutal beheadings or self-defense to ideological genocide shows how far liberal thinking has strayed from classic moral understanding. Its moral relativism is simply nouveau paganism.

For some, the greater the evils committed in the name of Islam, greater the forbearance we are to show it. As the atrocities have become more barbaric , the more demands that we not show anger — even though we have a right and duty to feel and show anger. The greater the impudence toward our ways, the more preferential treatment we offer. What a deal for the Islamicist! All this because of some insecure emotional need not to appear "racist".

Bottom line: We are becoming paralyzed to do that which self-preservation demands. We are afraid to do what is normal under these circumstances because of a social-identity sickness among the politically-correct who hold such sway in this country over what constitutes morality.

If we are to survive, we must first purge ourselves from this foolish yet destructive liberal political- correctness, as it is the rope being used to hang us. The first step is to ignore these groups, especially now that we know what are their true motivations.

Saturday, February 12, 2005

What Is Wrong with Iraqis?

The Iraqi turnout for the election on 30 January 2005 impressed the world, even the French. Despite very real existential threats, Iraqis came in droves. Except for a few incidents, Iraqis voted without the promised violence against them. Afterward, they danced in the streets. They tasted the second dose of freedom since the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

Two weeks later, bad guys drive car bombs into crowds of Iraqis and kill them. They fire rocket propelled grenades and mortars. Iraqis die wholesale.

During the election, automobiles could not access public gathering places. Three rings of security protected the populace in population centers. The inner and middle circles, the Iraqi troops cordoned in order to protect the people, with the USA forces on the outer, and not-very-visible ring.

During the peri-election period, Iraqis experienced great civil peace. The causes were blatantly evident. Why did they resume the old, dangerous ways after the election? Not only are there no answers, but even the question seems unraised.

But that issue is minor compared to the really big issue. Having tasted civil peace, why are the Iraqis not turning in the bad guys and/or killing them outright? In one town south of Baghdad, the citizens did just that. They killed and captured bad guys who had come to punish them for voting. In Mosul, a captured bad guy was put on television to beg for his life. Why have these processes not multiplied throughout Iraq?

Major General Robert Scales, USA (Ret.), a Fox News military consultant, made it very clear in the peri-election period that the "insurgency" will end WHEN THE PEOPLE TIRE OF IT AND ACTIVELY OPPOSE IT by all means available. It ALWAYS WORKS THIS WAY.

Why are Iraqis not rebelling against the "insurgents"?

One major reason comes from Islam itself which infests Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. Islam is deterministic, or, put another way, is fatalistic. This process describes a major component of Arab thinking, and Arabic and Islam are inseparable molders of Arab minds.

Whatever happens, says this determinism, is Allah's will. Humans can neither cause it, stop it, or change it in any way. The only choice open to humans is whether or not they will accept these inevitabilities, called Allah's will.

Determinism has sapped human independence throughout Islamia for over 14 centuries. It dominates all of their thinking, even non-Arabs who convert to Islam.

This is just another reason demonstrating that we are fighting the wrong war over there. We are fighting peripheral issues, such as "terrorism." We are not fighting the cause of absolutely all of the problems in the Middle East and those the Middle East tries to inflict on the civilized world.

That cause is Islam. The war should be to eradicate Islam.

On Constitutionally Protected Speech in Schools and Leftist Bias

School has never been a friendly place. One would expect that students and teachers would be allowed to develop as individuals, and, as Americans, would be able to learn how to exercise Constitutional rights. After all, the purpose of school is not only to instruct, but to create and mold citizens for the Republic.

Academic freedom that once existed at the university level has never been available at the secondary and especially the elementary level because children must be guided and molded to think and act as in accordance with societal norms. Here lies the problem. Who’s doing the guiding and which norms are to reinforced or discarded? Not even at a school that has won awards for openness to political diversity do we find the lessons of true Americanism being taught. Schools are notoriously un-American and anti-Constitutional.

It is no secret that the American educational system and that of most, if not all, Western countries has been co-opted by the Left. The tables have been switched. Where there once was a token liberal voice among the faculty or among the student body, now we are hard pressed to find examples of conservative or even traditionalists in either body in many schools. Hudson High School in Massachusetts provides an object lesson in how liberals operate in schools.

A group of students decided to form a conservative club as "a counterweight" to the majority political viewpoint at the school. Student Chris Bowler put up posters to publicize the club's first meeting in December.

Within hours, school administrators reportedly removed the posters because they contained a link to the Website of High School Conservative Clubs of America (HSCCA), a national organization for high school conservative clubs. HSCCA's Website included links to videos of beheadings by Iraqi insurgents, and the high school would not allow even an indirect reference to those links. It also blocked access to the HSCCA's Website on school computers.

In the mind of Principal John Staplefeld, the liberal in charge of molding young minds a character, the videos were, “beyond what a school should be advertising.” Even before Columbine, many would agree.

Beheadings are violent and horrible. Should young people view them or should we, adults, protect them from such gruesome sights. In an atmosphere of zero tolerance for violence in any form, how can a school promote the viewing of such vile and despicable acts? Are the links a de facto acceptance of violence and pandering to the most base of human behaviors?

There is another problem. In the past, such material has been sponsored by liberals with little complaint from liberal school administrators. Anti-war groups from the Vietnam era to Desert Storm and now to Iraq have found the educational establishment to be both paternalistic and permissive, allowing liberal teachers to discuss and promote Anti-American views while shutting down conservative teachers that staunchly defend traditional American values and point out the religious background and underpinnings of American society.

Principal Stapelfeld wanted to counterbalance “the majority political viewpoint at the school” to initiate political discussion. Political discussion must present more than one point of view to be valid.

Censorship has always existed in schools. Staplefeld believes that the conservative website seems “to be supporting violence more than supporting the conservative message.” Ironically, this school is praised “for innovative civics and community service programs,” and for “giving everyone a chance to say what they feel” so that “people can hear both sides.”

Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center in Arlington, Va., said schools in the United States can legally curb speech only if it will create a "substantial disruption" in the school. In this case, he said, the students appear to have the law on their side.

"That's not an easy standard to meet," he said.

Goodman said Massachusetts law provides even greater free speech protection for public school students than does the First Amendment.

Stapelfeld said his decision to limit student access to the site had nothing to do with the club's political views. He said he was initially "thrilled" about the idea of a conservative club to spark political discussions. But Stapelfeld said the brutal images implicitly condoned violence as a way of "solving problems" and did not reflect "mainstream conservatism."

"There are limits [to free speech] and there are clearly limits in the schoolhouse," he said.

He added that showing terrorist murders did not address the more central problem of growing anti-Americanism abroad.

"Unfortunately, we really haven't dealt with the fact that we're not well received in the world anywhere," he said. "That's the issue."

And then there the problem of not applying the principles evenhandedly for liberals and conservatives.

He and other club members say teachers have urged them to attend war protests, have confronted conservative students, and have inserted their liberal political views into discussions of both current and historical events.

Several club members said one social studies teacher hung in her classroom a poster of George W. Bush with a foolish expression and a comment he made in jest in 2000: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

Club members said they hoped that by banding together they could feel more free to express conservative views. "I think the teachers have tried to intimidate us," said James Melillo, a senior. "But it's had the opposite effect."

Stapelfeld said he wants the faculty to discuss divisive political and social issues frankly, but he acknowledged he had spoken with some teachers about injecting their personal views.

David Limbaugh has another take. He sees the principal’s behavior to be an anti-Bush act. By declaring that the “rest of the world has been alienated by the Bush administration for it’s ‘unwarranted’ military actions against Iraq, Stapleton is demonstrating that the viewing of the videos is “yet another act of alienation.”

Know your enemy. How can you understand your enemy without knowing his words and contemplating his actions? Knowing means more than reading and contemplating means more than seeing. Discussion is required to give words and actions meaning. But first you must read and see.

Principal Staplefeld doesn’t want true discussion. Like the liberal he is, he doesn’t see the value of demonstrating the inhumanity of the terrorists. As freedom fighters, they are the stuff of heroes for the Left. In as much as the conservative club wants to show them in their true element, he can’t allow the viewing for that would destroy the illusion.

Sad, but no surprise, Staplefeld doesn’t recognize his own political bias. Like all Leftists, his belief in the Leftist position drives his thinking and attitudes. Believing himself to be right and the rest to be wrong to the point that he no longer recognizes or accepts that he could have a political or ideological bias. He has become a zealot.

All zealots have this in common: In their attempt to demonstrate their purity and righteousness, men and women, good and bad, of faith and of ideology are willing to sacrifice your rights and mine on altars. Free speech, freedom of action, and the U.S. Constitution are impediments to the pursuit of their goals.

Discussion at Hudson High and the depiction of Principal Staplefeld’s Leftist anti-Americanism vs. the Islamist inhumanity that are not allowed to be shown shown in the linked videos is one tiny example of the lessons in political correctness and anti-Americanism that is built into the curricula of even a progressive school.

Friday, February 11, 2005

Mugging Ourselves: Perceived US Cowardice Fuels Terrorism

Perceived US Cowardice Fuels Terrorism, Former CIA Head Declares -- 02/09/2005, by Kathleen Rhodes, Correspondent, February 09, 2005.

The subtitle for this article could be something like, "Why Do You Think We Are Getting So Much Terrorism?"

The increased frequency with which Middle Eastern terrorists target Americans and U.S. installations is due in part to the terrorists' continued perception that America acts cowardly when under attack, according to former Central Intelligence Agency director R. James Woolsey.

Only professors, diplomats, and high government officials do not know as absolute fact what Mr. Woolsey said. Mr. Woolsey cited important examples:

With President Jimmy Carter trying to negotiate the hostages' release in 1979 and 1980, the reaction of the average American was to "tie yellow ribbons around trees," Woolsey said. A few years later, when Hezbollah terrorists blew up the U.S. marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, Americans "ran," he added.

Throughout the 1980s, as Americans like Leon Klinghoffer on the cruise ship Achille Lauro were killed and others were kidnapped in Lebanon, "what did the Americans do? They sent the lawyers," Woolsey said.

The George H. W. Bush administration in 1991, after ending combat in the first Persian Gulf War, encouraged [Iraqi] Kurds and Shia to rebel, then stopped and "watched the Kurds and Shia be massacred" by forces loyal to Saddam Hussein, who had been left in power, Woolsey said.

American cowardice was also perceived when the United States pulled out of Somalia in 1993 after American soldiers on a humanitarian mission were ambushed by terrorists in Mogadishu, according to Woolsey. The incident in Somalia, he said, helped solidify the view among terrorists, that "if bloodied, [the United States] will run."

Sadly, he is right when he said, "What's new is not the war. What's new is not our being attacked. What's new is we noticed. We finally decided after 9-11 that we would be at war too." (Emphasis mine)

But, there is something missing from his remarks, and that is the same missing vital element in the USA today.

We have too little will-to-win. Always in the past, we did just what the Democrats praise: We waited to be attacked. However, before we went self-sacrificial, e.g., in WWII, we responded with ferocity and drive to win, and we won. Since WWII, we have been responding with ever-increasing spinelessness and militant disregard of the gathering storms. Then something like 11 September 2001 comes along. We awoke, but we still responded with no will-to-win. Nevermind the rhetoric and the ostensible patriotism. We have lacked the will-to-win from Korea to now.

We need disproportionate action. When any one of these vermin countries or vermin group acts up, we ought to drop the hammer on them so damned hard that the planet earth vibrates for months. The response should be immediate and enormously greater than the events or incidents necessitating the response. And it should always be without warning.

In the contemporary version of the movie The Untouchables, the character played by Sean Connery tells Elliot Ness how to deal with organized crime. He said words to the effect that whenever the criminals take out one of the anti-crime fighters, the anti-crime crowd should take out ten of the criminals, etc. I.e., the correct response is no proportionate response.

Had we razed the Sunni Triangle in Iraq as part of our invasion strategy, destroying it and its inhabitants in mega-lots as total war, we would have broken the will of the "insurgents" and scared the jihadi rabble from crossing into Iraq from Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

Had these judgment-devoid jihadis come into Iraq anyway, we should have made EXTREME examples of the feeder-countries of Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran for every single incident until these incidents stopped. Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran should have been cowering in the corners figuratively. And I mean "extreme," such as obliterating sites and facilities of high value to those running those countries without warning and without mercy. And do not get hung on on the false notion of innocent civilians. In aggressor nations, the only innocent citizens are those actively fighting as resistance. The rest passively accept, thus endorse, the behavior of the aggressor nation.

The Iraq war would have been over a long time ago, with many fewer coalition casualties had we not tried to fight a self-sacrificial style of war as we have fought all since WWII. Those who run these wars are one generation of fools after another.

No bully messes with someone who will give better than he got. And, do nor forget the famous principle of Dr. Phil McGraw, the television psychologist: We teach people how to treat us. Mr. Woolsey is right on target. We have been teaching these sand savage bullies that we are low-hanging fruit.

The safety of the citizens of the United States of America should be the only consideration in these matters. To put it more crudely, we count--they don't. If and when they decide to adopt rights-based republican governments, then they start counting. Of course, then they cease to be aggressor nations.

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Counterterror Conference Sidesteps Issue of Defining Terrorism

Counterterror Conference Sidesteps Issue of Defining Terrorism -- 02/08/2005, By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor, February 08, 2005.

Let's Pretend was in session at an international conference on counterterrorism, hosted by Saudi Arabia. The conference ran into Arab participants' reluctance to accept the widely-held Western view that violence against civilians constitutes terrorism, regardless of the circumstances. The conference has brought together hundreds of officials and experts from international organizations and 50 countries, including 16 Arab states. Israel was not on the invitation list.

Let's Pretend's Prince Saud al-Faisal said:

"The solution is in trying to [come up with] detailed proposals to counter terrorism, while dismissing things that might stir controversies and which are related to the definition of terrorism," the host country's foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, was quoted as saying.

The main controversy in recent attempts to define terrorism has centered on the Arab-Muslim argument that those fighting "foreign occupation" -- usually a reference to Palestinian "militants" and anti-coalition "insurgents" in Iraq - are not terrorists.

Raphael Patai in The Arab Mind describes the foregoing perfectly. It is typical Arab and now Arab-Islamist thinking. The only entities who dread certainty more than these pretenders are liberals: If you don't name, it either does not exist, or, we do not have to deal with it.

A very liberal U.S. senator actually got it right:

Senator Frank Lautenburg, D-NJ, sent the U. S. administration a letter in which he said, "I believe that U.S. participation in the creation and exchange of effective counterterrorism strategies with known sponsors of terror defies good policy as well as common sense"

The mealy-mouth for the State Department got it wrong:

State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said last Friday that U.S. participation in the conference would strengthen counterterrorism cooperation.

Dissecting what was wrong with this conference could take more pages than anyone would read. A few comments demand expression, however.

The purpose of this conference was to create the illusion that something is being done when everyone there knows that it was just show--sound and fury, signifying nothing. But, Arabs love putting on shows. Had they been serious, two things would have been agreed on, in advance: Terrorism would be correctly defined, much like the UN defined it, and Israel would have had a place at the table.

Prince Pretzel twisted himself up to keep from naming the attending terror states as terror sponsoring states. Not inviting Israel gave these cowards a chance to bash Israel and displace their own pathology onto Israel, which had no opportunity to defend itself. Besides, Israel would have demanded an objective definition of terror which would have addressed its source: Islam.

The U.S. should never have attended. That would have underscored the obvious nature of the pathological states attending. The U.S. should have demanded that Israel be invited and attend as a minimum condition for its ownn attendance.

Lastly, what the mealy-mouth spokesman for the mealy State Department said was polar opposite to the truth. Our attendance there sanctioned the charade. We committed a moral error. We furthered terror.

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

Britain Moves Inexorably to a Fascist State--and We Are Following Right Along

Lib Dems attack 'Labour mountain of 1,000 new regulations,' by Brendan Carlin, Political Correspondent, (Filed: 09/02/2005).

My very good friend, Mark Alexander, from "across the pond" keeps me posted on the lemming-like behaviour of the Tony Blair government. Labour, as they call themselves, seeks to create the total state, taking the Nanny State to the Regulatory State onto the Total State. They are doing it fascist style. People are being told what they may do and may not do with their lives and property in England by the State. The people, constrained by severe loss of their rights as humans to liberty and property, are forced to do the State's bidding. If there are any expenses or problems, they accrue to the affected citizens, not the State.

Apparently whipping Hitler 50 years ago was not enough. Now they want to be Hitler.

Racism is not inherent to fascism. It was to Nazism, but Nazism was the fascist variety of socialism. With vast power in the hands of a fascist government, however, power-lusters lust to use power as did Hitler.

Check this out:

"Labour has heaped up a "mountain" of new rules and criminal offences, the Liberal Democrats claimed yesterday.

"Since Tony Blair came to power the Government had brought into being or amended more than 1,000 [new rules and criminal offenses]...

"They included the unauthorised selling of hotdogs in the Royal Parks and introducing a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment for allowing an unlicensed concert in a church hall...the Home Office created 367 since 1997, the Department of Transport 113, and the Department of Trade and Industry 123."

The USA follows right behind using exactly the same process with the same effect.

The cure is return to the proper function of government, which is solely the protection of the fundamental rights of its citizens, and not to provide largess while calling that largess "rights." A whole lot of thinking has to occur in a woefully unschooled and ignorant population of today first. Until then, one measure would emulate the effect of the little Dutch boy's putting a finger in the dike by making all regulations and laws, future, present, and past expire in 3-5 years unless renewed by 2/3 of each house of Congress. Not only would we rid ourselves of laws and regulations which have no value, we would tie up these "law makers" into trying to decide which of the millions to renew each year and getting the 2/3rds votes in the House and in the Senate to do it.

The same process should go on at the state, county, and local levels at well.

Imagine life with you in charge of yourself instead of some local, state, federal nannies, and think of the monies saved. Intoxicating thoughts!